↓ Skip to main content

Approaches for Efficiently Detecting Frontier Cells in Robotics Exploration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Robotics and AI, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Approaches for Efficiently Detecting Frontier Cells in Robotics Exploration
Published in
Frontiers in Robotics and AI, February 2021
DOI 10.3389/frobt.2021.616470
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip Quin, Dac Dang Khoa Nguyen, Thanh Long Vu, Alen Alempijevic, Gavin Paul

Abstract

Many robot exploration algorithms that are used to explore office, home, or outdoor environments, rely on the concept of frontier cells. Frontier cells define the border between known and unknown space. Frontier-based exploration is the process of repeatedly detecting frontiers and moving towards them, until there are no more frontiers and therefore no more unknown regions. The faster frontier cells can be detected, the more efficient exploration becomes. This paper proposes several algorithms for detecting frontiers. The first is called Naïve Active Area (NaïveAA) frontier detection and achieves frontier detection in constant time by only evaluating the cells in the active area defined by scans taken. The second algorithm is called Expanding-Wavefront Frontier Detection (EWFD) and uses frontiers from the previous timestep as a starting point for searching for frontiers in newly discovered space. The third approach is called Frontier-Tracing Frontier Detection (FTFD) and also uses the frontiers from the previous timestep as well as the endpoints of the scan, to determine the frontiers at the current timestep. Algorithms are compared to state-of-the-art algorithms such as Naïve, WFD, and WFD-INC. NaïveAA is shown to operate in constant time and therefore is suitable as a basic benchmark for frontier detection algorithms. EWFD and FTFD are found to be significantly faster than other algorithms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 8 33%
Computer Science 6 25%
Unknown 10 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2021.
All research outputs
#14,429,961
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Robotics and AI
#768
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,834
of 419,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Robotics and AI
#33
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.