Inverse Dynamics-Based Motion Planning for Autonomous Vehicles: Simultaneous Trajectory and Speed Optimization with Kinematic Continuity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an alternative variant of motion planning techniques for autonomous vehicles (AVs) centered on an inverse approach that concurrently optimizes both trajectory and speed. This method emphasizes searching for a trajectory and distributing its speed within a single road segment, regarded as a final element. The references for the road lanes are represented by splines that interpolate the path length, derivative, and curvature using Cartesian coordinates. This approach enables the determination of parameters at the final node of the road segment while varying the reference length. Instead of directly modeling the trajectory and velocity, the second derivatives of curvature and speed are modeled to ensure the continuity of all kinematic parameters, including jerk, at the nodes. A specialized inverse numerical integration procedure based on Gaussian quadrature has been adapted to reproduce the trajectory, speed, and other key parameters, which can be referenced during the motion tracking phase. The method emphasizes incorporating kinematic, dynamic, and physical restrictions into a set of nonlinear constraints that are part of the optimization procedure based on sequential quadratic optimization. The objective function allows for variation in multiple parameters, such as speed, longitudinal and lateral jerks, final time, final angular position, final lateral offset, and distances to obstacles. Additionally, several motion planning variants are calculated simultaneously based on the current vehicle position and the number of lanes available. Graphs depicting trajectories, speeds, accelerations, jerks, and other relevant parameters are presented based on the simulation results. Finally, this article evaluates the efficiency, speed, and quality of the predictions generated by the proposed method. The main quantitative assessment of the results may be associated with computing performance, which corresponds to time costs of 0.5–2.4 s for an average power notebook, depending on optimization settings, desired accuracy, and initial conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".