MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970422188 · doi:10.1163/15685530360663409

Sensor-based navigation for car-like mobile robots based on a generalized Voronoi graph

2003· article· en· W1970422188 on OpenAlexaff
Keiji Nagatani, Y. Iwai, Yutaka TANAKA

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Robotics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile robotMotion planningRobotVoronoi diagramComputer sciencePath (computing)GraphMobile robot navigationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionMathematicsRobot controlTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our research objective is to realize sensor-based navigation for car-like mobile robots. We adopt the generalized Voronoi graph (GVG) for the robot's local path and a map representation. It has the advantage to describe the mobile robot's path for sensor-based navigation from the point of view of completeness and safety. However, it is impossible to apply the path to car-like mobile robots directly, because the limitation of the minimum turning radius for a car-like robot may prevent it from following the GVG exactly. To solve this problem, we propose a local smooth path-planning algorithm for car-like mobile robots. Basically, an initial local path is generated by a conventional path-planning algorithm using GVG theory and it is modified smoothly by a Bezier curve to enable the car-like robots to follow it by maximizing our evaluation function. In this paper, we introduce a local smooth path-planning algorithm based on the GVG and explain the details of our evaluation function. Simulation and experimental results support the validity of the algorithm.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced RoboticsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207