MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206404584 · doi:10.1109/smc52423.2021.9659071

RRT-Rope: A deterministic shortening approach for fast near-optimal path planning in large-scale uncluttered 3D environments

2021· article· en· W4206404584 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Petit, Alexis Lussier Desbiens

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom treePath (computing)ComputationComputer scienceRopeMotion planningProbabilistic logicMathematical optimizationScale (ratio)Tree (set theory)Distributed computingAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer networkRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many path planning algorithms have been introduced so far, but most are costly, in path cost and in processing time, in large-scale uncluttered 3D environments such as underground mining stopes explored by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) algorithms are popular because of their probabilistic completeness and rapidity in finding a feasible path in single-query problems. Many of the algorithms (e.g. Informed RRT*, RRT#) developed to improve RRT need considerable time to converge in large environments. Shortcutting an RRT is an old idea that has been proven to outperform RRT variants. This paper introduces a new method, RRT-Rope, that aims at finding a near-optimal solution in a drastically shorter amount of time. The proposed approach benefits from fast computation of a feasible path with an altered version of RRT-connect, and post-processes it quickly with a deterministic shortcutting technique, taking advantage of intermediate nodes added to each branch of the tree. This paper presents simulations and statistics carried out to show the efficiency of RRT-Rope, which gives better results in terms of path cost and computation time than other popular RRT variations and shortening techniques in all our simulation environments, and is up to 70% faster than the next best algorithm in a representative stope.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207