MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081505722 · doi:10.1109/mesa.2010.5551989

Motion planning for multi-link robots using Artificial Potential Fields and modified Simulated Annealing

2010· article· en· W2081505722 on OpenAlexaff
Deval Yag, Jing Ren, Ramiro Liscano

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxima and minimaMotion planningSimulated annealingRobotComputer sciencePath (computing)Motion controlAdaptive simulated annealingConvergence (economics)Artificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a hybrid control methodology using Artificial Potential Fields (APF) integrated with a modified Simulated Annealing (SA) optimization algorithm for motion planning of a team of multi-link snake robots. The principle of this work is based on the locomotion of a snake where subsequent links follow the trace of the head. We developed an algorithm where the APF method provides simple, efficient and effective path planning and the modified SA is applied in order for the robots to recover from a local minima. Modifications to the SA algorithm improve the performance of the algorithm and reduce convergence time. Validation on a three-link snake robot shows that the derived control laws from the combined APF and SA motion planning algorithm can successfully navigate the robot to reach its destination, while avoiding collisions with multiple obstacles and other robots in its path as well as recover from local minima.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207