MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908832955 · doi:10.1109/smc.2018.00226

Solving Home Robotics Challenges with Game Theory and Machine Learning

2018· article· en· W2908832955 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Lindsay, Sidney Givigi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning automataPID controllerAutomatonRobotComputer scienceAction (physics)Motion planningArtificial intelligencePath (computing)Finite-state machineAutomata theoryController (irrigation)RoboticsGame theoryMobile robotControl engineeringControl (management)EngineeringTemperature controlMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The home environment introduces many challenges for robots to operate, for the home is much more unstructured than the environments in which industrial or commercial robots are found. This paper looks at a path planning problem and how to dynamically tune PID controllers that are to be used in the home environment. The method used for tuning is Learning Automata, specifically Finite Action Learning Automata for the prediction of the presence of people and a game of Continuous Action Learning Automata for the derivation of PID controllers. Results show that the proposed method efficiently derives better controllers for path planning when compared to a PID controller derived with a classical method. Furthermore, the method used to find acceptable waypoints shows that the robot is able to approximate the location of people in a home-care application.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207