MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613500262 · doi:10.1109/irc.2017.74

Sliding Local Planners for Sampling-Based Path Planning

2017· article· en· W2613500262 on OpenAlexafffund
Shatil Rahman, Sue Whitesides

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of VictoriaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsWorkspaceMotion planningPlannerBenchmark (surveying)Path (computing)Computer scienceSampling (signal processing)RobotBoundary (topology)Mathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sampling-based path planning algorithms based on straight-line local planners, even in combination with advanced sampling strategies, occasionally perform poorly when a rigid robot needs to pass through narrow passages in the C-space. In order for a rigid robot to effectively navigate C-space narrow passages, we present two simple sliding local planners for sampling-based path planning. These planners either slide to the workspace medial axis or to the workspace boundary. In addition, we also propose a parallelized bidirectional RRT, a highly efficient global path planner. Our proposed local planners when integrated within our proposed global path planner can solve some of the benchmark basic motion planning problems more efficiently than possible with a straight-line local planner in combination with advanced sampling strategies. We observed only small variations in solution time when our global planner integrated our local planners with advanced sampling strategies. Our experimental results underscore the effectiveness of our proposed local planners in solving some of the basic motion planning problems.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207