Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Learning-Based On-Track System Identification for Scaled Autonomous Racing in Under a Minute

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a race car's tire model can be identified on the track in under a minute from 30 seconds of driving data and 3 seconds of neural-network training.

desk verdict A practical hybrid NN+Pacejka identification loop that mostly works, with one unverified steady-state assumption in the virtual data generation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17508 v1 pith:NOM4W5MC submitted 2024-11-26 cs.RO

Onur Dikici , Edoardo Ghignone , Cheng Hu , Nicolas Baumann , Lei Xie , Andrea Carron , Michele Magno , Matteo Corno This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords systemidentificationtiremodelingPacejkaMagicFormulaneuralnetworkautonomousracingon-trackscaledvehicleF1TENTH
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a race car's tire model can be identified on the actual track, without any prior tire knowledge and without the large open spaces required by steady-state identification. The proposed method pairs a small neural network that predicts one-step prediction residuals with the nominal single-track Pacejka model, then uses the corrected model to generate virtual steady-state data from which the Pacejka parameters are fitted by least squares. The loop is repeated for six iterations, taking about three seconds of training time on 30 seconds of driving data collected by a model-free Pure Pursuit controller. On a scaled F1TENTH vehicle, the identified tire models closely match the steady-state baseline in the critical slip-angle range, and they outperform nonlinear least squares under noise, suggesting the approach makes practical on-track identification possible in under a minute.

What carries the argument

The method's load-bearing mechanism is the iterated corrected vehicle model: a nominal single-track vehicle model with the Pacejka Magic Formula (an empirical tire-force curve $F_y = D\sin(C\arctan(B\alpha - E(B\alpha - \arctan(B\alpha))))$) combined with a feed-forward neural network of 58 parameters that predicts the one-step residual error $e_k = x_{k+1} - \hat{x}_{k+1}$. The corrected model is simulated in a virtual steady-state maneuver at constant speed with steering angle ramping from 0 to 0.4 radians, and the steady-state assumption $\dot{v}_y = 0$, $\dot{\omega} = 0$ lets the lateral forces be read off from the states, so the Pacejka parameters can be refit by least squares. Repeating the loop — new nominal parameters, new residual network, new virtual steady-state fit — is what transfers the on-track dynamic data into a traditional identification problem while keeping the neural network operating in-distribution.

What would settle it

In simulation with known ground-truth Pacejka parameters, train the residual network only on data from a trajectory with a restricted slip-angle range, then generate the virtual steady-state ramp and compare recovered $B$ and $C$ parameters to the ground truth; systematic bias as the training range narrows would confirm that the virtual manifold goes out-of-distribution and that the recovered parameters do not reflect the true tire.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that combining a neural-network residual corrector with classical steady-state identification lets you recover tire parameters on a race track from a short, unscripted data collection. The neural network, trained on prediction errors of a nominal model, is used to simulate a virtual steady-state maneuver — a linearly increasing steering angle at constant speed — and the resulting force-slip-angle pairs are fed to a least-squares fit of the Pacejka Magic Formula. Reinitializing the nominal model with each newly identified parameter set and repeating the process removes the need for an accurate initial model and prevents the neural network from overfitting to a particular dynamic regime. The result, shown on a 1:10 scaled vehicle, is a tire model with accuracy comparable to the established steady-state identification procedure, achieved in roughly 33 seconds total and robust to the measurement noise that makes classical on-track nonlinear least squares fail.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network, trained on dynamic driving data, must also be accurate on the virtual steady-state trajectory (constant speed, linearly increasing steering) used to extract the Pacejka parameters; if it extrapolates poorly there, the identified parameters are biased even when the corrected model predicts well on the training distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tire models can be identified directly on a race track with a model-free Pure Pursuit controller, removing the need for dedicated steady-state experiments in large open spaces.
  • The method's robustness to noise (3.3x lower one-step RMSE than NLS in simulation) makes on-track identification viable under real-world measurement noise where classical NLS fails.
  • With 30 seconds of data and 3 seconds of training, the approach is fast enough to adapt mid-session to changing tire conditions, as shown by the hard-to-soft tire adaptation in about 1 second.
  • The identified Pacejka models support a model-based lateral controller that achieves competitive lap times and low deviation, matching the performance of models from the steady-state gold-standard baseline.
  • Because the procedure is data-driven and does not require prior parameters, it can be applied to a new track or surface without re-calibration experiments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The virtual steady-state ramp is generated at the average longitudinal speed of the training data, so the identified parameters may be biased if tire behavior varies strongly with speed; testing on a track with heterogeneous speed profiles would probe this.
  • The paper does not quantify the distribution shift between the dynamic training data and the virtual steady-state manifold; an explicit diagnostic comparing NN prediction error on the virtual ramp vs. held-out dynamic data would show how much trust to place in the simulated steady-state points.
  • The iterative update of both the Pacejka parameters and the neural network suggests a family of hybrid system-identification schemes; one testable extension is replacing the fixed six-iteration schedule with a stopping rule based on the residual decrease between iterations.
  • The same residual-correction-plus-virtual-data loop could be transferred to other physical systems (e.g., aerial or marine robots) whose nominal models have a parametric core and a residual error, as long as a cheap virtual steady-state manifold can be simulated.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an iterative on-track system identification algorithm for a scaled autonomous race car (F1TENTH). A neural network is trained to predict residual errors of a nominal dynamic single-track vehicle model with Pacejka tire model from data collected with a Pure Pursuit controller. The NN-corrected model is then simulated under a virtual constant-speed, ramped-steering scenario; the resulting data are treated as steady-state, and Pacejka parameters are refit using equilibrium force equations. The process is repeated, taking about 3 seconds for six iterations on 30 seconds of driving data. The authors report simulation results showing robustness to artificial Gaussian noise (10 repeated trials) and real-world experiments where the identified model matches a steady-state identification baseline and enables similar lap times, while a nonlinear least-squares baseline fails in closed loop.

