MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321331567 · doi:10.1002/rob.22165

Learning‐based model predictive control for improved mobile robot path following using Gaussian processes and feedback linearization

2023· article· en· W4321331567 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Robotics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModel predictive controlComputer scienceGaussian processPath (computing)LinearizationControl theory (sociology)RobotGeneralizationMobile robotTerrainFeedback linearizationMotion planningArtificial intelligenceKinematicsAlgorithmMathematical optimizationGaussianNonlinear systemMathematicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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