Place recognition and factor graph localization for mobile robots using Google indoor street view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis develops an indoor localization system for mobile robots using Google indoor street view. The proposed localization system consists of two main modules. The first is a place recognition system based on Google’s indoor street view. Its purpose is to determine the position of the robot in terms of the node on the street view map that is closest to the robot’s actual location. It is achieved by comparing an image captured by the robot’s camera against the indoor street view images. In order to achieve the best accuracy possible, the input image is compared to every street view image. The system employs two verification stages. The first stage is based on the visual similarity among the images. The best five images that qualified through this stage become candidate images for the second verification stage. In this stage, the geometric consistency between the images is assessed. The image that passes this test with the highest similarity score is considered a match with the input image. The proposed place recognition system is tested on different data sets and the performance is assessed using standard evaluation metrics. The second part is the main module of the proposed localization system. It is a graph-based estimation module that incorporates the odometry data, visual feedback, and motion data that eventually is solved via optimization techniques. The result is the estimates of the robot’s locations at specified intervals along its journey. It uses odometry data to interpret connections among successive poses. Also, it uses visual information from the robot’s camera to establish constraints between the robot’s poses and the map. It is achieved through constraints derived using two images, one from the robot’s camera and one from the node in the map that matches best with the image from the robot’s camera. The localization system is designed to minimize the drift caused by the odometer. The system is simulated and then tested for a data set captured at the Memorial University of Newfoundland engineering building basement. The performance of the system is evaluated using standard error metrics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".