MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996100267 · doi:10.1049/iet-cta.2019.0281

Generalised formulations for minimum distance trajectory in patrolling problems

2019· article· en· W2996100267 on OpenAlex
Walaaeldin Ghadiry, Jalal Habibi, Amir G. Aghdam, Youmin Zhang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Control Theory and Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatrollingTrajectoryControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceControl (management)PhysicsLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, three general formulations are presented for trajectory optimisation in patrolling problems. In the traditional patrolling problem, some basic assumptions are made (often implicitly). For example, it is known how many robots and how many starting depots exist. Furthermore, the starting depots are assumed to be pre‐specified. Each of the three formulations provided here relaxes some (or all) of these assumptions, hence generalising the patrolling problem. A group of robots are supposed to travel through a number of nodes (viewpoints) in such an order so that the total travel distance is minimised. This problem is, in fact, a variant of the Travelling Salesman Problem and is called Multidepot multiple Travelling Salesman Problem. The effectiveness of the approach is demonstrated by comparing the results with those in the literature.

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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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