Investigating the Impact of Triangle and Quadrangle Mesh Representations on AGV Path Planning for Various Indoor Environments: With or Without Inflation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a factory with different kinds of spatial atmosphere (warehouses, corridors, small or large workshops with varying sizes of obstacles and distribution patterns), the robot’s generated paths for navigation tasks mainly depend on the representation of that environment. Hence, finding the best representation for each particular environment is necessary to forge a compromise between length, safety, and complexity of path planning. This paper aims to scrutinize the impact of environment model representation on the performance of an automated guided vehicle (AGV). To do so, a multi-objective cost function, considering the length of the path, its complexity, and minimum distance to obstacles, is defined for a perfect circular robot. Unlike other similar studies, three types of representation, namely quadrangle, irregular triangle, and varying-size irregular triangle, are then utilized to model the environment while applying an inflation layer to the discretized view. Finally, a navigation scenario is tested for different cell decomposition methods and an inflation layer size. The obtained results indicate that a nearly constant coarse size triangular mesh is a good candidate for a fixed-size robot in a non-changing environment. Moreover, the varying size of the triangular mesh and grid cell representations are better choices for factories with changing plans and multi-robot sizes due to the effect of the inflation layer. Based on the definition of a metric, which is a criterion for quantifying the performance of path planning on a representation type, constant or variable size triangle shapes are the only and best candidate for discretization in about 59% of industrial environments. In other cases, both cell types, the square and the triangle, can together be the best representation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".