MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117690364 · doi:10.1109/irc.2020.00010

Catching a Robot Intruder with Limited Information

2020· article· en· W3117690364 on OpenAlexaff
Doron Nussbaum, Fedor Ilitchev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Computer scienceGuard (computer science)SoarArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceInformation retrievalProgramming languageDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides solutions and insight into a new set of problems of catching a mobile robot intruder using limited information about the intruder's location. The information about the intruder's location, which is termed a snapshot, is only available upon request. We formulate the problem of tracking and catching an intruder with limited number of snapshots, which we termed the Moving Target Search with Snapshots (MTSWS). In the MTSWS problem a mobile guard Ahis chasing a mobile intruder At in R2. Here, Ahknows the location of At either from a requested snapshot or if Ahis sufficiently close to At. The objective is to reduce the number of required snapshots and/or to reduce the distance travelled by Ah. We compute the number of snapshots that are necessary and sufficient to catch an intruder in the worst case. We also provide algorithmic solutions under a number of assumptions on the intruder's behaviour (e.g., intruder's random motion where At is oblivious to the actions taken by Ah. Last we provide solution to the problem when Ahis allowed to use k snapshots and determine the locations and the time that Ahshould take the snapshot.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207