A linear MPC with control barrier functions for differential drive robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The need for fully autonomous mobile robots has surged over the past decade, with the imperative of ensuring safe navigation in a dynamic setting emerging as a primary challenge impeding advancements in this domain. In this article, a Safety Critical Model Predictive Control based on Dynamic Feedback Linearization tailored to the application of differential drive robots with two wheels is proposed to generate control signals that result in obstacle‐free paths. A barrier function introduces a safety constraint to the optimization problem of the Model Predictive Control (MPC) to prevent collisions. Due to the intrinsic nonlinearities of the differential drive robots, computational complexity while implementing a Nonlinear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) arises. To facilitate the real‐time implementation of the optimization problem and to accommodate the underactuated nature of the robot, a combination of Linear Model Predictive Control (LMPC) and Dynamic Feedback Linearization (DFL) is proposed. The MPC problem is formulated on a linear equivalent model of the differential drive robot rendered by the DFL controller. The analysis of the closed‐loop stability and recursive feasibility of the proposed control design is discussed. Numerical experiments illustrate the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed control synthesis in avoiding obstacles with respect to the benchmark of using Euclidean distance constraints.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".