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 OpenAlexaff
Walaaeldin Ghadiry, Jalal Habibi, Amir G. Aghdam, Youmin Zhang

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Control Theory and ApplicationsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207