MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593192875 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2016.2609803

Obstacle Avoidance in Real Time With Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of Autonomous Vehicles

2017· article· en· W2593192875 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Muhammad A. Abbas, Ruth Milman, Johan Eklund

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCarSimModel predictive controlControl theory (sociology)Obstacle avoidanceTrajectoryComputer scienceController (irrigation)Nonlinear systemObstacleNonlinear modelVehicle dynamicsCollision avoidanceControl engineeringControl (management)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceMobile robotAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) for trajectory tracking with the obstacle avoidance of autonomous road vehicles traveling at realistic speeds is presented in this paper, with a focus on the performance of those controllers with respect to the look-ahead horizon of the NMPC. Two different methods of obstacle avoidance are compared and then the NMPC is tested in several simulated but realistic tracking scenarios involving static obstacles on constrained roadways. In order to simplify the vehicle dynamics, a bicycle model is used for the prediction of future vehicle states in the NMPC framework. However, a high-fidelity, nonlinear CarSim vehicle model is used to evaluate the vehicle performance and test the controllers in the simulation results. The CPU time is also analyzed to evaluate these schemes for real-time applications. The results show that the NMPC controller provides satisfactory online tracking performance in a realistic scenario at normal road speeds while still satisfying the real-time constraints. In addition, it is shown that the longer prediction horizons allow for better responses of the controllers, which reduce the deviations while avoiding the obstacles, as compared with shorter horizons.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations87
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer EngineeringSame topicVehicle Dynamics and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207