An Overview of Motion-Planning Algorithms for Autonomous Ground Vehicles with Various Applications
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div>With the rapid development and the growing deployment of autonomous ground vehicles (AGVs) worldwide, there is an increasing need to design reliable, efficient, robust, and scalable motion-planning algorithms. These algorithms are crucial for fulfilling the desired goals of safety, comfort, efficiency, and accessibility. To design optimal motion-planning algorithms, it is beneficial to explore existing techniques and make improvements by addressing the limitations of associated techniques, utilizing hybrid algorithms, or developing novel strategies. This article categorizes and overviews numerous motion-planning algorithms for AGVs, shedding light on their strengths and weaknesses for a comprehensive understanding. For various applications of AGVs, such as urban and off-road autonomous driving, the features of driving conditions and vehicle kinodynamics are outlined, and sample-tailored motion-planning algorithms built upon relevant canonical techniques are briefly introduced. As a result of the overview, future research efforts on motion-planning techniques are identified and discussed.</div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it