MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4314946923 · doi:10.1109/cdc51059.2022.9992384

A Pursuit Evasion Approach for Avoiding an Inattentive Human in the Presence of a Static Obstacle

2022· article· en· W4314946923 on OpenAlexafffund
Yi Feng Wang, Christopher Nielsen, Stephen L. Smith

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPursuit-evasionObstacleEvasion (ethics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer securityLawMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a mobile robot, modelled as a Dubins’ car, following a path. In the vicinity of the path is a human, modelled as an agile point mass, and a static obstacle. The robot’s objective is to follow the path unless it is absolutely necessary to deviate so as to avoid collision with the static obstacle or human. We seek to guarantee robot’s safety, even if the human is distracted or inattentive, and thus we consider worst-case motions for the human. The resulting problem takes the form of a reversed homicidal chauffeur game, but with the addition of a static obstacle. The static obstacle can interfere with the escape route of the robot, and thus fundamentally changes the form of the game. We propose a navigation algorithm for the robot that provably guarantees safety and that attempts to delay its reaction for as long as possible. We validate the proposed approach in simulation and provide a comparison to existing collision avoidance methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207