Intelligent Mobility Research at Defence R&D Canada for Autonomous UGV Mobility in Complex Terrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the Autonomous Intelligent Systems Section of Defence R&D Canada - Suffield is best described by its mission statement, which is "to augment soldiers and combat systems by developing and demonstrating practical, cost effective, autonomous intelligent systems capable of completing military missions in complex operating environments." The mobility requirement for unmanned ground vehicles operating in urban settings must increase significantly if robotic technology is to augment human efforts in these roles and environments. The intelligence required for autonomous systems to operate in complex environments demands advances in many fields of robotics. This has resulted in large bodies of research in areas of perception, world representation, and navigation, but the problem of locomotion in complex terrain has largely been ignored. In order to achieve its objective, the Autonomous Intelligent Systems Section is pursuing research that explores the use of intelligent mobility algorithms designed to improve robot mobility. Intelligent mobility uses sensing, control, and learning algorithms to extract measured variables from the world, control vehicles dynamics, and learn by experience. The primary focus of the paper is to present the research tools, topics, and plans to improve the autonomy and mobility of unmanned ground vehicles operating in urban settings to assist the Canadian Forces in future urban operations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".