Experimental study of path planning problem using EMCOA for a holonomic mobile robot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a comparative study of the path planning problem using evolutionary algorithms, in comparison with classical methods such as the A∗ algorithm, is presented for a holonomic mobile robot. The configured navigation system, which consists of the integration of sensors sources, map formatting, global and local path planners, and the base controller, aims to enable the robot to follow the shortest smooth path delicately. Grid-based mapping is used for scoring paths efficiently, allowing the determination of collision-free trajectories from the initial to the target position. This work considers the evolutionary algorithms, the mutated cuckoo optimization algorithm (MCOA) and the genetic algorithm (GA), as a global planner to find the shortest safe path among others. A non-uniform motion coefficient is introduced for MCOA in order to increase the performance of this algorithm. A series of experiments are accomplished and analyzed to confirm the performance of the global planner implemented on a holonomic mobile robot. The results of the experiments show the capacity of the planner framework with respect to the path planning problem under various obstacle layouts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".