MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226299421 · doi:10.1109/tac.2022.3140260

Safe Coverage of Moving Domains for Vehicles With Second-Order Dynamics

2022· article· en· W4226299421 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Chacón, Mo Chen, Razvan C. Fetecau

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDouble integratorCollision avoidanceReachabilityBounded functionControl theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)CollisionComputer sciencePairwise comparisonIntegratorDomain (mathematical analysis)Regular polygonVehicle dynamicsControllabilityMathematical optimizationTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsApplied mathematicsMulti-agent systemEngineeringControl (management)AlgorithmMathematical analysisGeometryAerospace engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous coverage of a specified area by robots operating in close proximity with each other has many potential applications such as real-time monitoring of rapidly changing environments, and search and rescue; however, coordination and safety are two fundamental challenges. For coordination, we propose a distributed controller for covering moving, compact domains which consists in a double integrator with bounded input forces. This control policy is based on artificial potentials and alignment forces designed to promote desired vehicle-domain and intervehicle separations and relative velocities. We prove that certain coverage configurations are locally asymptotically stable. For safety, we establish energy conditions for collision-free motion and utilize Hamilton–Jacobi (HJ) reachability theory for last-resort pairwise collision avoidance. We derive an analytical solution to the associated HJ partial differential equation corresponding to the collision avoidance problem between two double integrator vehicles. We demonstrate our approach in several numerical simulations involving vehicles covering convex and nonconvex moving domains.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207