Heading and position receding horizon control for trajectory generation
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
This paper presents a comparative study of two formulations of model predictive control with receding horizons for the cooperative control of a team of unmanned aerial vehicles. In the first formulation, the vehicle trajectories are solved dynamically as sequences of vehicle headings over prediction horizons and executed over shorter action horizons. This formulation takes advantage of an implementation of collision avoidance based on vehicle heading constraints. In the second formulation, the vehicle trajectories are solved as sequences of vehicle positions, rather than vehicle headings. This formulation handles collision avoidance with vehicle position constraints. An efficient branch-and-bound algorithm is proposed to support the mixed integer constraints, and a collision avoidance solution based on heading constraints is evaluated. This paper shows that both receding horizon formulations produce exactly the same vehicle trajectories when they are used without collision avoidance constraint. It is shown however that heading receding horizon control requires less computing power than position receding horizon control whether in situations of collision avoidance or not.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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