MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072345862 · doi:10.1109/iccse.2014.6926440

Autonomous robot navigation with self-learning for collision avoidance with randomly moving obstacles

2014· article· en· W2072345862 on OpenAlexafffund
Yunfei Zhang, Clarence W. de Silva, DiJia Su, Youtai Xue

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsRobotController (irrigation)Computer scienceObstacle avoidanceReinforcement learningCollision avoidanceRobot controlArtificial intelligenceObstacleMotion planningVisual servoingMotion controlMobile robotRobot learningMobile robot navigationComputer visionRobot kinematicsCollisionControl theory (sociology)Control (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a hierarchical controller to avoid randomly moving obstacles in autonomous navigation of a robot. The developed method consists of two parts: a high-level Q-learning controller for choosing an optimal plan for navigation and a low-level, appearance-based visual servo (ABVS) controller for motion execution. The use of robot learning ability in collision avoidance is a novel feature, in a combined system framework of planning and visual servo control. The developed approach takes advantage of the on-board camera of robot whose finite field of view is naturally suitable for the Q-learning algorithm. Because of the Q-learning controller, knowledge of obstacle movement and a control law for the ABVS controller are not needed. This is a significant computational advantage. The method is implemented in a simulation system of robot navigation. The results show that Q-learning, which is a method of reinforcement learning, successfully converges to an optimal strategy for the robot to establish a proper motion plan.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207