MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402215436 · doi:10.1109/tro.2024.3454417

Anytime Replanning of Robot Coverage Paths for Partially Unknown Environments

2024· article· en· W4402215436 on OpenAlexaff
Megnath Ramesh, Frank Imeson, Barış Fi̇dan, Stephen L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotMobile robotComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we propose a method to replan coverage paths for a robot operating in an environment with initially unknown static obstacles. Existing coverage approaches reduce coverage time by covering along the minimum number of coverage lines (straight-line paths). However, recomputing such paths online can be computationally expensive resulting in robot stoppages that increase coverage time. A naive alternative isgreedy detourreplanning, i.e., replanning with minimum deviation from the initial path, which is efficient to compute but may result in unnecessary detours. In this work, we propose an anytime coverage replanning approach namedOARP-Replanthat performs near-optimal replans to an interrupted coverage path within a given time budget. We do this by solving linear relaxations of integer linear programs to identify sections of the interrupted path that can be optimally replanned within the time budget. We validate OARP-Replan in simulation and perform comparisons against a greedy detour replanner and other state-of-the-art coverage planners. We also demonstrate OARP-Replan in experiments using an industrial-level autonomous robot.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207