Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles Based on Sequential Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the substantiation, development, and analysis of a technique for planning the autonomous vehicle (AV) motion reference parameters. The trajectory plan, speed and acceleration distributions, including other AV's kinematic parameters, are determined using sequential optimization. The study objectives are based on an analysis of the fundamental problems of AV motion planning summarized in this area's latest publications. The proposed approach combines the basic principles of the finite element method (FEM) and nonlinear optimization with nonlinear constraints. First, the generalization on representing an investigated function by finite elements (FE) is briefly described. A one-dimension FE with two nodes and three degrees of freedom (DOF) in a node was chosen as the basic one, corresponding to the 5th-degree polynomial. Next, a method for determining the motion trajectory is presented. The following are considered: formation of a restricted space for the AV's allowable maneuvering, the geometry of motion trajectory and its relation with vehicle steerability parameters, cost functions and their influences on the desirable trajectory's nature, compliance of nonlinear restrictions of the node parameters with the motion area boundaries. At the second stage, a technique for optimizing AV speed and acceleration redistribution is presented. The model considers possible combinations of cost functions, conditions of limiting the kinematic parameters with the tire slip critical speed, maximum speed level, maximum longitudinal acceleration, and critical lateral acceleration. In the simulation section, several variants of trajectories were searched and compared. Several versions of distributing the longitudinal speed and acceleration curves are determined, and their comparative analysis is fulfilled. At the end of the paper, the advantages and drawbacks of the proposed technique are noted. The conclusion is made regarding the options for improving the method in further studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".