Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles Based on Sequential Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the development and analysis of a technique for planning the autonomous vehicle (AV) motion references using sequential optimization. The method determines the trajectory plan, speed and acceleration distributions, and other AV kinematic parameters. The approach combines the basics of the finite element method (FEM) and nonlinear optimization with nonlinear constraints. First, we briefly described the generalization of representing an arbitrary function by finite elements (FE) within a road segment. We chose a one-dimensional FE with two nodes and three degrees of freedom (DOF) in a node corresponding to the 5th-degree polynomial. Next, we presented a method for defining the motion trajectory. The following are considered: the formation of a restricted space for the AV’s allowable maneuvering, the motion trajectory geometry and its relation with vehicle steerability parameters, cost functions and their influences on the desirable trajectory’s nature, and the compliance of nonlinear restrictions of the node parameters with the motion area boundaries. In the second stage, we derived a technique for optimizing the AV’s speed and acceleration redistributions. The model considers possible combinations of objective functions, limiting the kinematic parameters by the tire slip critical speed, maximum speed level, maximum longitudinal acceleration, and critical lateral acceleration. In the simulation section, we compared several variants of trajectories and versions of distributing the longitudinal speed and acceleration curves. The advantages, drawbacks, and conclusions regarding the proposed technique are presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".