If a late field loses yield instead of failing a hard deadline, does a scout-and-treater fleet still lose to inline weeding robots?
research/osrobot-deadlineloss
Replaces the hard deadline of osrobot-deadline with a 2% yield loss per leaf stage of delay (Knezevic et al. 2003): the best pipeline costs 1.06 to 1.20 times the best inline fleet at 0.72 ha and 1.49 to 1.51 at 0.18 ha, and at 1.62 ha inline is cheaper when the window closes by 8 h and the pipeline from 12 h
What it found
A stdlib extension of osrobot-deadline (no new simulation; fleet prices still assumed round numbers) that charges each late field 2% of its revenue per leaf stage of delay past the window, the pooled corn and soybean figure of Knezevic, Evans & Mainz (2003, Crop Management 2(1)). Leaf-stage length (2, 4, 8 days), an 8 h working day and revenue (1,000 and 2,000 USD/ha) are swept, not sourced. For 16 equal fields the fleet minimising fleet cost plus lost yield is searched over up to four scouts, 16 treaters and 32 inline robots. Pipeline over inline cost is 1.06 to 1.20 at 0.72 ha and 1.49 to 1.51 at 0.18 ha in every cell; at 1.62 ha it ranges 0.89 to 1.18, with inline cheaper when the window closes by 8 h (12.27 against 13.07 USD/ha at 2,000 USD/ha revenue and a 4-day stage) and the pipeline cheaper from 12 h. Late loss reaches 8.56 USD/ha in the worst cell against about 12 of fleet cost. Limits: the 2% rate is for corn and soybean up to canopy closure and is applied linearly; stage length and revenue unsourced; equal fields, one window, no weather or failures; search capped at four scouts.
A figure from its own output
Paper, code and results
More in Open-source purpose-built robots
- What does a 2-joint feeding arm cost against a 6-joint one once the whole bill of materials is priced?What does a 2-joint feeding arm cost against a 6-joint one once the whole bill of materials is priced? About 1.8 times, not 3: $66 against $122 at the SO-ARM101 table's $13.89 servo, rising to 2.4 times at a $49 retail servo.
- Does treating weeds as you drive still beat scouting first when the robot uses published laser-weeder numbers?Re-running the
osrobot-fieldweeding model with sourced laser-weeder constants (2 m swath, 0.73 s per weed, 99.2% kill) halves the time but keeps the ranking: inline treatment takes 71.7 min against 79.3 for scout-then-treat at 0.3 weeds/m² and 1 km/h, and scout never wins across densities, speeds and detector hit rates - Can a stdlib static linter catch the lab-protocol faults the Opentrons simulator accepts?Can a stdlib static linter catch the lab-protocol faults the Opentrons simulator accepts? It flags 362 of the 522 seeded faults to the simulator's 270, adding reused tips, tips left on, sub-minimum volumes and carry-over; stylised, partly circular.
- Does the MuJoCo feeding-arm result change when the lips have the ISO/TS 15066 face stiffness and the safe force comes from the standard?At the ISO/TS 15066 face stiffness (75 N/mm) the blocked-arm impact peak only doubles (7.56 N against 3.68 N at 0.10 m/s), and every camera-arm trial stays under the 65 N and 130 N face limits (worst peak 53 N), where the assumed 2 N limit had flagged most; contact damping is unsourced and swept (MuJoCo, simulation only)
- How much force can a feeding-arm tip apply to a lip before the tissue bottoms out on bone?With tissue as a 5 to 20 mm layer bonded to bone at 4 to 45 kPa, the force that indents it 30 % is 0.05 to 9 N, 1.3 to 1000 times below the simulated 12.6 to 53 N trial forces, so the arm needs a newton-scale force cap, not 65 N (published bottom-effect corrections, no FE run)
- Is the feeding-arm tip's contact pressure computable at a measured face modulus?Published in-vivo face and lip moduli are 4 to 45 kPa, below the 0.05 to 5 MPa that osrobot-mjpress swept; at them a 4 mm tip at 53 N would sink 48 to 241 mm in a Hertz model, so the model is out of range and tip radius or depth, not 65 N, is the design question (closed-form, simulation forces)
All 44 Open-source purpose-built robots projects →
Other research topics
Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1
Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.