MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396855513 · doi:10.3390/s24103100

Enhanced Path Planning and Obstacle Avoidance Based on High-Precision Mapping and Positioning

2024· article· en· W4396855513 on OpenAlexaff
Feng Zhang, Leijun Li, Peiquan Xu, Pengyu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shanghai
KeywordsObstacle avoidanceIterative closest pointComputer scienceRobotComputer visionPoint cloudObstacleArtificial intelligenceMotion planningMobile robotOvershoot (microwave communication)Path (computing)Collision avoidanceTrajectoryCollisionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-precision positioning and multi-target detection have been proposed as key technologies for robotic path planning and obstacle avoidance. First, the Cartographer algorithm was used to generate high-quality maps. Then, the iterative nearest point (ICP) and the occupation probability algorithms were combined to scan and match the local point cloud, and the positions and attitudes of the robot were obtained. Furthermore, Sparse Matrix Pose Optimization was carried out to improve the positioning accuracy. The positioning accuracy of the robot in x and y directions was kept within 5 cm, the angle error was controlled within 2°, and the positioning time was reduced by 40%. An improved timing elastic band (TEB) algorithm was proposed to guide the robot to move safely and smoothly. A critical factor was introduced to adjust the distance between the waypoints and the obstacle, generating a safer trajectory, and increasing the constraint of acceleration and end speed; thus, smooth navigation of the robot to the target point was achieved. The experimental results showed that, in the case of multiple obstacles being present, the robot could choose the path with fewer obstacles, and the robot moved smoothly when facing turns and approaching the target point by reducing its overshoot. The proposed mapping, positioning, and improved TEB algorithms were effective for high-precision positioning and efficient multi-target detection.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207