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

David Waletzko

dblp:67/2966 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2Systems, architecture and hardware · 2

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
2 papers
Legged, aerial and field robots · 58% Multi-agent systems · 21% Robot manipulation · 21%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots
field robotics
0.122003
Heterogeneous implementation of an adaptive robotic sensing team · ICRA 2003
Mobility Enhancements to the Scout Robot Platform · ICRA 2002
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › multi-robot systems
heterogeneous robot teams
0.012003
Heterogeneous implementation of an adaptive robotic sensing team · ICRA 2003
Robotics › Robot manipulation › robot design
robot platform design
0.012003
Heterogeneous implementation of an adaptive robotic sensing team · ICRA 2003
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots
miniature robot
0.012002
Mobility Enhancements to the Scout Robot Platform · ICRA 2002

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

heterogeneous sensing · 0.0grappling hook · 0.0actuating wheels · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Heterogeneous implementation of an adaptive robotic sensing team
abstract
When designing a mobile robotic team, an engineer is faced with many design choices. This paper discusses the design of a team consisting of two different models of robots with significantly different sensing and control capabilities intended to accomplish a similar task. Two new robotic platforms, the COTS Scout and the MegaScout are described along with their respective design considerations.
Bradley Kratochvil, Ian T. Burt, Andrew Drenner, Derek Goerke, Bennett Jackson, Colin McMillen, Christopher Olson, Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Adam Pfeifer, Sascha Stoeter, Kristen Stubbs, David Waletzko
ICRA12
2002 Mobility Enhancements to the Scout Robot Platform
abstract
When a distributed robotic system is assigned to perform reconnaissance or surveillance, restrictions inherent to the design of an individual robot limit the system's performance in certain environments. Finding an ideal portable robotic platform capable of deploying and returning information in spatially restrictive areas is not a simple task. The Scout robot, developed at the University of Minnesota, is a viable robotic platform for these types of missions. The small form factor of the Scout allows for deployment, placement, and concealment of a team of robots equipped with a variety of sensory packages. However, the design of the Scout requires a compromise in power, sensor types, locomotion, and size; together these factors prevent an individual Scout from operating ideally in some environments. Several attempts to address these deficiencies have been implemented and are discussed. Among the prototype solutions are actuating wheels, allowing the Scout to increase ground clearance in varying terrains, a grappling hook enabling the Scout to obtain a position of elevated observation, and infrared emitters to facilitate low light operation.
Andrew Drenner, Ian T. Burt, Tom Dahlin, Bradley Kratochvil, Colin McMillen, Bradley J. Nelson, Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Paul E. Rybski, Kristen Stubbs, David Waletzko, Kemal Berk Yesin
ICRA10