Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Learning to Drift with Individual Wheel Drive: Maneuvering Autonomous Vehicle at the Handling Limits

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 policy trained only in a domain-randomized simulator can steer a real individual-wheel-drive car through sustained drifting maneuvers on complex paths without any real-world fine-tuning.

desk verdict Solid engineering contribution: an open-source IWD RC platform, fast DR-based RL training, and real drifting without fine-tuning, though the sim-to-real gap is wider than the paper admits. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23339 v2 pith:ZHATO7QO submitted 2025-07-31 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Yihan Zhou , Yiwen Lu , Bo Yang , Jiayun Li , Yilin Mo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords autonomousdriftingreinforcementlearningdomainrandomizationsim-to-realtransferindividualwheeldrivetrajectorytrackingGPUparallelsimulationvehiclecontrol
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

The paper claims that a car can learn to drift entirely in simulation and then execute sustained, controlled drifts on real asphalt without any fine-tuning. The training recipe is a reinforcement learning policy (proximal policy optimization) run in a very fast GPU-based simulator with randomized tire parameters, randomized starting states, and an autoregressive disturbance on tire forces. On a 1/10-scale car with four independently driven wheels, the policy tracks circles, figure-eights, and variable-curvature paths while holding sideslip angles around 45 to 55 degrees, with real-world position errors below about 0.23 m. The central assertion is that the combination of high-throughput parallel simulation and systematic domain randomization is what bridges the simulation-to-reality gap, and that independent wheel drive gives extra yaw authority that makes drifting easier to initiate and control than with rear-wheel drive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Markov decision process design: a rotation- and translation-invariant observation vector ($r$, $\beta$, $V$ plus wheel velocities and previous controls), path information expressed as future waypoints in the vehicle frame, and error signals ($e_{pos}$, $e_{dir}$, $e_\kappa$, $e_\beta$) defined in a curvilinear coordinate system attached to the reference trajectory, letting one policy handle arbitrary paths without overfitting to global coordinates. The other half of the machinery is the domain-randomization stack: uniform randomization of Pacejka tire parameters $B\in[0.8,1]$, $C\in[2,2.5]$, $D\in[0.3,0.4]$, Gaussian perturbations to initial position and heading, and an autoregressive disturbance $d_{t+1}=a d_t + w \varepsilon_t$ on tire forces, which together make the policy robust to unmodeled dynamics. The GPU-based parallel simulator (about $10^5$ vehicles in parallel, converging in roughly 10.8 minutes on one RTX 3080) is what makes the data-hungry RL training feasible in practice.

