2D Lidar-Based SLAM and Path Planning for Indoor Rescue Using Mobile Robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the basic system of the rescue robot, the SLAM system largely determines whether the rescue robot can complete the rescue mission. Although the current 2D Lidar-based SLAM algorithm, including its application in indoor rescue environment, has achieved much success, the evaluation of SLAM algorithms combined with path planning for indoor rescue has rarely been studied. This paper studies mapping and path planning for mobile robots in an indoor rescue environment. Combined with path planning algorithm, this paper analyzes the applicability of three SLAM algorithms (GMapping algorithm, Hector-SLAM algorithm, and Cartographer algorithm) in indoor rescue environment. Real-time path planning is studied to test the mapping results. To balance path optimality and obstacle avoidance, A ∗ algorithm is used for global path planning, and DWA algorithm is adopted for local path planning. Experimental results validate the SLAM and path planning algorithms in simulated, emulated, and competition rescue environments, respectively. Finally, the results of this paper may facilitate researchers quickly and clearly selecting appropriate algorithms to build SLAM systems according to their own demands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".