MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806851394 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2845448

Hybrid Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Driving in Highly Constrained Environments

2018· article· en· W2806851394 on OpenAlexafffund
Yu Zhang, Huiyan Chen, Steven L. Waslander, Jianwei Gong, Guangming Xiong, Kai Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of WaterlooNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceTrajectoryMotion planningMathematical optimizationPath (computing)Sampling (signal processing)State spaceControl theory (sociology)ComputationCollisionAlgorithmRobotMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce a novel and efficient hybrid trajectory planning method for autonomous driving in highly constrained environments. The contributions of this paper are fourfold. First, we present a trajectory planning framework that is able to handle geometry constraints, nonholonomic constraints, and dynamics constraints of cars in a humanlike and layered fashion and generate curvature-continuous, kinodynamically feasible, smooth, and collision-free trajectories in real time. Second, we present a derivative-free global path modification algorithm to extract high-order state information in free space for state sampling. Third, we extend the regular state-space sampling method widely used in on-road autonomous driving systems to a multi-phase deterministic state-space sampling method that is able to approximate complex maneuvers. Fourth, we improve collision checking accuracy and efficiency by using a different car footprint approximation strategy and a two-phase collision checking routine. A range of challenging simulation experiments show that the proposed method returns high-quality trajectories in real time and outperforms existing planners, such as hybrid A* and conjugate-gradient descent path smoother in terms of path quality, efficiency, and computation resources used.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations139
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207