MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962865729 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2019-0083

Motion modeling of a non-holonomic wheeled mobile robot based on trajectory tracking control

2019· article· en· W2962865729 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xuefeng Han, Mingda Ge, Jicheng Cui, Hao Wang, Wei Zhuang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryTracking (education)KinematicsControl theory (sociology)Mobile robotComputer scienceArtificial neural networkTransformation (genetics)RobotCoordinate systemTracking errorMotion controlSimulationControl (management)Artificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trajectory tracking is a problem of emphasis for the mobile robot. In this study, a coordinate transformation method was used to build a kinematic model of the wheeled mobile robot. A traditional proportional-integral-derivative control method was researched and improved by combining it with a neural network. A neural network proportional-integral-derivative trajectory tracking control method was thus designed, and a simulation experiment was performed using Simulink. The results show that in circular trajectory tracking control, the maximum errors of the X axis, Y axis, and θ were approximately 2.1 m, 2.3 m, and 0.4 rad, respectively, and that the system remained stable after running for 10 s. In straight-line trajectory tracking control, the maximum errors of the X axis, Y axis, and θ were approximately −0.8 m, 1.3 m, and 0.3 rad, respectively, and the system remained stable after running for 8 s. The error was relatively small, and the effect of trajectory tracking control was good. The studied method had good performance in terms of wheeled mobile robot trajectory tracking control and is worthy of further promotion and application.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207