Motion planning for multi-robot assembly systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classical travelling salesperson problem (TSP) models the movements of a salesperson travelling through a number of cities. The optimization problem is to choose the sequence in which to visit the cities in order to minimize the total distance travelled. This paper presents a generalized point-to-point motion-planning technique for multi-robot assemblysystems modelled as TSP-type optimization problems. However, in these augmented TSPs (TSP+), both the 'salesperson' (a robot with a tool) as well as the 'cities' (another robot with a workpiece) move. In addition to the sequencing of tasks, further planning is required to choose where the 'salesperson' (i.e., the tool) should rendezvous with each 'city' (i.e. the workpiece). The use of a genetic algorithm (GA) is chosen as the search engine for the solution of this TSP+ optimization problem. As an example area, the optimization of the electronic-component placement process is addressed. The simulation tools developed have been tested on five different component-placement system configurations. In the most generalized configuration, the placement robot meets the component delivery system at an optimal rendezvous location for the pick-up of the component and subsequently meets the printed-cirucit-board (on a mobile XY-table) at an optimal rendezvous location. In addition to the solution of the component-placement sequencing problem and the rendezvous-point planning problem, the collision-avoidance issue is addressed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it