MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293312031 · doi:10.1109/csci.2015.92

C-Theta*: Cluster Based Path-Planning on Grids

2015· article· en· W2293312031 on OpenAlexaff
Pramod Mendonca, Scott D. Goodwin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridMotion planningShortest path problemPath (computing)Computer scienceCluster analysisConstraint (computer-aided design)Widest path problemGrid referenceAny-angle path planningGrid method multiplicationAlgorithmCluster (spacecraft)Path lengthMathematical optimizationK shortest path routingMathematicsArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceMobile robotGraphGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Path planning is used to solve the problem of moving an agent towards a destination. Theta* is a well know any angle path planning algorithm which works by utilizing line of sight checks during the search. To find shorter paths that are not constraint to grid edges, there is a compromise in the time taken to reach the destination which makes Theta* undesirable as the grid map size increases. To solve this problem and enhance the search performance we propose a method which divides a map into high and low density regions using an unsupervised clustering algorithm based on the number of blocked nodes on a grid map. After comparing the proposed model with theta* the results show the time taken to find the shortest path to be reduced significantly in comparison with Theta* while the path length will remain as short as Theta.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207