Safety measures for terrain classification and safest site selection

Two safety measures for terrain classification are described: safety score and safety grade. The terrain safety score s is a multi-valued quantitative measure in the form of a crisp numeric value in the continuous unit interval [0.0, 1.0], that is, \[0.0 \leq s \leq 1.0\]. The terrain safety grades...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Autonomous robots 2006-11, Vol.21 (3), p.211-225
1. Verfasser: Seraji, Homayoun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 225
container_issue 3
container_start_page 211
container_title Autonomous robots
container_volume 21
creator Seraji, Homayoun
description Two safety measures for terrain classification are described: safety score and safety grade. The terrain safety score s is a multi-valued quantitative measure in the form of a crisp numeric value in the continuous unit interval [0.0, 1.0], that is, \[0.0 \leq s \leq 1.0\]. The terrain safety grades \[\{S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_n\}\] are qualitative measures in the form of linguistic fuzzy sets defined by a human expert that cover the ranges of values of s, with adjacent grades having smooth (i.e., non-abrupt) and overlapping boundaries. The safety grade of a terrain segment is inferred from a set of linguistic rules provided by the human expert that relate the terrain qualities to the terrain safety grades. The safety score for the terrain segment is then computed simply from the safety grades in the activated rules. Safety margin of a terrain is also introduced as a quantitative measure of the degree of terrain safety. Validation and confidence in the sensory data are discussed. The terrain safety score and the sensor confidence score are combined and represented by the fused safety/confidence grid. Given the safety/confidence grid of a terrain patch, two new methods for selection of the safest site are presented: Peak-with-High-Neighbors (PHN) and Center-of-Largest-Area (CLA). These two methods are then illustrated by a numerical example. The methods presented in this paper are computationally fast, and are thus strong viable candidates for real-time implementation. Similar fuzzy rule-based terrain classifiers have previously been implemented successfully in rover navigation experiments and spacecraft landing simulations at JPL.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10514-006-9716-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743444562</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2544216621</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-444a102234134e3475ba7caa3e278e8ecc2a596add2ba155aafe570c1724e3f13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkEtLAzEUhYMoWKs_wF1w4yp685o0S6lPKLhQ1-E2zcCU6UzNnYH6781QV67u4n6cc_gYu5ZwJwHcPUmw0giASngnK3E4YTNpnRbOKnfKZuCVF9Z6fc4uiLYA4B3AjD1-YJ2GH75LSGNOxOs-8yHljE3HY4tETd1EHJq-49htOBWcBk7NkDilNsXpc8nOamwpXf3dOft6fvpcvorV-8vb8mElogYzCGMMSlBKG6lN0sbZNbqIqJNyi7RIMSq0vsLNRq1RWoulyzqI0qmC11LP2e0xd5_777HsCLuGYmpb7FI_UnBGlw5bqULe_CO3_Zi7Mi54qaSxk4o5k0co5p4opzrsc7PD_BMkhMlqOFoNxWqYrIaD_gX43Gqc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>912145559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Safety measures for terrain classification and safest site selection</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Seraji, Homayoun</creator><creatorcontrib>Seraji, Homayoun</creatorcontrib><description>Two safety measures for terrain classification are described: safety score and safety grade. The terrain safety score s is a multi-valued quantitative measure in the form of a crisp numeric value in the continuous unit interval [0.0, 1.0], that is, \[0.0 \leq s \leq 1.0\]. The terrain safety grades \[\{S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_n\}\] are qualitative measures in the form of linguistic fuzzy sets defined by a human expert that cover the ranges of values of s, with adjacent grades having smooth (i.e., non-abrupt) and overlapping boundaries. The safety grade of a terrain segment is inferred from a set of linguistic rules provided by the human expert that relate the terrain qualities to the terrain safety grades. The safety score for the terrain segment is then computed simply from the safety grades in the activated rules. Safety margin of a terrain is also introduced as a quantitative measure of the degree of terrain safety. Validation and confidence in the sensory data are discussed. The terrain safety score and the sensor confidence score are combined and represented by the fused safety/confidence grid. Given the safety/confidence grid of a terrain patch, two new methods for selection of the safest site are presented: Peak-with-High-Neighbors (PHN) and Center-of-Largest-Area (CLA). These two methods are then illustrated by a numerical example. The methods presented in this paper are computationally fast, and are thus strong viable candidates for real-time implementation. Similar fuzzy rule-based terrain classifiers have previously been implemented successfully in rover navigation experiments and spacecraft landing simulations at JPL.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0929-5593</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7527</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10514-006-9716-x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Classification ; Computer simulation ; Fuzzy sets ; Numerical methods ; Quality ; Safety margins ; Safety measures ; Site selection ; Spacecraft landing ; Studies ; Terrain</subject><ispartof>Autonomous robots, 2006-11, Vol.21 (3), p.211-225</ispartof><rights>Autonomous Robots is a copyright of Springer, (2006). