MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7144003170 · doi:10.15866/ireaco.v18i6.26824

Implementation of a Cost-Effective Rows Detection System for an Autonomous Agricultural Robot Navigation

2025· article· W7144003170 on OpenAlexaff
Najia Ait Hammou, Hafsa Matich, Hajar Mousannif, Brahim Lakssir, Abdellah El Aissaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Automatic Control (IREACO) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsAdvanced Micro Devices (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotMobile robotAutonomous robotRowNavigation systemField (mathematics)Precision agricultureGlobal Positioning System

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For providing an independent robot mobility between crop rows in agricultural operations such as weeding or harvesting, the development of row navigation is an interesting research task for implementing cost-effective technology. Robot navigation requires adaptive traffic between crop rows and detection of objects and uncultivated regions to navigate in field and process effective driving operations using computer vision. The concept of using only RGB camera to accurately follow between crops rows spaces, avoid obstacles, and operate in different potential cropping field situations. It relies on low-cost image processing technology and the use of edge detection algorithms. Our challenge consisted on improving inter-row field crop navigation and providing effective guidance for autonomous agricultural robot guidance. An effective recognition of lanes with high image processing accuracy is required. This article gives a significant review of using IA technologies for lane detection in an agricultural context and presents the process of putting into practice a novel semantic segmentation model based on combining a sophisticated architecture of models using Mobile U-Net and DeeplabV3. This process includes data pre-processing, data preparation, U-Net, Mobile U-Net and DeeplabV3 configuration, and finally, an assessment of segmentation quality metrics to determine the model performance. The evaluation of this new approach’s performance regarding accuracy and precision confirms its impressive ability to correct errors and highlights its effectiveness in consistently identifying lines for embedded systems in real time.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Automatic Control (IREACO)Same topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207