What would settle it

Run the released policy on the same Xcar platform on a surface with a measurably different friction coefficient, such as wet painted concrete or a polished floor, and record whether it keeps sideslip angle within about ±15 degrees of the reference and position RMSE below 0.5 m on the figure-eight path; the paper's claim of transferability across tire-road conditions would be contradicted if the vehicle spins out or the tracking error exceeds this bound without retraining.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a PPO-trained policy with an observation space built from coordinate-free vehicle states (yaw rate, sideslip, speed) plus future waypoints and curvilinear tracking errors, and an action space of steering plus four independent wheel speeds, learns to drift along prescribed trajectories with large controlled sideslip angles. The key discovery is that zero-shot sim-to-real transfer works when training is done in a massively parallel simulator with domain randomization over tire parameters B, C, D, initial states, and an autoregressive disturbance injected into tire forces. The authors report that while removing dynamic disturbance improves simulated success rate (80 versus 75 percent), only the full randomization configuration transferred to the physical car, so the disturbance term is essential for overcoming unmodeled dynamics. Real-world runs on a figure-eight path and a variable-curvature track reproduce the simulated sideslip and speed profiles, with position RMSE of 0.221 m and 0.231 m respectively, and the vehicle completes multiple drift-direction reversals on an Olympic-rings-inspired path. A comparative rear-wheel-drive experiment shows that the individual-wheel-drive system reaches the drift equilibrium in about 1 second versus 1.5 seconds and with slightly better tracking, evidence for the control-authority benefit of independent wheel drives.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that a planar vehicle model with randomized Pacejka tire parameters and an added autoregressive force disturbance adequately captures the real car's unmodeled dynamics (suspension, load transfer, motor and controller response) such that a policy trained only in this simulation remains stable and accurate on the physical vehicle without any fine-tuning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A drifting controller can be obtained in about 11 minutes of GPU time and deployed directly on the vehicle, so iteration on reward and randomization becomes practical for a single researcher with one GPU.
  • The observed wheel-speed differentials during drift initiation show a concrete torque-vectoring behavior, making the policy a candidate for further study of how IWD authority should be exploited at the friction limit.
  • The open-source platform and codebase allow other groups to reproduce the exact policy and hardware results, which is the standard for a transferable recipe.
  • Because the simulator supports RWD and AWD, the same observation, reward, and randomization design can be used to train and compare drift controllers across different drivetrain configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The transfer claim is demonstrated on only one physical platform and surface; a natural stress test is whether the same randomization set transfers to a different-scale vehicle or to asphalt with a different friction coefficient, which the authors imply but do not run.
  • The observed left/right strategy inversion between simulation and reality on the variable-curvature track hints that the simulator does not fully capture asymmetry; a testable extension is to randomize left-right tire properties separately and check whether the policy learns symmetric-in-symmetry, adaptive strategies.
  • The same domain-randomization plus parallel-simulation recipe may apply to other limit-handling skills beyond drifting, such as emergency obstacle avoidance or driving on low-friction surfaces, since the method does not encode drift-specific structure beyond the reward and path representation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a reinforcement learning framework for autonomous drifting on a custom 1/10-scale Individual Wheel Drive (IWD) RC car. The framework combines a simplified planar vehicle model with Pacejka tires, GPU-accelerated parallel simulation, PPO training, and domain randomization over trajectories, initial states, tire parameters, and an autoregressive disturbance process. The authors validate the approach in simulation on circular, eight-shaped, and variable-curvature paths, and on the physical Xcar platform for the eight-shaped and variable-curvature paths, with an additional Olympic-rings demonstration. The central claim is that the framework achieves effective sim-to-real transfer without real-world fine-tuning, enabling precise trajectory tracking with controlled sideslip angles in both simulation and on hardware.

