Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Yasmine Ghallab

dblp:07/3459 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1992
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Motion planning and robot control · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
collision prediction
0.011992
Experimental results with the dynamic urgency algorithm · ICRA 1992
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
motion planning
0.011992
Experimental results with the dynamic urgency algorithm · ICRA 1992

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

sorting algorithm comparison · 0.0distance function · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1992 Experimental results with the dynamic urgency algorithm
abstract
Some experiments as well as some applications relative to an algorithm for collision prediction, the dynamic urgency algorithm (DUA), are presented. The purpose of the experiments is to gain some insight into the behavior of DUA and illustrate its validity. A brief explanation of the algorithm is presented, and the tests which have been made are described. A discussion of the results is presented. Comparing DUA to the full sorting algorithm where tau is calculated, a lower growth of the computational time (up to a ratio of 1:80) is noted, with in turn some erroneous alerts. On the other hand, the sequencing scheme seems to be efficient in 2/3 of the time for the prediction of the most urgent pair. Furthermore, comparing DUA to the full sorting algorithm where the distance function is calculated, it is confirmed that including the rate of change of the environment is more reliable as far as the belief of the most imminent pair is concerned.>
Yasmine Ghallab, Vincent Hayward
ICRA1