MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072771680 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-40055

Multi-Robot Cooperative Transportation of Objects Using Modified Q-Learning

2010· article· en· W2072771680 on OpenAlexaff
Pallege Gamini Dilupa Siriwardana, Clarence W. de Silva

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotRobustness (evolution)Mobile robotComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Robot controlSocial robotComputer visionTask (project management)Human–computer interactionEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cooperative multi-robot object transportation, several autonomous robots navigate cooperatively in either a static or a dynamic environment to transport an object to a goal location and orientation. The environment may consist of both fixed and removable obstacles and it will be subject to uncertainty and unforeseen changes within the environment. More than one robot may be required for handling heavy and large objects. This paper presents a modified Q-learning approach for object transportation utilizing cooperative and autonomous multiple mobile robots. A modified version of Q-learning is presented, which employs for effective robot coordination. A solution to the action selection conflicts of the robots is presented, which helps to improve the real time performance and robustness of the system. As required in the task, the paper presents an algorithm for object pose estimation, by utilizing the laser range finder and color blob tracking. The developed techniques are implemented in a multi-robot system in laboratory. Experimental results are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the developed multi-robot system and its underlying methodologies.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207