Autonomous multiple‐trolley collection system with nonholonomic robots: Design, control, and implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The task of collecting and transporting luggage trolleys in airports, characterized by its complexity within dynamic public environments, presents both an ongoing challenge and a promising opportunity for automated service robots. Previous research has primarily developed on universal platforms with robot arms or focused on handling a single trolley, creating a gap in providing cost‐effective and efficient solutions for practical scenarios. In this paper, we propose a low‐cost mobile manipulation robot incorporated with an autonomy framework for the collection and transportation of multiple trolleys that can significantly enhance operational efficiency. The method involves a novel design of the mechanical system and a vision‐based control strategy. We design a lightweight manipulator and the docking mechanism, optimized for the sequential stacking and transportation of trolleys. On the basis of the Control Lyapunov Function and Control Barrier Function, we propose a vision‐based controller with online Quadratic Programming, which improves the docking accuracy. The practical application of our system is demonstrated in real‐world scenarios, where it successfully executes the multiple‐trolley collection task.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".