MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161754147

Incremental Phi*: incremental any-angle path planning on grids

2009· article· en· W2161754147 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alex Nash, Sven Koenig, Maxim Likhachev

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research LaboratoryArmy Research OfficeUniversity of AlbertaNorthrop GrummanNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGridMotion planningAny-angle path planningVertex (graph theory)Path (computing)Computer scienceTree (set theory)AlgorithmSeries (stratigraphy)ReuseMathematical optimizationTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsGeometryEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study path planning on grids with blocked and unblocked cells. Any-angle path-planning algorithms find short paths fast because they propagate information along grid edges without constraining the resulting paths to grid edges. Incremental path-planning algorithms solve a series of similar path-planning problems faster than repeated single-shot searches because they reuse information from the previous search to speed up the next one. In this paper, we combine these ideas by making the any-angle path-planning algorithm Basic Theta* incremental. This is non-trivial because Basic Theta* does not fit the standard assumption that the parent of a vertex in the search tree must also be its neighbor. We present Incremental Phi* and show experimentally that it can speed up Basic Theta* by about one order of magnitude for path planning with the freespace assumption.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207