MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401863963 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2024.070307

Research on path planning of patrol robot based on multi-algorithm fusion

2024· article· en· W4401863963 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion planningComputer sciencePath (computing)FusionRobotArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A multi-algorithm fusion path planning algorithm for patrol robots was proposed, In order to improve the robot's path planning ability, optimize the search efficiency, improve the robot's path smoothness and improve the control accuracy. The A* algorithm is optimized through the search field and heuristic function to optimize the node search, avoid the expansion of redundant nodes and improve the search efficiency of the algorithm while ensuring the optimal global path. The improved A* algorithm still has node redundancy, excessive path transition and other phenomena. Floyd algorithm is used to introduce improved A* key nodes to optimize the improved A* algorithm again, eliminate redundant nodes, smooth the global path, and dynamically increase the number of key nodes for long-distance key nodes to effectively prevent path deviation. In view of the shortcomings of the improved A* algorithm in dynamic obstacle planning, the improved DWA algorithm is integrated to achieve local path planning, and the integrated path planning algorithm has local dynamic and unknown environment obstacle avoidance ability. Experiments show that the proposed fusion algorithm has the ability of global path planning and local path planning, which verifies the feasibility and effectiveness of the fusion algorithm.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence PracticeSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207