MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406400369 · doi:10.1049/icp.2024.4516

Path planning simulation of a differential wheel robot based on the RRT Algorithm

2025· article· en· W4406400369 on OpenAlexaff
Mingyan Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueIET conference proceedings. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion planningDifferential (mechanical device)Computer sciencePath (computing)RobotMobile robotSimulationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAerospace engineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to overcome the constraints of current image-processing techniques and path-planning algorithms that hinder traditional navigation systems from reliably recognizing obstacles and designing effective paths. The study examines the progress of sophisticated path planning and tracking algorithms for differential wheel robots that operate in interior situations. The study utilizes MATLAB-based image processing techniques to turn real-world photos into binary maps, enabling efficient obstacle identification. The rapid-exploring random tree (RRT) technique is used to plan paths by exploring random nodes and avoiding barriers to find the most efficient pathways. Moreover, the implementation of the pursuit-prediction (PP) tracking algorithm enhances the robot's capacity to accurately follow the intended path by dynamically modifying its trajectory using real-time data. The results indicate that the suggested methods greatly enhance the precision of path planning and navigation, allowing the robot to effectively navigate through intricate surroundings containing diverse impediments, such as tables and chairs. This work provides useful insights into autonomous navigation systems, specifically for differential wheel robots, expanding their potential uses in indoor environments such as restaurants and improving their overall operational efficiency and dependability.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET conference proceedings.Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207