MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388904308 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.926

Reciprocal Safety Velocity Cones for Decentralized Collision Avoidance in Multi-Agent Systems

2023· article· en· W4388904308 on OpenAlexaff
Soulaimane Berkane, Dimos V. Dimarogonas

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollision avoidanceWorkspaceRange (aeronautics)CollisionControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceReciprocalDecentralised systemEuclidean spaceMulti-agent systemDistributed computingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationControl (management)RobotArtificial intelligenceMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysisAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we solve the inter-agent collision avoidance problem in an arbitrary n-dimensional Euclidean space using reciprocal safety velocity cones (RSVCs). We propose a decentralized feedback control strategy that guarantees simultaneously asymptotic stabilization to a reference and collision avoidance. Our algorithm is purely decentralized in the sense that each agent uses only local information about its neighbouring agents. Moreover, the proposed solution can be implemented using only inter-agent bearing measurements. Therefore, the algorithm is a sensor-based control strategy which is practically implementable using a wide range of sensors such as vision systems and range scanners. Simulation results in a two dimensional environment cluttered with agents shows that the number of possible deadlocks is marginal and decrease with the decrease in the clutteredness of the workspace.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207