MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140995153 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-38914

An Optimal Orthogonal Recharging Route Planner: A Multi-Robots, Multi-Rendezvous Recharging Scheme

2010· article· en· W2140995153 on OpenAlexaff
Soheil Keshmiri, Shahram Payandeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRendezvousRobotTree traversalPlannerComputer scienceScheme (mathematics)Orthogonal arrayWork (physics)Real-time computingSimulationMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of recharging a group of worker robots in their working environment has been tackled. For this purpose, a special purpose tanker robot has been devised with a planner, capable of generating recharging route that minimizes the cumulative sum of orthogonal distances of worker robots from their current locations to their corresponding recharging rendezvous locations along the recharging route (hence the term Orthogonal Recharging Route or ORR Planner). It has been proven that the ORR planner will result into a recharging route that minimizes the total worker robots distance traversal for recharging, irrespective of location of charging station/tanker. Experiments have been conducted to examine the practicality of the technique in contrast with scenarios of fixed charging station, as well as results of previous work based on Ordinary and Weighted Least Squares (OLS and WLS respectively) regressions. Results obtained in simulations are provided for illustrative comparison purpose among the different techniques.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207