Significance. If the central claim is fully supported, the paper would offer a valuable and reproducible recipe for learning drifting policies in simulation and deploying them directly on physical IWD vehicles. Strengths include the open-sourced hardware and code, real-world experiments with video documentation, a fast GPU-based training pipeline, and a domain-randomization ablation study. The paper is honest about some limitations, such as the omission of suspension and lateral load transfer. However, the quantitative evidence for faithful sim-to-real transfer is incomplete: the real-world variable-curvature behavior differs qualitatively from simulation in the actuation strategy, sideslip magnitude, and tracking error. The contribution is still useful, but the central claim needs either additional evidence or more careful wording.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.D, Table II, Fig. 8] The central claim of effective sim-to-real transfer is not fully supported by the reported behavioral comparison. On the variable-curvature track, the physical vehicle maintains drift with higher left wheel speeds while the simulated policy uses higher right wheel speeds; the real sideslip angles are smaller, and the position RMSE is 0.231 m versus 0.075 m in simulation, a 3.1x gap. The paper itself describes this as an 'opposite strategy' and a 'compromise,' which is inconsistent with the earlier phrase 'remarkable consistency.' To support the transfer claim, the paper should provide a quantitative comparison of state and action trajectories (for example, distributions of wheel-speed differentials, sideslip, and yaw rate), explain the actuation inversion by identifying the responsible model mismatch, and ideally include a real-world baseline such as a model-based controller or a policy trained without the full domain randomization.
  2. [Section III-B, III-C, IV-C, Appendix Table III] The simplified planar model omits lateral load transfer, suspension, and motor/ESC dynamics; at the reported sideslip angles around 50 degrees these can be first-order effects, and the paper lists them as future work. Domain randomization is the main mechanism claimed to compensate for these omissions, but the only ablation evidence is simulated. Table III reports success rates and RMSE in simulation, and the statement that 'only the full randomization configuration successfully transfers to real-world deployment' is not accompanied by any real-world ablation data. The authors should either provide real-world comparisons with and without key randomization components, or explicitly restrict the transfer claim to the demonstrated cases.
  3. [Section IV-B.3, Eq. (7), Section IV-C.2] The reward includes r_drift = -(beta - beta_ref)^2, but beta_ref is never defined or given a numerical value. Section IV-C.2 says only that the desired sideslip direction is determined by local curvature. Because this reward term directly shapes the learned sideslip behavior, the reported natural drift equilibrium and the real-world sideslip magnitudes are not reproducible without knowing beta_ref and how it varies along the reference path. Please specify the formula or value, and state whether beta_ref is fixed or curvature-dependent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-C] The text says the simulator handles '106 car instances'; the exponent appears to be missing and should read 10^6 car instances.
  2. [Section IV-B.3, Eq. (12)] The reward term r_speed = min(0, V - 0.5) penalizes only speeds below 0.5 m/s and does not incentivize the 1.5-2.5 m/s operating range described in the text; please clarify the wording or adjust the reward.
  3. [Section IV-B.3, Eq. (11)] The wheel longitudinal velocities v_ij^x used in the slip penalty are not defined; for a rigid body they depend on the yaw rate and wheel position, so please specify the kinematic relationship.
  4. [Appendix, Table III] The text says removing initial-state randomization causes a '29% drop' in success rate; from 75.0% to 46.0% this is a 29 percentage-point drop, not a 29% relative drop, so please use precise terminology.
  5. [Section V.D] The phrase 'remarkable consistency' in the first paragraph is difficult to reconcile with the 'opposite strategy' sentence later in the same section; please revise to avoid overstatement.
  6. [Section V.D, Fig. 1] The Olympic-rings demonstration is presented without quantitative tracking errors or sideslip time histories; please add summary statistics or label the figure as illustrative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sim-to-real drifting result is an empirical demonstration, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an RL policy trained in a GPU-accelerated randomized simulator transfers to a physical IWD vehicle without fine-tuning. This claim is supported by measured rollout outcomes, not by a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The reward function directly penalizes tracking errors, so the reported position RMSE and sideslip angle values are evaluations of a trained policy, not parameters fitted to the evaluation data and then called predictions. The 'natural drift equilibrium' (r = 1.85 rad/s, β = -0.85 rad, V = 1.84 m/s) in Fig. 5(b) is presented as a converged operating point of the learned policy, and although the reward includes a reference sideslip term, the paper does not use this equilibrium as evidence of a first-principles predictive theory. The domain randomization ranges and disturbance process are design choices made before training; they are not fitted to the real-world results. The real-world variable-curvature result shows a wheel-speed strategy opposite to simulation and larger RMSE, but this is a question of transfer quality and model fidelity, not circularity. The only self-citations ([4], [5]) appear in the related-work survey and are not load-bearing for the method or its validation. The ablation study is internal and does not smuggle the target result into the training objective. Overall, the derivation chain is empirical and self-contained, with no circular step that can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations.

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

The central claim rests on a simplified tire model, a planar dynamics assumption, hand-tuned reward and randomization parameters, and the fidelity of the observation mapping to real state estimates. The free parameters are training design choices rather than fitted physical constants, but they are load-bearing: changing them would change the learned behavior and likely the transfer success.

