Automated steering controller design for vehicle lane keeping combining linear active disturbance rejection control and quantitative feedback 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
In this article, a new automated steering control method is presented for vehicle lane keeping. This method is a combination between the linear active disturbance rejection control and the quantitative feedback theory. The structure of the steering controller is first determined based on the linear active disturbance rejection control, then the controller is tuned in the framework of the quantitative feedback theory to meet the prescribed design specifications on sensitivity and closed-loop stability. The parameter uncertainties of the vehicle system are considered at the tuning stage. The proposed steering controller is simulated and tested on a scale vehicle. Both the simulation and experimental results demonstrate that the scale vehicle controlled by the proposed controller is able to perform the lane keeping. In the experiments, the lateral offset between the scale vehicle and the road centerline is regulated within the acceptable ranges of ±0.03 m during straight lane keeping and ±0.15 m during curved lane keeping. The proposed controller is easy to be implemented and is simple without requiring complex calculations and measurements of vehicle states. Simulations also show that the control method can be implemented on a full-scale vehicle.
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) | 0.001 | 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