MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1521899940 · doi:10.1109/robot.1999.770053

Efficient topological exploration

2003· article· en· W1521899940 on OpenAlexaff
Ioannis Rekleitis, Vida Dujmović, Gregory Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraverseVertex (graph theory)RobotComputer scienceCompassPlanar graphFeedback vertex setPlanarGraphTopology (electrical circuits)Undirected graphTopological graphArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsAlgorithmMathematicsComputer visionTheoretical computer sciencePhysicsGeographyComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the robot exploration of a planar graph-like world. The robot's goal is to build a complete map of its environment. The environment is modeled as an arbitrary undirected planar graph which is initially unknown to the robot. The robot cannot distinguish vertices and edges that it has explored from the unexplored ones. The robot is assumed to be able to autonomously traverse graph edges, recognize when it has reached a vertex, and enumerate edges incident upon the current vertex. The robot cannot measure distances nor does it have a compass, but it is equipped with a single marker that it can leave at a vertex and sense if the marker is present at a newly visited vertex. The total number of edges traversed while constructing a map of a graph is used as a measure of performance. We present an efficient algorithm for learning an unknown, undirected planar graph by a robot equipped with one marker. Experimental results obtained by running a large collection of example worlds are presented.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207