MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bouncing Robots in Rectilinear Polygons

2022· article· en· W4294975925 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersRyerson University
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe a bouncing strategy (smart strategy) for a mobile robot that uses one bit of memory for feedback, and guarantees that the robot will traverse all the rooms (and doorways) of a 2D environment. The environment is modeled as a rectilinear polygon (also called orthogonal polygon), and the rooms and the doorways are defined by the decomposition algorithm we describe. Such a decomposition helps the robot to not go back to a room after leaving. We also define the notion of “virtual doors” that have the ability to let the robot through, or make the robot bounce from them. We compared three different types of bouncing rules: smart, random, billiard. The smart strategy grantees to reach to target. Although the random strategy on average behaves the same as the smart strategy, there are rectilinear polygons in which the robot cannot reach the target in the expected time steps. On the other hand, the billiard bouncing strategy can cause the robot to become trapped.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207