MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312969010 · doi:10.1109/jas.2022.106016

Mpc-based motion planning and control enables smarter and safer autonomous marine vehicles: perspectives and a tutorial survey

2022· article· en· W4312969010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaritime Navigation and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERContext (archaeology)Model predictive controlResource (disambiguation)Control (management)Computer scienceField (mathematics)Systems engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceComputer securityComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomous marine vehicles (AMVs) have received considerable attention in the past few decades, mainly because they play essential roles in broad marine applications such as environmental monitoring and resource exploration. Recent advances in the field of communication technologies, perception capability, computational power and advanced optimization algorithms have stimulated new interest in the development of AMVs. In order to deploy the constrained AMVs in the complex dynamic maritime environment, it is crucial to enhance the guidance and control capabilities through effective and practical planning, and control algorithms. Model predictive control (MPC) has been exceptionally successful in different fields due to its ability to sys-tematically handle constraints while optimizing control performance. This paper aims to provide a review of recent progress in the context of motion planning and control for AMVs from the perceptive of MPC. Finally, future research trends and directions in this substantial research area of AMVs are highlighted.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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