MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scenario-based Model Predictive Control for Path Planning and Obstacle Avoidance

2021· article· en· W3180468800 on OpenAlexaff
Xinxin Shang, Jicheng Chen, Songlin Zhuang, Yang Shi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacle avoidanceMotion planningMathematical optimizationObstacleConvexityPath (computing)Computer scienceModel predictive controlConvex optimizationFunction (biology)Any-angle path planningControl (management)Regular polygonMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMobile robotRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A basic problem in path planning is to regulate an appropriate path with the purpose of minimizing a cost function of interest under conditions of obstacle avoidance and model dynamics satisfaction. The cost function can be further minimized if some constraints are allowed to be violated with a guaranteed probability in some practical cases. However, very few results are reported about path planning with a preferred probability of constraints violation. In this paper, we investigate the scenario-based stochastic model predictive control (SCMPC) problem for path planning and obstacle avoidance. We find out the main reason that prevents the SCMPC approach to work for path planning is that the obstacles are commonly formulated as non-convex constraints, and a fundamental assumption in the field of SCMPC approach is the convexity of all the constraints. To address this problem, we propose a novel concept of candidate path, which is used to explicitly denote all the possible combinations of linear constraints. A conditional-scenario algorithm is accordingly developed that turns the original non-convex optimization problem to several convex subproblems. Simulation results verify the validity of the presented theories.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207