" Standard " Versus Optimized Trajectory Experiment " Standard " Trajectory GA-Optimized Trajectory V12 V12 V22 V22 H20 V9 H23 H23 V9 V10 H20 H2 H2 V7 V7 H17 V6 H15 H1 H3 H16 H5 V18 H4 V11 V14 H21 V8 V13 V10 H15 H17 V6 H16 H1 H3 H5 V18 H4 V14 H24 V11 H24 H21 V8 H19 V13 (a) H19 (b) 60 GA-Optimized Trajectory 50 40 30 16.9 mJ/cm2 20 10 60 13 12 9 11 23 10 15 8 14 21 16 20 24 1 22 17 19 13 7 5 6 18 4 2 0 " Standard " Trajectory 50 40 30 16.9 mJ/cm2 20 10 0 14 9 11 12 13 21 20 10 16 15 17 6 24 7 19 23 5 18 8 4 3 2 1 22 Absorbed Energy mJ/cm2 Absorbed Energy mJ/cm2 Final Absorbed Energy Marker Number 1m 0 mJ/cm2 100 (c) Figure 9. The results of the GA evaluation experiment. (a) The experimental setup. (b) Maps of the two experiments, which report the desired trajectory (shaded gray) and robot's actual trajectory (black) and the markers' positions and colors at the end of the experiment. The marker's code starts with " H " if it is horizontal (e.g., if it lies on the floor) or " V " if it is vertical (e.g., if it is attached on the wall). (c) Bar plots of the energy-density distribution in the two different conditions. MARCH 2021 * IEEE ROBOTICS & AUTOMATION MAGAZINE * 69