Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Andrew Jack

dblp:168/8631 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Robot navigation and mapping · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping › SLAM
dense SLAM
0.212016
Comparative design space exploration of dense and semi-dense SLAM · ICRA 2016
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
SLAM
0.212016
Comparative design space exploration of dense and semi-dense SLAM · ICRA 2016
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.212016
Comparative design space exploration of dense and semi-dense SLAM · ICRA 2016
Performance modeling and evaluation › benchmarking
SLAM benchmarking
0.212016
Comparative design space exploration of dense and semi-dense SLAM · ICRA 2016
Performance modeling and evaluation
workload characterization
0.112016
Comparative design space exploration of dense and semi-dense SLAM · ICRA 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

kernel-level profiling · 0.5design space exploration · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Comparative design space exploration of dense and semi-dense SLAM
abstract
SLAM has matured significantly over the past few years, and is beginning to appear in serious commercial products. While new SLAM systems are being proposed at every conference, evaluation is often restricted to qualitative visualizations or accuracy estimation against a ground truth. This is due to the lack of benchmarking methodologies which can holistically and quantitatively evaluate these systems. Further investigation at the level of individual kernels and parameter spaces of SLAM pipelines is non-existent, which is absolutely essential for systems research and integration. We extend the recently introduced SLAMBench framework to allow comparing two state-of-the-art SLAM pipelines, namely KinectFusion and LSD-SLAM, along the metrics of accuracy, energy consumption, and processing frame rate on two different hardware platforms, namely a desktop and an embedded device. We also analyze the pipelines at the level of individual kernels and explore their algorithmic and hardware design spaces for the first time, yielding valuable insights.
M. Zeeshan Zia, Luigi Nardi, Andrew Jack, Emanuele Vespa, Bruno Bodin, Paul H. J. Kelly, Andrew J. Davison
ICRA3