MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W340734473 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v28i1.9050

Schedule-Based Robotic Search for Multiple Residents in a Retirement Home Environment

2014· article· en· W340734473 on OpenAlexafffund
Markus Schwenk, Tiago Vaquero, Goldie Nejat, Kai O. Arras

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoDeutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst
KeywordsScheduleUSBPlan (archaeology)Computer scienceOrder (exchange)RobotRecreationOperations researchArtificial intelligenceBusinessEngineeringFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we address the planning problem of a robot searching for multiple residents in a retirement home in order to remind them of an upcoming multi-person recreational activity before a given deadline. We introduce a novel Multi-User Schedule Based (M-USB) Search approach which generates a high-level-plan to maximize the number of residents that are found within the given time frame. From the schedules of the residents, the layout of the retirement home environment as well as direct observations by the robot, we obtain spatio-temporal likelihood functions for the individual residents. The main contribution of our work is the development of a novel approach to compute a reward to find a search plan for the robot using: 1) the likelihood functions, 2) the availabilities of the residents, and 3) the order in which the residents should be found. Simulations were conducted on a floor of a real retirement home to compare our proposed M-USB Search approach to a Weighted Informed Walk and a Random Walk. Our results show that the proposed M-USB Search finds residents in a shorter amount of time by visiting fewer rooms when compared to the other approaches.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207