MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901626279 · doi:10.1115/dscc2018-9224

Towards Integrated Planning and Control of Autonomous Vehicles Using Nested MPCs

2018· article· en· W2901626279 on OpenAlexafffund
Anson Maitland, John McPhee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMotion planningPath (computing)Controller (irrigation)Scheme (mathematics)Computer scienceCollisionCollision avoidanceControl theory (sociology)Control (management)Action (physics)Work (physics)Control engineeringEngineeringMathematicsRobotArtificial intelligenceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a strategy to integrate the planning and control for autonomous vehicles. The aim of this work is to provide a method that can yield controller feasible reference paths, i.e. paths that are not only dynamically feasible but are feasible under the action of a low-level feedback controller. The method is designed to find a control feasible parameterization of a collision-free path provided by a path generation scheme, e.g. rapidly-exploring random trees or one of its many variants. This parameterization is found such that the vehicle under the action of the low-level controller will be able to follow that path within a specified tolerance. The design is based on a feedback strategy with nested MPCs for planning and control. The results presented here are preliminary but hint at the benefits of such a strategy and suggest avenues for future work.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207