Efficient Deep Reinforcement Learning for Optimal Path Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a novel deep reinforcement learning (DRL) method for optimal path planning for mobile robots using dynamic programming (DP)-based data collection. The proposed method can overcome the slow learning process and improve training data quality inherently in DRL algorithms. The main idea of our approach is as follows. First, we mapped the dynamic programming method to typical optimal path planning problems for mobile robots, and created a new efficient DP-based method to find an exact, analytical, optimal solution for the path planning problem. Then, we used high-quality training data gathered using the DP method for DRL, which greatly improves training data quality and learning efficiency. Next, we established a two-stage reinforcement learning method where, prior to the DRL, we employed extreme learning machines (ELM) to initialize the parameters of actor and critic neural networks to a near-optimal solution in order to significantly improve the learning performance. Finally, we illustrated our method using some typical path planning tasks. The experimental results show that our DRL method can converge much easier and faster than other methods. The resulting action neural network is able to successfully guide robots from any start position in the environment to the goal position while following the optimal path and avoiding collision with obstacles.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".