MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015136933 · doi:10.1109/robot.2004.1302402

A knowledge based genetic algorithm for path planning of a mobile robot

2004· article· en· W2015136933 on OpenAlexaff
Yanrong Hu, Simon X. Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion planningGenetic algorithmComputer scienceMobile robotRobotPath (computing)Genetic representationCultural algorithmDomain knowledgeRepresentation (politics)Any-angle path planningArtificial intelligenceDomain (mathematical analysis)Mathematical optimizationPopulation-based incremental learningAlgorithmMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a knowledge based genetic algorithm (GA) for path planning of a mobile robot is proposed, which uses problem-specific genetic algorithms for robot path planning instead of the standard GAs. The proposed knowledge based genetic algorithm incorporates the domain knowledge into its specialized operators, where some also combine a local search technique. The proposed genetic algorithm also features a unique and simple path representation and a simple but effective evaluation method. The knowledge based genetic algorithm is capable of finding an optimal or near-optimal robot path in both complex static and dynamic environments. The effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed genetic algorithm is demonstrated by simulation studies. The irreplaceable role of the specialized genetic operators in the proposed GA for solving robot path planning problem is demonstrated by a comparison study.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations297
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207