MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410907225 · doi:10.21428/d82e957c.409284ce

aUToPath: Unified Planning and Control for Autonomous Vehicles in Urban Environments Using Hybrid Lattice and Free-Space Search

2025· article· en· W4410907225 on OpenAlexafffund
Connor Wilson, Ellina R. Zhang, Chang Keun Paik, Steven L. Waslander, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsFree spaceLattice (music)Computer scienceSpace (punctuation)Control (management)Artificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents aUToPath, a unified online framework for global path-planning and control to address the challenge of autonomous navigation in cluttered urban environments. A key component of our framework is a novel hybrid planner that combines pre-computed lattice maps with dynamic free-space sampling to efficiently generate optimal driveable corridors in cluttered scenarios. Our system also features sequential convex programming (SCP)-based model predictive control (MPC) to refine the corridors into smooth, dynamically consistent trajectories. A single optimization problem is used to both generate a trajectory and its corresponding control commands; this addresses limitations of decoupled approaches by guaranteeing a safe and feasible path. Simulation results of the novel planner on randomly generated obstacle-rich scenarios demonstrate the success rate of a free-space Adaptively Informed Trees* (AIT*)-based planner, and runtimes comparable to a lattice-based planner. Real-world experiments of the full system on a Chevrolet Bolt EUV further validate performance in dense obstacle fields, demonstrating no violations of traffic, kinematic, or vehicle constraints, and a 100% success rate across eight trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207