Adaptive Charged System Search Approach to Path Planning for Multiple Mobile Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper suggests the application of adaptive Charged System Search (CSS) algorithms to the optimal path planning (PP) of multiple mobile robots. An off-line adaptive CSS-based PP approach is proposed and applied to holonomic wheeled platforms in static environments. The adaptive CSS algorithms solve the optimisation problems that aim the minimisation of objective functions (o.f.s) specific to PP and expressed as the weighted sum of four functions that target separate PP objectives. A penalty term is added in certain situations in the first step of the PP approach. The specific features of the adaptive CSS algorithms are the adaptation of the acceleration, velocity, and separation distance parameters to the iteration index, and the substitution of the worst charged particles’ fitness function values and positions with the best performing particle data. The fitness function in the adaptive CSS algorithms corresponds to the o.f., and the search space and agents (charged particles) in the adaptive CSS algorithms correspond to the solution space and to the mobile robots, respectively. A case study and experiments are included validate the new adaptive CSS-based PP approach and to compare it with non- adaptive CSS-, Particle Swarm Optimization- and Gravitational Search Algorithm-based PP approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".