Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
125 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Learning Model Predictive Control with Error Dynamics Regression for Autonomous Racing (2309.10716v2)

Published 19 Sep 2023 in cs.RO, cs.SY, and eess.SY

Abstract: This work presents a novel Learning Model Predictive Control (LMPC) strategy for autonomous racing at the handling limit that can iteratively explore and learn unknown dynamics in high-speed operational domains. We start from existing LMPC formulations and modify the system dynamics learning method. In particular, our approach uses a nominal, global, nonlinear, physics-based model with a local, linear, data-driven learning of the error dynamics. We conducted experiments in simulation and on 1/10th scale hardware, and deployed the proposed LMPC on a full-scale autonomous race car used in the Indy Autonomous Challenge (IAC) with closed loop experiments at the Putnam Park Road Course in Indiana, USA. The results show that the proposed control policy exhibits improved robustness to parameter tuning and data scarcity. Incremental and safety-aware exploration toward the limit of handling and iterative learning of the vehicle dynamics in high-speed domains is observed both in simulations and experiments.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (24)
  1. M. O’Kelly, H. Zheng, D. Karthik, and R. Mangharam, “F1TENTH: An Open-source Evaluation Environment for Continuous Control and Reinforcement Learning,” in Proceedings of the NeurIPS 2019 Competition and Demonstration Track.   PMLR, Aug. 2020, pp. 77–89.
  2. “Indy Autonomous Challenge,” Feb. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.indyautonomouschallenge.com
  3. A. Wischnewski, M. Geisslinger, J. Betz, T. Betz, F. Fent, A. Heilmeier, L. Hermansdorfer, T. Herrmann, S. Huch, P. Karle, F. Nobis, L. Ögretmen, M. Rowold, F. Sauerbeck, T. Stahl, R. Trauth, M. Lienkamp, and B. Lohmann, “Indy autonomous challenge – autonomous race cars at the handling limits,” 2022.
  4. A. Wischnewski, T. Herrmann, F. Werner, and B. Lohmann, “A Tube-MPC Approach to Autonomous Multi-Vehicle Racing on High-Speed Ovals,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 368–378, Jan. 2023.
  5. J. Kabzan, M. I. Valls, V. J. F. Reijgwart, H. F. C. Hendrikx, C. Ehmke, M. Prajapat, A. Bühler, N. Gosala, M. Gupta, R. Sivanesan, A. Dhall, E. Chisari, N. Karnchanachari, S. Brits, M. Dangel, I. Sa, R. Dubé, A. Gawel, M. Pfeiffer, A. Liniger, J. Lygeros, and R. Siegwart, “AMZ Driverless: The full autonomous racing system,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1267–1294, 2020.
  6. J. Betz, T. Betz, F. Fent, M. Geisslinger, A. Heilmeier, L. Hermansdorfer, T. Herrmann, S. Huch, P. Karle, M. Lienkamp, B. Lohmann, F. Nobis, L. Ögretmen, M. Rowold, F. Sauerbeck, T. Stahl, R. Trauth, F. Werner, and A. Wischnewski, “TUM autonomous motorsport: An autonomous racing software for the Indy Autonomous Challenge,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 783–809, 2023.
  7. J. Funke, P. Theodosis, R. Hindiyeh, G. Stanek, K. Kritatakirana, C. Gerdes, D. Langer, M. Hernandez, B. Müller-Bessler, and B. Huhnke, “Up to the limits: Autonomous Audi TTS,” in 2012 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Jun. 2012, pp. 541–547.
  8. U. Rosolia and F. Borrelli, “Learning How to Autonomously Race a Car: A Predictive Control Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2713–2719, Nov. 2020.
  9. M. Bujarbaruah, X. Zhang, U. Rosolia, and F. Borrelli, “Adaptive mpc for iterative tasks,” in 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 6322–6327.
  10. A. Sasfi, M. N. Zeilinger, and J. Köhler, “Robust adaptive mpc using control contraction metrics,” Automatica, vol. 155, p. 111169, 2023.
  11. J. Kabzan, L. Hewing, A. Liniger, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Learning-based model predictive control for autonomous racing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3363–3370, 2019.
  12. L. Hewing, A. Liniger, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Cautious NMPC with Gaussian Process Dynamics for Autonomous Miniature Race Cars,” in 2018 European Control Conference (ECC), Jun. 2018, pp. 1341–1348.
  13. J. Ning and M. Behl, “Vehicle dynamics modeling for autonomous racing using gaussian processes,” 2023.
  14. D. Kalaria, Q. Lin, and J. M. Dolan, “Delay-aware robust control for safe autonomous driving,” in 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2022, pp. 1565–1571.
  15. E. L. Zhu, F. L. Busch, J. Johnson, and F. Borrelli, “A gaussian process model for opponent prediction in autonomous racing,” 2023.
  16. T. Brüdigam, A. Capone, S. Hirche, D. Wollherr, and M. Leibold, “Gaussian process-based stochastic model predictive control for overtaking in autonomous racing,” 2021.
  17. D. Bristow, M. Tharayil, and A. Alleyne, “A survey of iterative learning control,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 96–114, 2006.
  18. U. Rosolia and F. Borrelli, “Learning Model Predictive Control for Iterative Tasks: A Computationally Efficient Approach for Linear System,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 3142–3147, Jul. 2017.
  19. M. Brunner, U. Rosolia, J. Gonzales, and F. Borrelli, “Repetitive learning model predictive control: An autonomous racing example,” in 2017 IEEE 56th annual conference on decision and control (CDC).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 2545–2550.
  20. J. Kong, M. Pfeiffer, G. Schildbach, and F. Borrelli, “Kinematic and dynamic vehicle models for autonomous driving control design,” IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings, vol. 2015-August, pp. 1094–1099, 2015.
  21. F. Christ, A. Wischnewski, A. Heilmeier, and B. Lohmann, “Time-optimal trajectory planning for a race car considering variable tyre-road friction coefficients,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 588–612, Apr. 2021.
  22. U. Rosolia and F. Borrelli, “Learning model predictive control for iterative tasks. a data-driven control framework,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1883–1896, 2017.
  23. V. A. Epanechnikov, “Non-Parametric Estimation of a Multivariate Probability Density,” Theory of Probability & Its Applications, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 153–158, Jan. 1969.
  24. H. B. Pacejka and E. Bakker, “The magic formula tyre model,” Vehicle system dynamics, vol. 21, no. S1, pp. 1–18, 1992.
Citations (3)

