MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175465930 · doi:10.1609/icaps.v31i1.15961

Jump Point Search with Temporal Obstacles

2021· article· en· W3175465930 on OpenAlexafffund
Shuli Hu, Daniel Harabor, Graeme Gange, Peter J. Stuckey, Nathan Sturtevant

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAustralian Research CouncilMonash UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsJumpPoint (geometry)Computer scienceVariety (cybernetics)GridPath (computing)Motion planningSpace (punctuation)Order (exchange)Artificial intelligenceRoboticsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmRobotMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 4-connected grid-based path planning one often needs to account for temporal and moving obstacles: ones that appear, disappear and which can prevent the agent from reaching its target. Such problems are common in a variety of settings (games, robotics etc.) and they can be surprisingly challenging to solve. First, because the temporal aspect increases the size of the search space; second because the search space contains many symmetric paths, indistinguishable from one another except by the order in which grid moves appear. To tackle such problems we consider a new optimal algorithm – in the style of Jump Point Search – which can identify and break these symmetries and thus improves performance; from several factor to more than one order of magnitude vs. SIPP, arguably the gold standard baseline in the area.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and SchedulingSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207