Human-Robot Collaborative Planning for Navigation Based on Optimal Control Theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Navigation modules are capable of driving a robotic platform without direct human participation. However, for some specific contexts, it is preferable to give the control to a human driver. The human driver participation in the robotic control process when the navigation module is running raises the share control issue. This work presents a new approach for two agents collaborative planning using the optimal control theory and the three-layer architecture. In particular, the problem of a human and a navigation module collaborative planning for a trajectory following is analyzed. The collaborative plan executed by the platform is a weighted summation of each agent control signal. As a result, the proposed architecture could be set to work in autonomous mode, in human direct control mode or in any aggregation of these two operating modes. A collaborative obstacle avoidance maneuver is used to validate this approach. The proposed collaborative architecture could be used for smart wheelchairs, telerobotics and unmanned vehicle applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it