MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131142029 · doi:10.1109/robot.2007.363117

Motion Planning of Multiple Agents in Virtual Environments on Parallel Architectures

2007· article· en· W2131142029 on OpenAlexafffund
Yi Li, Kamal Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser UniversityWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsComputer scienceDistributed computingScalabilityMultiprocessingVoronoi diagramLivenessDeadlockMotion planningPath (computing)Parallel computingVirtual machineProcess (computing)RobotArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We proposed in a previous paper (2006) a hybrid two-layered approach for motion planning of multiple agents in static virtual environments, consisting of open spaces connected by multiple narrow passages. The discrete generalized Voronoi diagram (GVD) of the environment is used to identify narrow passages, and plan the global path of each agent independently of other agents' global paths. As each agent moves along its global path, the agent's path is locally modified using the hybrid technique of combining steering behaviors with Coordination Graphs (CG), where coordination graphs are used for deadlock avoidance in the narrow passages. The planner in the previous paper was single threaded, and it was able to plan the motions of 30 agents moving around in a simple virtual environment with 3 narrow passages. If more agents are moving in a more complex virtual environment (i.e., with more narrow passages), we may not be able to construct and process all the coordination graphs in real-time. In this paper, we parallelize the single threaded planner in a supervisor-worker paradigm with Unix processes who communicate with each other using System V interprocess communication (IPC) mechanism. We show that significant, scalable speedups are obtained by constructing and processing coordination graphs in parallel on a symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) system.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/ProceedingsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207