Paper detail

Estimating Robot Strengths with Application to Selection of Alliance Members in FIRST Robotics Competitions

Since the inception of the FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) and its special playoff system, robotics teams have longed to appropriately quantify the strengths of their designed robots. The FRC includes a playground draft-like phase (alliance selection), arguably the most game-changing part of the competition, in which the top-8 robotics teams in a tournament based on the FRC's ranking system assess potential alliance members for the opportunity of partnering in a playoff stage. In such a three-versus-three competition, several measures and models have been used to characterize actual or relative robot strengths. However, existing models are found to have poor predictive performance due to their imprecise estimates of robot strengths caused by a small ratio of the number of observations to the number of robots. A more general regression model with latent clusters of robot strengths is, thus, proposed to enhance their predictive capacities. Two effective estimation procedures are further developed to simultaneously estimate the number of clusters, clusters of robots, and robot strengths. Meanwhile, some measures are used to assess the predictive ability of competing models, the agreement between published FRC measures of strength and model-based robot strengths of all, playoff, and FRC top-8 robots, and the agreement between FRC top-8 robots and model-based top robots. Moreover, the stability of estimated robot strengths and accuracies is investigated to determine whether the scheduled matches are excessive or insufficient. In the analysis of qualification data from the 2018 FRC Houston and Detroit championships, the predictive ability of our model is also shown to be significantly better than those of existing models. Teams who adopt the new model can now appropriately rank their preferences for playoff alliance partners with greater predictive capability than before.

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.