MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393160543 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29707

Large-Scale Multi-Robot Coverage Path Planning via Local Search

2024· article· en· W4393160543 on OpenAlexafffund
Jingtao Tang, Hang Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScale (ratio)Motion planningComputer sciencePath (computing)RobotArtificial intelligenceGeographyCartographyComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study graph-based Multi-Robot Coverage Path Planning (MCPP) that aims to compute coverage paths for multiple robots to cover all vertices of a given 2D grid terrain graph G. Existing graph-based MCPP algorithms first compute a tree cover on G---a forest of multiple trees that cover all vertices---and then employ the Spanning Tree Coverage (STC) paradigm to generate coverage paths on the decomposed graph D of the terrain graph G by circumnavigating the edges of the computed trees, aiming to optimize the makespan (i.e., the maximum coverage path cost among all robots). In this paper, we take a different approach by exploring how to systematically search for good coverage paths directly on D. We introduce a new algorithmic framework, called LS-MCPP, which leverages a local search to operate directly on D. We propose a novel standalone paradigm, Extended-STC (ESTC), that extends STC to achieve complete coverage for MCPP on any decomposed graph, even those resulting from incomplete terrain graphs. Furthermore, we demonstrate how to integrate ESTC with three novel types of neighborhood operators into our framework to effectively guide its search process. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of LS-MCPP, consistently improving the initial solution returned by two state-of-the-art baseline algorithms that compute suboptimal tree covers on G, with a notable reduction in makespan by up to 35.7% and 30.3%, respectively. Moreover, LS-MCPP consistently matches or surpasses the results of optimal tree cover computation, achieving these outcomes with orders of magnitude faster runtime, thereby showcasing its significant benefits for large-scale real-world coverage tasks.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207