MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004727989 · doi:10.1145/1247069.1247080

Finding curvature-constrained paths that avoid polygonal obstacles

2007· article· en· W2004727989 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Backer, David Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)CurvatureFast pathBounded functionMathematicsMotion planningDomain (mathematical analysis)Any-angle path planningAlgorithmLongest path problemComputer scienceMathematical optimizationTopology (electrical circuits)CombinatoricsGeometryMathematical analysisShortest path problemGraphRobotArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an algorithm to find a unit-curvature path between specified configurations in an arbitrary polygonal domain. Whenever such a path exists, the algorithm returns an explicit description of one such path in time that is polynomial in n (the number of features of the domain), m (the precision of the input) and k (the number of segments on the simplest obstacle-free Dubins path connecting the specified configurations). Our algorithm is based on a new normal form for unit-curvature paths and a dynamic path filtering argument that exploits a separation bound for distinct paths in this normal form.The best result known for the feasibility of bounded-curvature motion in the presence of arbitrary polygonal obstacles involves a reduction to the first-order theory of the reals. It just determines if a feasible path exists (it does not return a path) and requires exponential time and space.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207