MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011193826 · doi:10.1109/tro.2014.2380593

Multirobot Rendezvous Planning for Recharging in Persistent Tasks

2015· article· en· W2011193826 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil Mathew, Stephen L. Smith, Steven L. Waslander

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRendezvousTime horizonRobotMotion planningComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)ScheduleRobustness (evolution)Travelling salesman problemReal-time computingMathematical optimizationOperations researchEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsAerospace engineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses a multirobot scheduling problem in which autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) must be recharged during a long-term mission. The proposal is to introduce a separate team of dedicated charging robots that the UAVs can dock with in order to recharge. The goal is to schedule and plan minimum cost paths for charging robots such that they rendezvous with and replenish the UAVs, as needed, during the mission. The approach is to discretize the 3-D UAV flight trajectories into sets of projected charging points on the ground, thus allowing the problem to be abstracted onto a partitioned graph. Solutions consist of charging robot paths that collectively charge each of the UAVs. The problem is solved by first formulating the rendezvous planning problem to recharge each UAV once using both an integer linear program and a transformation to the Travelling Salesman Problem. The methods are then leveraged to plan recurring rendezvous' over longer horizons using fixed horizon and receding horizon strategies. Simulation results using realistic vehicle and battery models demonstrate the feasibility and robustness of the proposed 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations171
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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