MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969839206 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2014.2360368

A Multirobot Path-Planning Strategy for Autonomous Wilderness Search and Rescue

2014· article· en· W1969839206 on OpenAlexafffund
Ashish Macwan, Julio Vilela, Goldie Nejat, B. Benhabib

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMotion planningSearch and rescuePath (computing)RobotComputer scienceSoftware deploymentPiecewiseSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationRescue robotOperations researchArtificial intelligenceMobile robotEngineeringMathematicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a novel strategy for the on-line planning of optimal motion-paths for a team of autonomous ground robots engaged in wilderness search and rescue (WiSAR). The proposed strategy, which forms part of an overall multirobot coordination (MRC) methodology, addresses the dynamic nature of WiSAR by: 1) planning initial, time-optimal, and piecewise polynomial paths for all robots; 2) implementing and regularly evaluating the optimality of the paths through a set of checks that gauge feasibility of path-completion within the available time; and 3) replanning paths, on-line, whenever deemed necessary. The fundamental principle of maintaining the optimal deployment of the robots throughout the search guides the MRC methodology. The proposed path-planning strategy is illustrated through a simulated realistic WiSAR example, and compared to an alternative, nonprobabilistic approach.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations122
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207