Summary

  • The paper introduces a novel LMPC framework that combines a physics-based model with localized error dynamics regression to improve control at high speeds.
  • The approach was validated through extensive simulations and real-world tests on both 1/10th scale hardware and a full-scale race car, demonstrating enhanced robustness.
  • The research implies reduced sensitivity to parameter tuning and data scarcity, paving the way for broader applications in high-performance, safety-critical systems.

An Examination of Learning Model Predictive Control with Error Dynamics Regression for Autonomous Racing

The paper focuses on a novel strategy for Learning Model Predictive Control (LMPC) tailored for autonomous racing, where vehicles operate at their dynamic limits. The authors propose modifications to existing LMPC frameworks by incorporating a combined model learning technique that melds a nominal, global, nonlinear, physics-based model with a localized, linear error dynamics regression. This innovation is pivotal in handling high-speed automotive challenges, notably when data is scarce or parameter tuning is complex.

Their approach revolves around modifying the error dynamics learning process. Specifically, they employ a nominal physic-based model as a baseline and incorporate error dynamics learning to correct discrepancies between the model predictions and actual state evolution, transforming it into a learning problem. This allows for iterative improvements and ensures incremental exploration toward high-speed operational domains while maintaining system robustness.

The mention of deploying the system on a full-scale autonomous race car, particularly in the competitive context of the Indy Autonomous Challenge (IAC), demonstrates the capacity of this approach to transition from simulation environments and small-scale hardware to real-world applications. The research results suggest enhanced robustness against parameter adjustments and data scarcity, which are common hurdles in the domain, making it a compelling consideration for further exploration and application in the field of autonomous racing vehicles.

Key Numerical Insights

  • The method's efficacy was showcased through extensive trials, both in simulations and real deployments using the 1/10th scale hardware and a full-sized race car. The results showed evidence of robust system performance, reflected in the improved stability through iterative feedback.
  • The robustness paper highlighted the strategy's stability under varied learning parameters, where the LMPC with error dynamics demonstrated tolerability to changes in bandwidth and control rate cost, outperforming methods that rely solely on full regression with higher parameter sensitivity.

Research Implications

The implications of this LMPC refinement are noteworthy both theoretically and practically. By rooting the learning within error dynamics, there is a significant buffer against high data variability and imperfect parameter scenarios, which is an advancement over traditional regression techniques that strive to model entire system dynamics without distinction.

Theoretically, this work suggests a path toward more stable adaptive control techniques where nominal model fidelity varies. This has ramifications for systems where controllers operate near the limits of model validity and where model inaccuracies present substantial operational risks.

On a practical level, the application on a full-scale racing vehicle not only demonstrates the approach's viability but also sets a precedent for its adoption in broader vehicular control systems, where safety and performance must be balanced meticulously. The technique's adaptability and robustness could ostensibly drive optimizations in other high-performance, safety-critical applications such as aerospace or high-speed rail systems.

Speculation on Future Developments in AI

Looking forward, the trajectory of research inspired by this paper is likely to emphasize enhanced model learning strategies that further integrate data from diverse operational scenarios while maintaining robustness. As ML techniques evolve, there is considerable potential in harnessing advanced ML algorithms like those leveraging neural networks to further refine the identification and correction of dynamics error—thus edging closer toward achieving near-perfect autonomous control systems.

In conclusion, this paper presents meaningful progress within LMPC frameworks for autonomous racing, addressing critical challenges in vehicle dynamics handling and offering a foundational direction for future AI developments in adaptive control systems.

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com