MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computational Pool: An<scp>OR</scp>—Optimization Point of View

2011· preprint· en· W1515746590 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChampionFocus (optics)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)State (computer science)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceData scienceAlgorithmGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Computational and robotic pool has received increasing attention over the past few years. The challenges are important. In this survey, we focus on the computational aspect but nevertheless, acknowledge that the robotic aspect is both, very important and very difficult. Computationally, one may roughly split the tasks into three main aspects: simulation of the physics, execution of the shots, and planning of sequences of shots. We will discuss these aspects from an OR‐optimization point of view. The planning aspect also attracts the interest of the artificial intelligence community, and links between both approaches will be revealed. We will present the state‐of‐the‐art in this new research area, as well as the obstacles that remain before a computer–robotic system actually challenges a human champion.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.004
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.281 · 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