Motion planning for multi-robot assembly systems
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".