Collision-Free Formation Control and Tracking for Multi-Agent Systems under Motion Constraints
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
The cohesive motion of a group of vehicles remains stable when all agents achieve velocity consensus and maintain a constant desired speed. However, when the reference velocity changes over time, the formation tracking controllers may struggle to ensure collision-free motion during transitional phases. In this paper, the simultaneous formation control and tracking task is formulated as a constrained optimization problem where the control input actions are restricted within a defined search space. The control objective is to ensure a desired formation geometry while tracking a time-varying reference trajectory by satisfying inter-agent separation conditions for collision avoidance and adhering to input saturation limits that define the allowable control space. Due to the sensor limitations of the deployed agents, the inter-agent distances are estimated using only relative bearing and velocity measurements. The stability and tracking convergence of the proposed distributed control and observer designs are analyzed and validated through simulations in a multivehicle deployment scenario. The results show that the control inputs stay within the feasible limits and effectively prevent inter-agent collisions while achieving the control objectives.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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