MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971925930 · doi:10.1109/cdc40024.2019.9029915

Robotic Coverage for Continuous Mapping Ahead of a Moving Vehicle

2019· preprint· en· W2971925930 on OpenAlexaff
Barry Gilhuly, Stephen L. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvaturePlan (archaeology)Path (computing)Computer scienceCover (algebra)Set (abstract data type)Simple (philosophy)Class (philosophy)SimulationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeometryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we investigate the problem of using a UAV to provide current map information of the environment in front of a moving ground vehicle. We propose a simple coverage plan called a conformal lawn mower plan that enables a UAV to scan the route ahead of the ground vehicle. The plan requires only limited knowledge of the ground vehicle's future path. For a class of curvature-constrained ground vehicle paths, we show that the proposed plan requires a UAV velocity that is no more than twice the velocity required to cover the optimal plan. We also establish necessary and sufficient UAV velocities, relative to the ground vehicle velocity, required to successfully cover any path in the curvature restricted set. In simulation, we validate the proposed plan, showing that the required velocity to provide coverage is strongly related to the curvature of the ground vehicle's path. Our results also illustrate the relationship between mapping requirements and the relative velocities of the UAV and ground vehicle.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207