MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aerial Coverage Planning for Areas Hidden from the View of a Moving Ground Vehicle

2020· article· en· W3092171610 on OpenAlex
Barry Gilhuly, Stephen L. Smith

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityComputer scienceMotion planningInteger programmingLinear programmingReal-time computingOrienteeringBounded functionMathematical optimizationSet (abstract data type)Path (computing)Integer (computer science)PlannerRoute planningAlgorithmRobotMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the problem of path planning for a UAV, deployed to provide sensor coverage ahead of a moving ground vehicle. The ground vehicle travels a fixed route through an uncertain environment and requires information about the area ahead. Given this route, the UAV planner calculates the regions to be covered and the time by which each must be covered, as an orienteering Problem with Time Windows (OPTW) and solves it using a Mixed Integer Linear Program (MILP). To improve scalability, we prove that the optimization can be partitioned into a set of smaller problems, each of which may be solved independently without loss of overall solution optimality. Finally, we demonstrate a method of limited loss partitioning, which can perform a trade-off between improved solution time and a bounded objective loss. All of our results are validated in simulation.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207