Motion Planning and Tracking Control of Autonomous Vehicle Based on Improved <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:msup> <a:mrow> <a:mi>A</a:mi> </a:mrow> <a:mi>∗</a:mi> </a:msup> </a:math> Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional A ∗ algorithm, applied to the motion planning of autonomous vehicles, easily causes high computational costs and excessive turning points generated in the planning path. In addition, the vehicle cannot track the path due to the unsmooth inflection point. To overcome these potential limitations, an improved A ∗ algorithm-based motion planning algorithm and a tracking control strategy based on model predictive control theory were proposed in this work. The method of expanding the search neighborhood is adopted to improve the planning efficiency of A ∗ algorithm. The artificial potential field method is also incorporated into the proposed A ∗ algorithm. The resultant force generated by each potential field is further introduced into the evaluation function of A ∗ algorithm to plan the driving path, which could be suitable for autonomous vehicles. The sharp nodes in the path are smoothed by cubic quasi-uniform B-spline curve. The tracking control strategy is designed based on model predictive control theory to realize the accurate tracking of the planned path. Typical obstacle avoidance conditions were selected for co-simulation test verification. The experimental results show that the proposed motion planning algorithm and tracking control strategy can effectively plan the obstacle avoidance path and accurately track the path in different environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".