MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408152573 · doi:10.1504/ijcse.2025.10069763

IQ-RRT*: a path planning algorithm based on informed-RRT* and quick-RRT*

2025· article· en· W4408152573 on OpenAlex
A. K. M. Anisur Rahman, Anindita Kundu, Sumanta Banerjee

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

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Science and Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsHeritage College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)Computer scienceMotion planningAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal path planning algorithms such as the RRT* and its variants seek to generate the best feasible path from an initial state to a goal state in the least possible time. Prior work on RRT* has focused on improving the convergence rate of the algorithm while keeping its computational complexity unchanged. Informed-RRT* and quick-RRT* are two such variants that, in certain scenarios, converge to the optimal path faster than RRT* does. This work focuses on the novel addition of informed sampling to quick-RRT* to enhance its convergence rate. The resultant algorithm provides initial solutions with costs comparable to quick-RRT* and convergence rates at par with quick-RRT* in the worst case. The authors have concluded that this new algorithm, named IQ-RRT*, outperforms informed-RRT* and quick-RRT* in a multitude of scenarios. IQ-RRT*, unlike quick-RRT*, is a faster alternative to informed-RRT* even in cluttered environments and mazes with long corridors.

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)0.001
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 score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.264 · 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