MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401596692 · doi:10.1109/tro.2024.3443674

Data-Driven Batch Localization and SLAM Using Koopman Linearization

2024· article· en· W4401596692 on OpenAlexafffund
Zi Cong Guo, Frederike Dümbgen, James Richard Forbes, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLinearizationSimultaneous localization and mappingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFeedback linearizationControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringRobotComputer visionMobile robotEngineeringNonlinear systemControl (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present a framework for model-free batch localization and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). We use lifting functions to map a control-affine system into a high-dimensional space, where both the process model and the measurement model are rendered bilinear. During training, we solve a least-squares problem using groundtruth data to compute the high-dimensional model matrices associated with the lifted system purely from data. At inference time, we solve for the unknown robot trajectory and landmarks through an optimization problem, where constraints are introduced to keep the solution on the manifold of the lifting functions. The problem is efficiently solved using a sequential quadratic program (SQP), where the complexity of an SQP iteration scales linearly with the number of timesteps. Our algorithms, called reduced constrained Koopman linearization localization (RCKL-Loc) and reduced constrained Koopman linearization SLAM (RCKL-SLAM), are validated experimentally in simulation and on two datasets: one with an indoor mobile robot equipped with a laser rangefinder that measures range to cylindrical landmarks, and one on a golf cart equipped with radio-frequency identification (RFID) range sensors. We compare RCKL-Loc and RCKL-SLAM with classic model-based nonlinear batch estimation. While RCKL-Loc and RCKL-SLAM have a similar performance compared to their model-based counterparts, they outperform the model-based approaches when the prior model is imperfect, showing the potential benefit of the proposed data-driven technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207