Learning‐based model predictive control for improved mobile robot path following using Gaussian processes and feedback linearization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes a high‐performance path following algorithm that combines Gaussian processes (GP) based learning and feedback linearization (FBL) with model predictive control (MPC) for ground mobile robots operating in off‐road terrains, referred to as GP‐FBLMPC. The algorithm uses a nominal kinematic model and learns unmodeled dynamics as GP models by using observation data collected during field experiments. Extensive outdoor experiments using a Clearpath Husky A200 mobile robot show that the proposed GP‐FBLMPC algorithm's performance is comparable to existing GP learning‐based nonlinear MPC (GP‐NMPC) methods with respect to the path following errors. The advantage of GP‐FBLMPC is that it is generalizable in reducing path following errors for different paths that are not included in the GP models training process, while GP‐NMPC methods only work well on exactly the same path on which GP models are trained. GP‐FBLMPC is also computationally more efficient than the GP‐NMPC because it does not conduct iterative optimization and requires fewer GP models to make predictions over the MPC prediction horizon loop at every time step. Field tests show the effectiveness and generalization of reducing path following errors of the GP‐FBLMPC algorithm. It requires little training data to perform GP modeling before it can be used to reduce path‐following errors for new, more complex paths on the same terrain (see video at https://youtu.be/tC09jJQ0OXM ).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".