MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388470044 · doi:10.1109/tits.2023.3324317

Chance-Constrained Planning for Dynamically Stable Motion of Reconfigurable Vehicles

2023· article· en· W4388470044 on OpenAlexaff
Jiazhi Song, Inna Sharf

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion planningComputer scienceMotion (physics)Vehicle dynamicsControl engineeringEngineeringAutomotive engineeringArtificial intelligenceRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a computationally efficient chance-constrained rollover-free motion planning method is presented. Specifically, the method is developed to plan motions for reconfigurable vehicles with the knowledge of a 3-D terrain model that has limited accuracy. The overall motion planning problem is formulated as a nonlinear optimal control problem (NOCP) that employs a constraint in the form of a bound on the probability of rollover under terrain-induced vehicle orientation uncertainty. To increase the computational efficiency of the NOCP with nonlinear chance constraint, a geometric interpretation of the chance constraint is derived based on the characteristics of SO(3), the 3-D rotation group. Monte Carlo simulations are provided to demonstrate the usefulness of the geometric interpretation through comparisons with other methods. Experimental data gathered from driving a mobile robot through real forests are also used to validate the proposed model. Finally, path and trajectory generation results obtained with the proposed planning method for a feller-buncher machine traversing through uncertain 3-D terrain are presented to showcase the method’s overall performance and efficiency.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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