Significance. The proposed method addresses a practical problem: obtaining tire parameters for model-based controllers without dedicated steady-state experiments in large open spaces. The iterative combination of a residual NN and a physical model is a promising way to leverage the expressiveness of ML while retaining the interpretability of a Pacejka model. The paper includes open-source code, repeated simulation trials, and real hardware validation on an F1TENTH platform, which are strengths. If the virtual steady-state generation is verified as sound, the method would be a valuable contribution to scaled autonomous racing and potentially to other robotic platforms.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.E.2-III.E.3] The virtual steady-state data generation is never verified to actually produce steady-state trajectories. The paper simulates the NN-corrected model at constant vx with a linearly ramped steering angle, then applies the equilibrium equations (8) that assume ˙vy = 0 and ˙ω = 0. The NN was trained on one-step prediction errors from dynamic Pure Pursuit data, and multi-step recursive rollout on the virtual ramp is a different input distribution. If the simulated trajectory has non-negligible ˙vy or ˙ω, the force–slip points used in the Pacejka fit do not correspond to true lateral forces, and the identified parameters are biased. Please quantify the residuals from equilibrium along the virtual trajectory (e.g., max and RMS of |˙vy| and |˙ω|) and, ideally, compare the virtual curve against a true steady-state solution of the final corrected model over the applicable slip range.
  2. [Section IV.D / Table I] The real-world validation rests on a single run per method, with no error bars or repeated trials. Since the simulation study uses 10 repeats, the claim that the proposed approach achieves comparable accuracy to steady-state identification should be supported by multiple real-world trials or at least a sensitivity analysis over initializations or data splits. The single 'N.C.' entry for NLS also requires a precise definition of the failure criterion and the number of attempts.
  3. [Section V] The paper admits in the Conclusions that the one-step prediction RMSE 'has proven to be not entirely indicative of Pacejka parameters identification performance.' This undermines the use of one-step RMSE as the primary quantitative comparison against NLS in Section IV.C. Please connect the reported RMSE improvements to the quality of the identified Pacejka model, or augment the simulation study with metrics that directly assess the fitted force–slip curves or closed-loop performance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Section I] The phrase 'without prior knowledge' is stronger than what the algorithm actually requires; a nominal single-track model and initial Pacejka parameters are still needed (Sections III.A and III.F). Please rephrase to 'without an accurate initial model' or similar.
  2. [Section III.E.2] Please report the average longitudinal velocity used for virtual data generation and discuss its relation to the real-world steady-state experiments (2–3 m/s), since the identified tire parameters may be sensitive to this choice.
  3. [Section III.F] The convergence criterion 'further iterations do not yield significant improvements' is not quantified. Please provide a quantitative stopping rule or show the per-iteration change in the identified parameters.
  4. [Section IV.C.2] The 3.3x RMSE improvement is stated after averaging performance across vy and ω; please report the individual RMSE values and define the averaging procedure to make the comparison reproducible.
  5. [Figure 6] The color gradient in the left subplots is described as 'shades of blue' but not linked to iteration numbers; a colorbar or explicit iteration labels would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Pacejka identification is validated against held-out data and closed-loop lap times, and the NN-to-Pacejka distillation is an extrapolation assumption rather than a definitional loop.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The NN is trained on one-step residual errors ek = x_{k+1} − x̂_{k+1} (Eq. 5) computed from real on-track data collected with a model-free Pure Pursuit controller. The corrected model (Eq. 7) is simulated under a virtual ramp-steering maneuver (Section III.E.2), and Pacejka parameters are fitted to force-slip points obtained from the equilibrium equations (8). The final Pacejka model is not identical to the NN or to the nominal model by construction; it is an indirect parametric distillation whose accuracy is checked on a separate test run (one-step RMSE, Section IV.B.1) and in closed-loop MAP-controller lap performance (Table I). The main risk is the steady-state assumption in Section III.E.2: the NN-corrected rollout may not actually lie on the steady-state manifold, and the paper does not quantify v̇y or ω̇ along the virtual trajectory. That is a distribution-shift/extrapolation concern about the validity of the identified parameters, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. Self-references to [1] and [4] concern the open-source race stack and the evaluation controller and are not load-bearing for the identification claim. The paper's own admission that the RMSE metric is 'not entirely indicative of Pacejka parameters identification performance' (Section V) is a correctness caveat, not evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the virtual steady-state data generation being a valid representation of the real tire's force-slip behavior. The NN's generalization to this virtual trajectory is an unverified ad hoc assumption. Other axioms are standard modeling assumptions for scaled racing.

