MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1650780448 · doi:10.1109/tase.2015.2461213

Planning Paths for Package Delivery in Heterogeneous Multirobot Teams

2015· article· en· W1650780448 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Mathew, Stephen L. Smith, Steven L. Waslander

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemTruckScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceJob shop schedulingMotion planningMathematical optimizationHeuristicVehicle routing problemTraveling purchaser problemTask (project management)GraphShortest path problem2-optDistributed computingOperations researchRouting (electronic design automation)RobotEngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer networkTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the task scheduling and path planning problem for a team of cooperating vehicles performing autonomous deliveries in urban environments. The cooperating team comprises two vehicles with complementary capabilities, a truck restricted to travel along a street network, and a quadrotor micro-aerial vehicle of capacity one that can be deployed from the truck to perform deliveries. The problem is formulated as an optimal path planning problem on a graph and the goal is to find the shortest cooperative route enabling the quadrotor to deliver items at all requested locations. The problem is shown to be NP-hard. A solution is then proposed using a novel reduction to the Generalized Traveling Salesman Problem, for which well-established heuristic solvers exist. The heterogeneous delivery problem contains as a special case the problem of scheduling deliveries from multiple static warehouses. We propose two additional algorithms, based on enumeration and a reduction to the traveling salesman problem, for this special case. Simulation results compare the performance of the presented algorithms and demonstrate examples of delivery route computations over real urban street maps.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations295
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automation Science and EngineeringSame topicVehicle Routing Optimization MethodsFrench-language works237,207