MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316903042 · doi:10.2514/6.2011-1610

Rule-Based Cooperative Collision Avoidance Using Decentralized Model Predictive Control

2011· article· en· W2316903042 on OpenAlexaff
Hojjat A. Izadi, Brandon W. Gordon, Youmin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInfotech@Aerospace 2011 · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic control and management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollision avoidanceModel predictive controlComputer scienceCollisionControl (management)Control theory (sociology)Computer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rule-based decentralized model predictive control (DMPC) approach is employed to address the collision avoidance problem of multiple moving vehicles. Every vehicle uses model predictive control (MPC) to plan its trajectory towards its assigned target. The neighboring vehicles exchange their predicted trajectories at each sample time to predict the conflicts. Then, decentralized coordination and cooperation is performed to resolve the predicted conflicts. The Coordination part consists of online recalculation of the directed interaction graph topology to label conflicting vehicles as leader or follower. Between two conflicting vehicles, the vehicle with higher speed is labeled as leader and the other as follower. The Cooperation part consists of two simple rules, referred to as Heading-rule and Velocity-rule, which are often employed by human pedestrians to avoid potential collisions. The Heading-rule is first employed by both leader and follower to resolve the conflict. If it is not feasible to resolve the conflict by Heading-rule then the Velocity-rule is employed to decelerate the follower and accelerate the leader until the conflict is resolved. Numerous simulations of a team of unicycles are used to illustrate the proposed approach.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfotech@Aerospace 2011Same topicTraffic control and managementFrench-language works237,207