MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405908135 · doi:10.1109/mra.2024.3505772

A Survey on Small-Scale Testbeds for Connected and Automated Vehicles and Robot Swarms: A Guide for Creating a New Testbed [Survey]

2024· article· en· W4405908135 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestbedRobotComputer scienceScale (ratio)Mobile robotEmbedded systemHuman–computer interactionReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceComputer networkGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) and robot swarms (RSs) hold transformative potential for enhancing safety, efficiency, and sustainability in the transportation and manufacturing sectors. Extensive testing and validation of these technologies are crucial for their deployment in the real world. While simulations are essential for initial testing, they often have limitations in capturing the complex dynamics of real-world interactions. This limitation underscores the importance of small-scale testbeds. These testbeds provide a realistic, cost-effective, and controlled environment for testing and validating algorithms, acting as an essential intermediary between simulation and full-scale experiments. This work serves to facilitate researchers’ efforts in identifying existing small-scale testbeds suitable for their experiments and provide insights for those who want to build their own. In addition, it delivers a comprehensive survey of the current landscape of these testbeds. We derive 62 characteristics of testbeds based on the well-known <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">sense–plan–act</i> paradigm and offer an online table comparing 23 small-scale testbeds based on these characteristics. The online table is hosted on our designated public webpage, <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://bassamlab.github.io/testbeds-survey</uri>, and we invite testbed creators and developers to contribute to it. We closely examine nine testbeds in this article, demonstrating how the derived characteristics can be used to present testbeds. Furthermore, we discuss three ongoing challenges concerning small-scale testbeds that we identified, i.e., small-scale to full-scale transition, sustainability, and power and resource management.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.310
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