MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041075843 · doi:10.1109/rose.2012.6402624

Rigorous movement of convex polygons on a path using multiple robots

2012· article· en· W2041075843 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Chamoun, Mark Lanthier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)RobotObject (grammar)Orientation (vector space)Computer scienceMotion planningTask (project management)Boundary (topology)Computer visionRegular polygonTrajectoryPoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsGeometryEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an approach for pushing a convex polygonal object with rigor using multiple robots, along a desired rectilinear path in a two-dimensional polygonal environment. The goal is to rigorously push the object along the path while preserving its orientation and alignment, as well as precisely rotating it about its center when necessary. A path planning algorithm is presented which computes a shortest-path approximation between two points in the environment. In general, the path requires both translations and rotations of the object along the way. Robots are arranged into three groups, where each group is assigned a task of either pushing the object towards its goal or adjusting it as it veers off from the desired path. Each robot is computationally simple in that it merely moves towards a target point somewhere on the boundary of the object. As the robots move towards these target points, they cooperatively push the object with no interaction between one another. The robots rely on only three parameters to push the object: the orientation of the object, the current target point and the task they are required to perform. The target points are provided by a global control & monitoring system that monitors the progress and stability of the robots as they push the object along the path, providing direction to the robots in terms of tasks such as pushing, rotating, re-alignment, re-orientation or repositioning commands. We verified our algorithm with a number of simulations that address the usefulness of the solution as well as the effects that an increase in the number of robots will have on the runtime and the data communication load.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207