MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407734486 · doi:10.5038/jjmu2648

Quantifying Impact of Robot Perception Accuracy at Landmarks in Decision-Making during Complex Situations

2024· article· en· W4407734486 on OpenAlexaff
S. Paul, Steven Liu, Akram Alghanmi, Veton Këpuska, Marius Silaghi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionComputer scienceRobotArtificial intelligenceComputer visionHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perception and decision making is contextual. Landmarks are components of the environment associated with high perception and localization accuracy and their presence can significantly impact agent beliefs and decisions. Our research focuses on integrating state-of-the-art sensing technologies to enhance human decision-making. The perception model incorporates multi-sensor fusion, utilizing LiDAR, cameras, and inertial sensors to create a dynamic representation of the environment. Object recognition and tracking algorithms further enable the robot to interpret the scene providing valuable insights for informed decision-making. This effort involves a novel perception model tailored for mobile robots, emphasizing its role in assisting humans during decision-making processes. Our preliminary model includes multi-sensor fusion, semantic scene analysis, and understanding, evaluated using existing SLAM datasets. In that objective, a mobile robot serves as a valuable companion in helping navigation by providing timely and relevant information. An initial stage, results, and evaluation of our perception model are detailed in this paper. In this aspect, we validate the contextual state by object detection. In the context of achieving localization without GPS in a network of roads using stratified sequential importance sampling where the stratification levels are based on semantic object spaces in the map and on the running time, we quantify the impact of landmark presence and frequency on the success of localization and thereby of decisions.

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)0.029
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207