Leader-follower formation control of nonholonomic mobile robots subject to robots failure
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
Over the years, control of autonomous vehicles in a defined formation has been the subject of much research. Albeit leader-follower approach being one of the most used in formation control, it suffers a major practical drawback of leader failure while cruising in formation. In this work, we aim to solve this problem by proposing a novel assignment algorithm that assigns a new leader from the follower robots to ensure robots complete their given task when their leader fails. This algorithm also assign role to new robots joining the group, as well as the failed robot when rescued back to the team. We drive robots towards their desired trajectories to achieve formation using a Lyapunov-based time-varying state tracking controller from the literature. Due to role switching amongst member robots, we propose a new variant of the limit-cycle obstacle avoidance algorithm to ensure smooth and collision free transition. Simulations and experiments are performed using the robot operating system framework due to its flexibility to verify the effectiveness and reliability of the proposed algorithms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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