MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153583758 · doi:10.1109/icra.2014.6907707

A language for robot path planning in discrete environments: The TSP with Boolean satisfiability constraints

2014· article· en· W2153583758 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Imeson, Stephen L. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemBoolean satisfiability problemMotion planningVertex (graph theory)Computer scienceSatisfiabilityGraphShortest path problemTheoretical computer sciencePath (computing)Mathematical optimizationRobotMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we introduce a new language in which discrete path planning problems for mobile robots can be specified and solved. Given an environment represented as a graph and a Boolean variable for each vertex to represent its inclusion/exclusion on the path, we consider the problem of finding the shortest path (or tour) in the graph subject to a Boolean satisfiability (Sat) formula defined over the vertex variables. We call this problem Sat-Tsp. We show the expressiveness of this language for specifying complex motion planning objectives in a discrete environment. We then present three solution techniques for this problem, including a novel reduction to the well known travelling salesman problem (Tsp). We present extensive simulation results which compare the performance of the three solvers on standard benchmarks from Tsp, Sat, and Generalized Tsp (Gtsp) literature.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207