Cooperative Robot Exploration Strategy Using an Efficient Backtracking Method for Multiple Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a cooperative robot exploration (CRE) strategy that is based on the sensor-based random tree (SRT) star method. The CRE strategy is utilized for a team of mobile robots equipped with range finding sensors. Existing backtracking techniques for frontier-based (FB) exploration involve moving back thorough the previous position where the robot has passed before. However, in some cases, the robot generates inefficient detours to move back to the position that contains frontier areas. In an effort to improve upon movement and energy efficiencies, this paper proposes the use of a hub node that has a frontier arc; thereby, the robots backtrack more directly to hub nodes by using the objective function. Furthermore, each robot cooperatively explores the workspace utilizing the data structure from the entire team of robots, which consists of configuration data and frontier data. Comparative simulations of the proposed algorithm and the existing SRT-star algorithm are implemented and described. The experiment is presented to demonstrate the application of the proposed strategy in real-time. Utilizing the proposed algorithm and exploration strategy, the results indicate that a team of robots can work more efficiently by reducing the distance of exploration and the number of node visited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".