MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416707306 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3637510

Impact Analysis of Algorithm Optimization on Robot Deep Learning Localization Model for Real-Time Execution

2025· article· en· W4416707306 on OpenAlexaff
Cédric Melançon, Maarouf Saad, Kuljeet Kaur, Julien Gascon‐Samson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotVisual odometryObstacleFocus (optics)Deep learningOdometryResource (disambiguation)Cloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased demand for autonomous robots in industries such as healthcare, manufacturing, and logistics is driven by the need to address labor shortages and enhance operational efficiency. A critical aspect of these robots is their ability to navigate complex environments autonomously, which relies heavily on multiple artificial intelligence models, including visual odometry. Visual odometry enables robots to estimate their motion by analyzing visual data, making it essential for navigation and obstacle avoidance. However, ensuring such models operate within real-time constraints is paramount for the robot’s responsiveness, safety, and overall functionality. The complexity and depth of such a model, which utilizes camera images and other sensor data, make it challenging to achieve real-time performance. Thus, this paper thoroughly evaluates the performance of a deep-learning visual odometry model, with a focus on its execution time and computational overhead. Furthermore, it proposes an optimized implementation to meet the stringent real-time requirements for safe and efficient robot operation. The optimization is achieved through algorithm improvement to preserve the model structure and accuracy. Multiple hardware platforms were utilized to demonstrate the resource differences between edge, fog, and cloud deployments, thereby validating the effect of the proposed model optimization. The resource usage is also compared to see the impact of the modification on multiple aspects, including computation, memory, temperature, and energy. The resulting model operationalization improves the execution time while highlighting limitations for some hardware configurations.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207