MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dissipative Avoidance Feedback for Reactive Navigation Under Second-Order Dynamics

2025· article· W7123359294 on OpenAlexaff
Lyes Smaili, Zhiqi Tang, Soulaimane Berkane, T. HAMEL

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Obstacle avoidanceDissipative systemController (irrigation)Heading (navigation)TrajectoryRobotDifferentiable functionPosition (finance)Collision avoidance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the problem of autonomous robot navigation in unknown, obstacle-filled environments with second-order dynamics by proposing a Dissipative Avoidance Feedback (DAF). Compared to the Artificial Potential Field (APF), which primarily uses repulsive forces based on position, DAF employs a dissipative feedback mechanism that accounts for both position and velocity, contributing to smoother and more natural obstacle avoidance. The proposed continuously differentiable controller solves the motion-to-goal problem while guaranteeing collision-free navigation by using the robot’s state and local obstacle distance information. We show that the controller guarantees safe navigation in generic n-dimensional environments and achieves Almost Global Asymptotic Stability (AGAS) under certain curvature conditions. Designed for real-time implementation, DAF requires only locally measured data from limited-range sensors (e.g., LiDAR, depth cameras), making it particularly effective for robots navigating unknown workspaces. Simulations in 2D and 3D environments are conducted to validate the theoretical results and showcase the effectiveness of our approach.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207