MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034159639 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2020.2994122

Force-Based Algorithm for Motion Planning of Large Agent

2020· article· en· W3034159639 on OpenAlexaff
Samaneh Hosseini Semnani, Anton de Ruiter, Hugh H. T. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Collision avoidancePosition (finance)ScalabilityMotion planningComputer scienceOverhead (engineering)Motion (physics)CollisionAlgorithmTerm (time)State (computer science)Relative velocityDistributed computingSimulationArtificial intelligenceRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a distributed, efficient, scalable, and real-time motion planning algorithm for a large group of agents moving in 2-D or 3-D spaces. This algorithm enables autonomous agents to generate individual trajectories independently with only the relative position information of neighboring agents. Each agent applies a force-based control that contains two main terms: 1) collision avoidance and 2) navigational feedback. The first term keeps two agents separate with a certain distance, while the second term attracts each agent toward its goal location. Compared with existing collision-avoidance algorithms, the proposed force-based motion planning (FMP) algorithm can find collision-free motions with lower transition time, free from velocity state information of neighboring agents. It leads to less computational overhead. The performance of proposed FMP is examined over several dense and complex 2-D and 3-D benchmark simulation scenarios, with results outperforming existing 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)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on CyberneticsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207