MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976416243 · doi:10.1109/lra.2019.2944060

Homotopic Approach for Robot Allocation Optimization Coupled With Path Constraints

2019· article· en· W2976416243 on OpenAlexaff
Weiran Yao, Naiming Qi, Yongbei Liu, Song Xu, Desong Du

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPath (computing)Task (project management)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationMotion planningRobotProcess (computing)Transformation (genetics)Distributed computingHomotopyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter investigates a special task allocation problem with constraints of path planning. The path planning process involved is defined as the follow-up step of task allocation. The allocation problem is coupled with path constraints, which will affect the utility of allocation solution. A homotopic approach featuring two homotopy primitives is proposed to resolve the complexity caused by the coupling between task allocation and path planning. Reference paths generated by the homotopic approach are transformed to desired task bundles for robots via transformation functions. A distributed task allocation architecture with market mechanism is employed to make consensus on task allocation solution in multi-robot. Simulation results validate the performance of the proposed methods comparing with conventional allocation methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207