free parameters (4)
  • Initial nominal Pacejka parameters = Not specified
    The starting tire model used before the first iteration; the paper claims convergence regardless, but the actual values are not given, affecting reproducibility.
  • Neural network architecture and learning rate = MLP 4-8-2, LeakyReLU, Adam lr=5e-4
    Chosen via systematic testing; size is a model selection choice.
  • Virtual steady-state simulation settings = 10 s, dt=0.02 s, steering ramp 0 to 0.4 rad, vx = mean training vx
    Hand-chosen operational limits; the assumption that this yields steady-state data is unverified.
  • Number of iterations = 6
    Empirical convergence; no formal stopping criterion.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single-track vehicle model with no load transfer and longitudinal/lateral decoupling
    Standard modeling for scaled cars, but neglects dynamic load transfer during rapid maneuvers which can bias force estimates.
  • domain assumption Pacejka Magic Formula is the correct tire model structure
    Used universally in vehicle dynamics but not necessarily the exact form for the test tires.
  • ad hoc to paper The NN's error predictions are valid when simulating the corrected model over the virtual trajectory
    The NN is trained on dynamic data, but the virtual trajectory is a different input distribution; the paper does not verify this.
  • ad hoc to paper The ramped steering simulation approximates steady-state conditions such that equations (8) hold
    The steering is time-varying, so the vehicle is never exactly in steady state; the magnitude of the induced error is not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning-Based On-Track System Identification for Scaled Autonomous Racing in Under a Minute." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOM4W5MC

