Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal ground conditions in mining are crucial for operational efficiency and safety. Motor graders play a crucial role in achieving precise grading of passages; however, unlike many other mining vehicles, they have not yet been commercially automated. The redundant kinematics of motor graders, including articulation, front axle steering, and blade operations, pose significant challenges for automation. This research explores path following with a 2D kinematic model of motor graders and uses simulation to evaluate and compare the performance of these controllers in terms of step response and operational effectiveness. To address kinematic redundancy, two methods are proposed: Rear Offset Control, which defines the articulation angle using a lateral offset between the front and rear axles, and Single Track Control, which utilizes steering redundancy to adapt existing automation approaches to articulated vehicles. Simulation tests were conducted using two controllers: a Feedback Linearized PD controller (FBL+PD) and a Feedback Linearized Model Predictive Controller (FBL+MPC). Both were tuned for optimal performance on a step input path, with performance assessed based on Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and control effort. This work introduces two methodologies—Rear Offset Control and Single Track Control—for autonomous motor grader operation. These were implemented with FBL+PD and FBL+MPC controllers on a 2D kinematic model. Future research will focus on dynamic modeling, implementing a Non-Linear Model-Predictive Controller, refining tuning methodologies for Feedback Linearized systems, and integrating these approaches with live vehicles.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".