2017 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA) 2017
DOI: 10.1109/ccta.2017.8062434
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Time-Optimal nonlinear model predictive control with minimal control interventions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For each planner, we conduct 30 test runs on each scenario. Finally, we compare our joint systems against conventional ones-TEB [19] and MPC [20]-in terms of safety, robustness and efficiency. For STH-WP, the time and spatial horizon is set to t lim = 4s and d ahead = 1.55m respectively.…”
Section: Results and Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For each planner, we conduct 30 test runs on each scenario. Finally, we compare our joint systems against conventional ones-TEB [19] and MPC [20]-in terms of safety, robustness and efficiency. For STH-WP, the time and spatial horizon is set to t lim = 4s and d ahead = 1.55m respectively.…”
Section: Results and Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After evaluating our approaches against one another, we compare the navigation behavior of our joint navigation systems against model-based navigation systems MPC [20] and TEB [19]. Our joint systems includes the following: our proposed waypoint generators as intermediate planner, the kino A-star global planner, and a DRL-based local planner of our previous work [21] against the model-based navigation systems MPC [20] and TEB [19]. Throughout this paper, the notion previously used to denote the waypoint generators are used to denote the joint systems.…”
Section: B Comparison With Conventional Navigation Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas navigation in static environments can be solved by using traditional approaches such as A-Star or RRT, dynamic obstacle avoidance is still an open frontier. Traditional methods regard the obstacle avoidance task as an optimization control problem [10], [11], [12]. These approaches require high computational calculations and can not cope well with fast-moving obstacles.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…with that of DRL-based approaches namely obstacle avoidance, our interface is able to integrate a variety of both planning paradigms. In total, the interface provides the planners MPC [11], TEB [10], DWA [12] as model-based planners, and CADRL [5], RLCA [6] and DRL [9] of our previous work as learning-based planners. The interface can be extended to include more planners.…”
Section: A System Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation