MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766349270 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1114

A Stochastic Learning Approach for Construction of Brick Structures with a Ground Robot

2017· article· en· W2766349270 on OpenAlexaff
Sérgio R. Barros dos Santos, Diego O. Dantas, Sidney Givigi, Luciano Buonocore, Areolino A. Neto, Cairo Lúcio Nascimento

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningRobotTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Process (computing)Computer scienceParticle swarm optimizationArchitectureBrickMobile robotArtificial intelligenceEngineeringControl engineeringMachine learningSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe an architectural framework by which a mobile robot can learn how to autonomously assemble solid 3D brick structures according to user-specified designs. The policies of actions to perform the construction task are obtained from a simulation environment using Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) approaches. The proposed planning architecture is used to simultaneously solve three problems: 1) to generate feasible construction policies, 2) to define the set of maneuvers for the vehicle to carry out the assembly task, and 3) to obtain the set of trajectories for handling and mounting parts while avoiding fixed obstacles. During the learning process the power limitation of the ground robot is taken into account. Simulation results show that the set of learned actions may efficiently perform the construction procedures without resulting in conditions which prevent the fulfillment of the assembly procedures. The synthesis of this system opens the way to the development of intelligent construction approaches using ground robots.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207