MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993730936 · doi:10.1177/0278364914558017

Motion primitives and 3D path planning for fast flight through a forest

2015· article· en· W1993730936 on OpenAlexaff
Aditya A. Paranjape, Kevin Meier, Xichen Shi, Soon‐Jo Chung, Seth Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)WaypointMotion planningComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)TrajectoryMotion (physics)Constant (computer programming)Motion controlObstacleObstacle avoidanceConfiguration spaceState (computer science)Sequence (biology)RobotControl (management)Mobile robotArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmReal-time computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents two families of motion primitives for enabling fast, agile flight through a dense obstacle field. The first family of primitives consists of a time-delay dependent 3D circular path between two points in space and the control inputs required to fly the path. In particular, the control inputs are calculated using algebraic equations which depend on the flight parameters and the location of the waypoint. Moreover, the transition between successive maneuver states, where each state is defined by a unique combination of constant control inputs, is modeled rigorously as an instantaneous switch between the two maneuver states following a time delay which is directly related to the agility of the robotic aircraft. The second family consists of aggressive turn-around (ATA) maneuvers which the robot uses to retreat from impenetrable pockets of obstacles. The ATA maneuver consists of an orchestrated sequence of three sets of constant control inputs. The duration of the first segment is used to optimize the ATA for the spatial constraints imposed by the turning volume. The motion primitives are validated experimentally and implemented in a simulated receding horizon control (RHC)-based motion planner. The paper concludes with inverse-design pointers derived from the primitives.

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 score0.007

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations85
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207