MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On-road Trajectory Planning with Spatio-temporal RRT* and Always-feasible Quadratic Program

2020· article· en· W3091964200 on OpenAlexaff
Bai Li, Qi Kong, Youmin Zhang, Zhijiang Shao, Yumeng Wang, Xiaoyan Peng, Daxun Yan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrajectoryMathematical optimizationComputer scienceQuadratic programmingSampling (signal processing)Flexibility (engineering)RandomnessCurse of dimensionalityBenchmark (surveying)DecompositionMotion planningPlannerQuadratic equationSet (abstract data type)Trajectory optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceRobotDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On-road trajectory planning is a critical module in an autonomous driving system. Instead of using a path-velocity decomposition or longitudinal-lateral decomposition strategy, this work aims to find a trajectory directly. We adopt a sampleand-search planner to get a coarse trajectory and then polish it via numerical optimization. Among the predominant sampleand-search planners, most of the sampling operations are not flexible, which inevitably lead to a solution failure if the sampling density is low, and suffer from the curse of dimensionality if the sampling density is set high. This work proposes a modified RRT* for trajectory search, aiming to promote the sampling flexibility and to get rid of the search randomness. A quadratic program (QP) based smoother is proposed to refine the coarse trajectory. Herein, the scale of the QP problem is fixed and tractable, and the feasibility of the QP problem is always guaranteed.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207