MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384787430 · doi:10.1109/tiv.2023.3296435

Adaptive Pure Pursuit: A Real-Time Path Planner Using Tracking Controllers to Plan Safe and Kinematically Feasible Paths

2023· article· en· W4384787430 on OpenAlexaff
Bai Li, Yazhou Wang, Siji Ma, Xuepeng Bian, Li Hu, Tantan Zhang, Xiaohui Li, Youmin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPlannerPath (computing)Tracking (education)Plan (archaeology)Computer scienceMotion planningControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionReal-time computingMathematical optimizationMathematicsRobotControl (management)GeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Path planning is an essential function in an intelligent vehicle, especially when driving in scenarios cluttered by large-scale static obstacles. Traditional path planners often struggle to find a balance among speed, accuracy, and optimality in their solutions. In this paper, we introduce an Adaptive Pure Pursuit (APP) planner, which is designed to be fast and near-optimal for autonomous driving in cluttered environments. The APP planner generates feasible paths through a simulated closed-loop tracking control process of a virtual vehicle. If a derived path encounters obstacles, an adaptive refinement step is taken to locally reduce these collisions. Unlike search-based planners that suffer from the “curse of dimensionality” and optimization-based methods that often run slowly, the APP planner operates extremely fast. The high speed stems from the fact that both the virtual controller simulation and the refinement step involve computations with zero degrees of freedom. The proposed APP planner outperforms the prevalent optimization-based and search-based path planners, as shown by comparative simulations. Real-world experiments were also conducted to validate the APP planner, and its source codes are provided athttps://github.com/libai1943/Adaptive_Pure_Pursuit_Planner.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations37
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent VehiclesSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207