MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402216596 · doi:10.1109/tro.2024.3454570

Toward Globally Optimal State Estimation Using Automatically Tightened Semidefinite Relaxations

2024· article· en· W4402216596 on OpenAlexafffund
Frederike Dümbgen, Connor Holmes, Ben Agro, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsSemidefinite programmingState (computer science)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationEstimationArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmMathematicsEngineeringControl (management)Systems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, semidefinite relaxations of common optimization problems in robotics have attracted growing attention due to their ability to provide globally optimal solutions. In many cases, it was shown that specific handcrafted redundant constraints are required to obtain tight relaxations, and thus global optimality. These constraints are formulation-dependent and typically identified through a lengthy manual process. Instead, the present article suggests an automatic method to find a set of sufficient redundant constraints to obtain tightness, if they exist. We first propose an efficient feasibility check to determine if a given set of variables can lead to a tight formulation. Second, we show how to scale the method to problems of bigger size. At no point of the process do we have to find redundant constraints manually. We showcase the effectiveness of the approach, in simulation and on real datasets, for range-based localization and stereo-based pose estimation. We also reproduce semidefinite relaxations presented in recent literature and show that our automatic method always finds a smaller set of constraints sufficient for tightness than previously considered.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor NetworksFrench-language works237,207