MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064155562 · doi:10.1109/jproc.2011.2158181

Dynamic Vehicle Routing for Robotic Systems

2011· article· en· W2064155562 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the IEEE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRoboticsVariety (cybernetics)Routing (electronic design automation)Queueing theoryDistributed computingProcess (computing)Service (business)Vehicle routing problemQuality of serviceMathematical optimizationRobotOperations researchArtificial intelligenceComputer networkEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have witnessed great advancements in the science and technology of autonomy, robotics, and networking. This paper surveys recent concepts and algorithms for dynamic vehicle routing (DVR), that is, for the automatic planning of optimal multivehicle routes to perform tasks that are generated over time by an exogenous process. We consider a rich variety of scenarios relevant for robotic applications. We begin by reviewing the basic DVR problem: demands for service arrive at random locations at random times and a vehicle travels to provide on-site service while minimizing the expected wait time of the demands. Next, we treat different multivehicle scenarios based on different models for demands (e.g., demands with different priority levels and impatient demands), vehicles (e.g., motion constraints, communication, and sensing capabilities), and tasks. The performance criterion used in these scenarios is either the expected wait time of the demands or the fraction of demands serviced successfully. In each specific DVR scenario, we adopt a rigorous technical approach that relies upon methods from queueing theory, combinatorial optimization, and stochastic geometry. First, we establish fundamental limits on the achievable performance, including limits on stability and quality of service. Second, we design algorithms, and provide provable guarantees on their performance with respect to the fundamental limits.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.213 · 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