MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bidirectional Search Strategy for Incremental Search-based Path Planning

2023· article· en· W4389666466 on OpenAlexaff
Chenming Li, Han Ma, Jiankun Wang, Max Q.‐H. Meng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMotion planningComputer sciencePath (computing)Artificial intelligenceSearch algorithmRobotRoboticsPerceptionGraphRange (aeronautics)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning a collision-free path efficiently among obstacles is crucial in robotics. Conventional one-shot unidirectional path planning algorithms work well in the static environment, but cannot respond to the environment changes timely in the dynamic environment. To tackle this issue and improve the search efficiency, we propose a bidirectional incremental search method, Bidirectional Lifelong Planning A* (BLPA*), which searches in the forward and backward directions and performs incremental search bidirectionally when the environment changes. Furthermore, inspired by the robot perception range limitation and BLPA*, we propose the fractional bidirectional D* Lite (fBD* Lite(d <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">p</inf> )), which constraints the forward search to the robot perception range and uses the backward search to expand the rest area. Our simulation results demonstrate BLPA* and mD* Lite(d <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">p</inf> ) can achieve superior performance in the dynamic environment. It reveals that the bidirectional incremental search strategy can be a general and efficient technique for graph-search-based robot path planning 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207