MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047083748 · doi:10.1109/tro.2011.2174493

Persistent Robotic Tasks: Monitoring and Sweeping in Changing Environments

2011· article· en· W2047083748 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen L. Smith, Mac Schwager, Daniela Rus

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotRobustness (evolution)Bounded functionMobile robotControl theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)Computer scienceMotion planningField (mathematics)Control engineeringMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present controllers that enable mobile robots to persistently monitor or sweep a changing environment. The environment is modeled as a field that is defined over a finite set of locations. The field grows linearly at locations that are not within the range of a robot and decreases linearly at locations that are within range of a robot. We assume that the robots travel on given closed paths. The speed of each robot along its path is controlled to prevent the field from growing unbounded at any location. We consider the space of speed controllers that are parametrized by a finite set of basis functions. For a single robot, we develop a linear program that computes a speed controller in this space to keep the field bounded, if such a controller exists. Another linear program is derived to compute the speed controller that minimizes the maximum field value over the environment. We extend our linear program formulation to develop a multirobot controller that keeps the field bounded. We characterize, both theoretically and in simulation, the robustness of the controllers to modeling errors and to stochasticity in the environment.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations239
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207