@misc{pith2026241117508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning-Based On-Track System Identification for Scaled Autonomous Racing in Under a Minute},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOM4W5MC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17508}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate tire modeling is crucial for optimizing autonomous racing vehicles, as state-of-the-art (SotA) model-based techniques rely on precise knowledge of the vehicle's parameters. Yet, system identification in dynamic racing conditions is challenging due to varying track and tire conditions. Traditional methods require extensive operational ranges, often impractical in racing scenarios. Machine learning (ML)-based methods, while improving performance, struggle with generalization and depend on accurate initialization. This paper introduces a novel on-track system identification algorithm, incorporating a neural network (NN) for error correction, which is then employed for traditional system identification with virtually generated data. Crucially, the process is iteratively reapplied, with tire parameters updated at each cycle, leading to notable improvements in accuracy in tests on a scaled vehicle. Experiments show that it is possible to learn a tire model without prior knowledge with only 30 seconds of driving data and 3 seconds of training time. This method demonstrates greater one-step prediction accuracy than the baseline nonlinear least squares (NLS) method under noisy conditions, achieving a 3.3x lower root mean square error (RMSE), and yields tire models with comparable accuracy to traditional steady-state system identification. Furthermore, unlike steady-state methods requiring large spaces and specific experimental setups, the proposed approach identifies tire parameters directly on a race track in dynamic racing environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the learning-based on-track system identification method for autonomous racing. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dynamic single-track model showing lateral forces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The corrected vehicle model structure combining [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scheme of the iterative approach: Starting with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The RMSE of lateral velocity and yaw rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left plots illustrate the evolution of the resultant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ForzaETH Race Stack -- Scaled Autonomous Head-to-Head Racing on Fully Commercial off-the-Shelf Hardware

    N. Baumann, E. Ghignone, J. Kühne, N. Bastuck, J. Becker, N. Imholz, T. Kränzlin, T. Y . Lim, M. Lötscher, L. Schwarzenbach et al. , “Forzaeth race stack-scaled autonomous head-to-head racing on fully commercial off- the-shelf hardware,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11784 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Autonomous vehicles on the edge: A survey on autonomous vehicle racing,

    J. Betz, H. Zheng, A. Liniger, U. Rosolia, P. Karle, M. Behl, V . Krovi, and R. Mangharam, “Autonomous vehicles on the edge: A survey on autonomous vehicle racing,” IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 3, pp. 458–488, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    The magic formula tyre model,

    H. B. Pacejka and E. Bakker, “The magic formula tyre model,” Vehicle system dynamics , vol. 21, no. S1, pp. 1–18, 1992

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Model-and acceleration- based pursuit controller for high-performance au- tonomous racing,

    J. Becker, N. Imholz, L. Schwarzenbach, E. Ghignone, N. Baumann, and M. Magno, “Model-and acceleration- based pursuit controller for high-performance au- tonomous racing,” in 2023 IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5276–5283

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Learning model predictive control with error dynam- ics regression for autonomous racing,

    H. Xue, E. L. Zhu, J. M. Dolan, and F. Borrelli, “Learning model predictive control with error dynam- ics regression for autonomous racing,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 13 250–13 256

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Deep dynamics: Vehicle dynamics modeling with a physics-constrained neural network for autonomous racing,

    J. Chrosniak, J. Ning, and M. Behl, “Deep dynamics: Vehicle dynamics modeling with a physics-constrained neural network for autonomous racing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 5292–5297, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    AMZ driverless: The full autonomous racing system,

    J. Kabzan, M. I. Valls, V . J. F. Reijgwart, H. F. C. Hendrikx, C. Ehmke, M. Prajapat, A. Bühler, N. Gos- ala, 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,” J. field robot., no. rob.21...

    2020

  8. [8]

    Indy autonomous challenge – autonomous race cars at the handling limits,

    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. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03807

    arXiv 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Optimization- based autonomous racing of 1:43 scale rc cars,

    A. Liniger, A. Domahidi, and M. Morari, “Optimization- based autonomous racing of 1:43 scale rc cars,” Optimal Control Applications and Methods , vol. 36, no. 5, p. 628–647, Jul 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oca.2123

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    Analysis and control of high sideslip manoeuvres,

    C. V oser, R. Y . Hindiyeh, and J. C. Gerdes, “Analysis and control of high sideslip manoeuvres,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 48, no. sup1, pp. 317–336, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/00423111003746140

    2010 doi

  3. [11]

    Motion planning and control for multi vehicle au- tonomous racing at high speeds,

    A. Raji, A. Liniger, A. Giove, A. Toschi, N. Musiu, D. Morra, M. Verucchi, D. Caporale, and M. Bertogna, “Motion planning and control for multi vehicle au- tonomous racing at high speeds,” in 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC),...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Model parameter identification via a hyperparameter optimization scheme for autonomous racing systems,

