MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174973594 · doi:10.35708/rc1869-126260

Identifying Hazardous Shapes in the Plane

2020· article· en· W3174973594 on OpenAlexaff
Doron Nussbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Robotic Computing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotVertex (graph theory)Regular polygonLine segmentMobile robotHazardous wasteA priori and a posterioriEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionLine (geometry)Computer sciencePlane (geometry)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceCombinatoricsMathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringGeometryGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the problem of identifying the shapes of invisible hazardous entities in R2 by a set S = {s1, s2, . . . , sk} of mobile sensors (autonomous robots). A hazardous entity, H, is a region that affects the operation of robots that either penetrate the area or come in contact with it. In this paper, we propose algorithms for searching a rectangular region for a stationary hazardous entity, where some a priori geometrical knowledge is given (e.g., edge size range), and if such an entity exists, then determine the area that it occupies. We explore entities that are convex in nature such as line segment, circles (discs), and simple convex shapes. The objectives are to minimize the distance travelled by the robots during the search phase, and to minimize the number of robots that are required to identify the region covered by the hazardous entity. The number of robots required to locate H is three or four robots when H is a line segment, two or three robots when H is a circle, and seven robots are sufficient when H is a triangle. Our results extend to n-vertex convex shapes and we show that 2n + 1 robots are sufficient to determine the coverage of H.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Robotic ComputingSame topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207