MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385452913 · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3297068

Spatio-Temporal Lattice Planning Using Optimal Motion Primitives

2023· article· en· W4385452913 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Botros, Stephen L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNotationLattice (music)Integer latticeAlgorithmSet (abstract data type)MathematicsDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lattice-based planning techniques simplify the motion planning problem for autonomous vehicles by limiting available motions to a pre-computed set of primitives. These primitives are combined online to generate complex maneuvers. A set of motion primitives$t$-span a lattice if, given a real number$t\geq 1$, any configuration in the lattice can be reached via a sequence of motion primitives whose cost is no more than a factor of$t$from optimal. Computing a minimal$t$-spanning set balances a trade-off between computed motion quality and motion planning performance. In this work, we formulate this problem for an arbitrary lattice as a mixed integer linear program. We also propose an A*-based algorithm to solve the motion planning problem using these primitives and an algorithm that removes the excessive oscillations from planned motions – a common problem in lattice-based planning. Our method is validated for autonomous driving in both parking lot and highway scenarios.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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