    H. Seong, C. Chung, and D. H. Shim, “Model parameter identification via a hyperparameter optimization scheme for autonomous racing systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 1652–1657, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control , 01 2006

    R. Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control , 01 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    Repetitive learning model predictive control: An au- tonomous racing example,

    M. Brunner, U. Rosolia, J. Gonzales, and F. Borrelli, “Repetitive learning model predictive control: An au- tonomous racing example,” in 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2017, pp. 2545–2550

    2017

  7. [15]

    Optimization-based system identification and moving horizon estimation using low-cost sensors for a miniature car-like robot,

    S. Bodmer, L. V ogel, S. Muntwiler, A. Hansson, T. Bodewig, J. Wahlen, M. N. Zeilinger, and A. Carron, “Optimization-based system identification and moving horizon estimation using low-cost sensors for a miniature car-like robot,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08362 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Learning-based model predictive control for autonomous racing,

    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

    2019

  9. [17]

    Linear system identification versus physical modeling of lateral–longitudinal vehicle dynamics,

    B. A. H. Vicente, S. S. James, and S. R. Anderson, “Linear system identification versus physical modeling of lateral–longitudinal vehicle dynamics,” IEEE Trans- actions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1380–1387, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bayesrace: Learning to race autonomously using prior experience,

    A. Jain, M. O’Kelly, P. Chaudhari, and M. Morari, “Bayesrace: Learning to race autonomously using prior experience,” in Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Robot Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Kober, F. Ramos, and C. Tomlin, Eds., vol. 155. PMLR...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Ensemble gaussian processes for adaptive autonomous driving on multi-friction surfaces,

    T. Nagy, A. Amine, T. X. Nghiem, U. Rosolia, Z. Zang, and R. Mangharam, “Ensemble gaussian processes for adaptive autonomous driving on multi-friction surfaces,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 494–500, 2023, 22nd IFAC World Congress. [Online]. Available: https://www.sc...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Cautious NMPC with gaussian process dynamics for miniature race cars,

    L. Hewing, A. Liniger, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Cautious NMPC with gaussian process dynamics for miniature race cars,” CoRR, vol. abs/1711.06586, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06586

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Adaptive planning and control with time-varying tire models for autonomous racing using extreme learning machine,

    D. Kalaria, Q. Lin, and J. M. Dolan, “Adaptive planning and control with time-varying tire models for autonomous racing using extreme learning machine,”

  14. [22]

    End-to-end neural network for vehicle dynamics model- ing,

    L. Hermansdorfer, R. Trauth, J. Betz, and M. Lienkamp, “End-to-end neural network for vehicle dynamics model- ing,” in 2020 6th IEEE Congress on Information Science and Technology (CiSt), 2020, pp. 407–412

    2020

  15. [23]

    Online adaptation of learned vehicle dynamics model with meta-learning approach,

    Y . Tsuchiya, T. Balch, P. Drews, and G. Rosman, “Online adaptation of learned vehicle dynamics model with meta-learning approach,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14950

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Agile mobility with rapid online adaptation via meta-learning and uncertainty-aware mppi,

    D. Kalaria, H. Xue, W. Xiao, T. Tao, G. Shi, and J. M. Dolan, “Agile mobility with rapid online adaptation via meta-learning and uncertainty-aware mppi,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.06565

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Anycar to anywhere: Learning universal dynamics model for agile and adaptive mobility,

    W. Xiao, H. Xue, T. Tao, D. Kalaria, J. M. Dolan, and G. Shi, “Anycar to anywhere: Learning universal dynamics model for agile and adaptive mobility,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15783

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A survey of vehicle dynamics modeling methods for autonomous racing: Theoretical models, physical/vir- tual platforms, and perspectives,

    T. Zhang, Y . Sun, Y . Wang, B. Li, Y . Tian, and F.-Y . Wang, “A survey of vehicle dynamics modeling methods for autonomous racing: Theoretical models, physical/vir- tual platforms, and perspectives,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 4312–4334, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Automatic steering methods for autonomous automobile path tracking,

    J. M. Snider, “Automatic steering methods for autonomous automobile path tracking,” 2009. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:17512121

    2009

  20. [2023]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303. 08235

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.