MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294023638

Hardness Results for Two-Dimensional Curvature-Constrained Motion Planning

2011· article· en· W2294023638 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTU/e Research Portal (Eindhoven University of Technology) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureDomain (mathematical analysis)Path (computing)Motion planningSimple (philosophy)MathematicsShortest path problemMotion (physics)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationComputer scienceGeometryCombinatoricsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligenceRobot
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the problem of finding curvature-constrained paths in a polygonal domain with holes. We give a new proof that finding a shortest curvature-constrained path is NP-hard; our proof is substantially simpler, and makes fewer assumptions about the polygonal domain, than the earlier proof of [Reif and Wang, 1998]. We also prove that it is NP-hard to decide existence of a simple (i.e., non-self-intersecting) path. 1

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.230 · 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