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-444a102234134e3475ba7caa3e278e8ecc2a596add2ba155aafe570c1724e3f13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-444a102234134e3475ba7caa3e278e8ecc2a596add2ba155aafe570c1724e3f13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Seraji, Homayoun</creatorcontrib><title>Safety measures for terrain classification and safest site selection</title><title>Autonomous robots</title><description>Two safety measures for terrain classification are described: safety score and safety grade. The terrain safety score s is a multi-valued quantitative measure in the form of a crisp numeric value in the continuous unit interval [0.0, 1.0], that is, \[0.0 \leq s \leq 1.0\]. The terrain safety grades \[\{S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_n\}\] are qualitative measures in the form of linguistic fuzzy sets defined by a human expert that cover the ranges of values of s, with adjacent grades having smooth (i.e., non-abrupt) and overlapping boundaries. The safety grade of a terrain segment is inferred from a set of linguistic rules provided by the human expert that relate the terrain qualities to the terrain safety grades. The safety score for the terrain segment is then computed simply from the safety grades in the activated rules. Safety margin of a terrain is also introduced as a quantitative measure of the degree of terrain safety. Validation and confidence in the sensory data are discussed. The terrain safety score and the sensor confidence score are combined and represented by the fused safety/confidence grid. Given the safety/confidence grid of a terrain patch, two new methods for selection of the safest site are presented: Peak-with-High-Neighbors (PHN) and Center-of-Largest-Area (CLA). These two methods are then illustrated by a numerical example. The methods presented in this paper are computationally fast, and are thus strong viable candidates for real-time implementation. Similar fuzzy rule-based terrain classifiers have previously been implemented successfully in rover navigation experiments and spacecraft landing simulations at JPL.</description><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Fuzzy sets</subject><subject>Numerical methods</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Safety margins</subject><subject>Safety measures</subject><subject>Site selection</subject><subject>Spacecraft landing</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Terrain</subject><issn>0929-5593</issn><issn>1573-7527</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkEtLAzEUhYMoWKs_wF1w4yp685o0S6lPKLhQ1-E2zcCU6UzNnYH6781QV67u4n6cc_gYu5ZwJwHcPUmw0giASngnK3E4YTNpnRbOKnfKZuCVF9Z6fc4uiLYA4B3AjD1-YJ2GH75LSGNOxOs-8yHljE3HY4tETd1EHJq-49htOBWcBk7NkDilNsXpc8nOamwpXf3dOft6fvpcvorV-8vb8mElogYzCGMMSlBKG6lN0sbZNbqIqJNyi7RIMSq0vsLNRq1RWoulyzqI0qmC11LP2e0xd5_777HsCLuGYmpb7FI_UnBGlw5bqULe_CO3_Zi7Mi54qaSxk4o5k0co5p4opzrsc7PD_BMkhMlqOFoNxWqYrIaD_gX43Gqc</recordid><startdate>20061101</startdate><enddate>20061101</enddate><creator>Seraji, Homayoun</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>S0W</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20061101</creationdate><title>Safety measures for terrain classification and safest site selection</title><author>Seraji, Homayoun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c304t-444a102234134e3475ba7caa3e278e8ecc2a596add2ba155aafe570c1724e3f13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Fuzzy sets</topic><topic>Numerical methods</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Safety margins</topic><topic>Safety measures</topic><topic>Site selection</topic><topic>Spacecraft landing</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Terrain</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Seraji, Homayoun</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Engineering &amp; Technology Collection</collection><jtitle>Autonomous robots</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Seraji, Homayoun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Safety measures for terrain classification and safest site selection</atitle><jtitle>Autonomous robots</jtitle><date>2006-11-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>211</spage><epage>225</epage><pages>211-225</pages><issn>0929-5593</issn><eissn>1573-7527</eissn><abstract>Two safety measures for terrain classification are described: safety score and safety grade. The terrain safety score s is a multi-valued quantitative measure in the form of a crisp numeric value in the continuous unit interval [0.0, 1.0], that is, \[0.0 \leq s \leq 1.0\]. The terrain safety grades \[\{S_1,S_2,\ldots,S_n\}\] are qualitative measures in the form of linguistic fuzzy sets defined by a human expert that cover the ranges of values of s, with adjacent grades having smooth (i.e., non-abrupt) and overlapping boundaries. The safety grade of a terrain segment is inferred from a set of linguistic rules provided by the human expert that relate the terrain qualities to the terrain safety grades. The safety score for the terrain segment is then computed simply from the safety grades in the activated rules. Safety margin of a terrain is also introduced as a quantitative measure of the degree of terrain safety. Validation and confidence in the sensory data are discussed. The terrain safety score and the sensor confidence score are combined and represented by the fused safety/confidence grid. Given the safety/confidence grid of a terrain patch, two new methods for selection of the safest site are presented: Peak-with-High-Neighbors (PHN) and Center-of-Largest-Area (CLA). These two methods are then illustrated by a numerical example. The methods presented in this paper are computationally fast, and are thus strong viable candidates for real-time implementation. Similar fuzzy rule-based terrain classifiers have previously been implemented successfully in rover navigation experiments and spacecraft landing simulations at JPL.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><doi>10.1007/s10514-006-9716-x</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0929-5593
ispartof Autonomous robots, 2006-11, Vol.21 (3), p.211-225
issn 0929-5593
1573-7527
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_743444562
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Classification
Computer simulation
Fuzzy sets
Numerical methods
Quality
Safety margins
Safety measures
Site selection
Spacecraft landing
Studies
Terrain
title Safety measures for terrain classification and safest site selection
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T18%3A19%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Safety%20measures%20for%20terrain%20classification%20and%20safest%20site%20selection&rft.jtitle=Autonomous%20robots&rft.au=Seraji,%20Homayoun&rft.date=2006-11-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=211&rft.epage=225&rft.pages=211-225&rft.issn=0929-5593&rft.eissn=1573-7527&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10514-006-9716-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2544216621%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=912145559&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true