MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reinforcement Learning in Cognitive Robots for Autonomous Path Planning

2024· article· en· W4405938060 on OpenAlexaff
Archana Das, R. Indu Poornima, G. Deepa, K. Selva Sheela, Akshya Jothi, Mani Deepak Choudhry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceMotion planningRobotPath (computing)Mobile robotReinforcementHuman–computer interactionCognitionArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer networkSocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive robots are intelligent systems that learn from their environment, adapt to dynamic changes, and make decisions without a human's direct intervention. This research studies the integration of Reinforcement Learning in cognitive robots with Q-Learning for autonomous path planning. The study addresses the most critical issues in traditional A* and Dynamic Programming algorithms by devising path-planning techniques, mainly the lack of adaptability and computational efficiency in real-time and unpredictable environments. Our approach is based on Q-Learning, which is a model-free RL algorithm allowing the robots to find paths autonomously by optimizing their paths and avoiding obstacles. The Q-Learning algorithm provides the possibility of learning optimal policies for the robot through iterative interaction with its environment balanced between exploration and exploitation of the decision process. A reward system is utilized by the proposed model, encouraging the robot to explore shorter, collision-free paths and adjust based on feedback in real time from its surroundings. The model was found to be significantly better than its counterparts. In this context, as indicated, the Q-Learning model runs at 11.5 seconds, faster than A* at 18.3 seconds and Dynamic Programming at 16.7 seconds, yet with an accuracy of 94% and was found to have the highest collision avoidance rate at 98%. Additionally, the adaptability of the model about the environment presents a marked difference in terms of path length optimization, having done so with a mean path length of 12.3, compared to approaches or models. The robustness and scalability of the Q-Learning model make it highly applicable in real-world applications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207