free parameters (4)
  • Reward weights = rpos=2.4, rdir=0.5, rcurv=0.15, rdrift=1.6, rspeed=0.1, rsmooth=0.015, rslip=0.005, rprog=0.2
    Hand-chosen weights in the composite reward; they directly shape tracking precision and drift aggressiveness, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. The reported performance is conditional on these values.
  • Tire model randomization ranges (B, C, D) = B in [0.8,1.0], C in [2.0,2.5], D in [0.3,0.4]
    Ad hoc ranges chosen to cover tire-road variations. The sim-to-real transfer hinges on these ranges bracketing the real tire behavior; the ablation in Table III shows sensitivity to randomization.
  • AR disturbance parameters (a, w) = a=0.95, w=0.1
    Hand-set parameters for the autoregressive tire force disturbance d_{t+1}=a d_t + w epsilon_t. The ablation shows dynamic disturbance is necessary for real-world transfer, making these values load-bearing.
  • Reference sideslip angle beta_ref = Not explicitly specified
    The reward penalizes (beta - beta_ref)^2, but the paper does not state how beta_ref is derived for each path. This is a design choice that influences the sideslip magnitude and is not validated against an independent benchmark.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Pacejka tire model, with randomized B, C, D parameters, adequately represents real tire behavior at high sideslip angles.
    The entire simulator and policy are built on this model (Section III-B). If real tire forces at large slip angles differ substantially from the model family, the policy learned in simulation could fail on hardware.
  • domain assumption Planar 2D dynamics with only longitudinal load transfer are sufficient for the drifting maneuvers studied.
    Section III-B explicitly constrains motion to a 2D plane, omits motor dynamics, and assumes equal lateral load distribution; Section VI lists lateral load transfer and suspension as future work. The central transfer claim depends on this simplification being adequate under domain randomization.
  • domain assumption The trained policy generalizes from the compact observation space to the real platform's state estimates.
    The observation design in Section IV-B1 assumes that motion capture-derived states can be mapped into the same invariant features the policy expects; localization noise or delay on other platforms could break transfer.
  • domain assumption Euler integration at a 0.01 s step in the simulator introduces no significant error for training the deployed policy.
    Section III-C specifies Euler integration with a 0.01 s step; the real controller also runs at 100 Hz. The stability of the learned policy with respect to integration error is not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Drift with Individual Wheel Drive: Maneuvering Autonomous Vehicle at the Handling Limits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZHATO7QO

@misc{pith2026250723339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Drift with Individual Wheel Drive: Maneuvering Autonomous Vehicle at the Handling Limits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZHATO7QO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23339}
}
read the original abstract

Drifting, characterized by controlled vehicle motion at high sideslip angles, is crucial for safely handling emergency scenarios at the friction limits. While recent reinforcement learning approaches show promise for drifting control, they struggle with the significant simulation-to-reality gap, as policies that perform well in simulation often fail when transferred to physical systems. In this paper, we present a reinforcement learning framework with GPU-accelerated parallel simulation and systematic domain randomization that effectively bridges the gap. The proposed approach is validated on both simulation and a custom-designed and open-sourced 1/10 scale Individual Wheel Drive (IWD) RC car platform featuring independent wheel speed control. Experiments across various scenarios from steady-state circular drifting to direction transitions and variable-curvature path following demonstrate that our approach achieves precise trajectory tracking while maintaining controlled sideslip angles throughout complex maneuvers in both simulated and real-world environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23339 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top-down view of drifting along the path inspired by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Xcar platform and key specifications. B. Modeling To balance model fidelity with computational efficiency, we adopt a simplified vehicle dynamics model based on 7-DOF models [18], [29] by constraining motion to a 2D plane and omitting motor dynamics, while retaining the essential Pacejka tire model. The IWD vehicle’s state vector x ∈ X consists of six components representing its position and motion (illustrated in … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Overview of the reinforcement learning framework for autonomous drifting: The GPU-accelerated parallel simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of the RWD drifting policy on a circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of the IWD drifting policy on a circular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Real-world deployment architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: IWD Performance comparison between simulation (left) and real-world experiments (right). Path tracking results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    High-speed autonomous drifting with deep reinforcement learning,

    P. Cai, X. Mei, L. Tai, Y . Sun, and M. Liu, “High-speed autonomous drifting with deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1247–1254, 2020

    work page 2020

  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 Trans- portation Systems, vol. 3, pp. 458–488, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Toward automated vehicle control beyond the stability limits: drifting along a general path,

    J. Y . Goh, T. Goel, and J. Christian Gerdes, “Toward automated vehicle control beyond the stability limits: drifting along a general path,”Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control , vol. 142, no. 2, p. 021004, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    A hierarchical control framework for drift maneuvering of autonomous vehicles,

    B. Yang, Y . Lu, X. Yang, and Y . Mo, “A hierarchical control framework for drift maneuvering of autonomous vehicles,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1387–1393

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Consecutive Inertia Drift of Autonomous RC Car via Primitive-based Planning and Data-driven Control

    Y . Lu, B. Yang, J. Li, Y . Zhou, H. Chen, and Y . Mo, “Consecutive inertia drift of autonomous rc car via primitive-based planning and data-driven control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12604 , 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    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. S1, pp. 317–336, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    A controller framework for autonomous drifting: Design, stability, and experimental validation,

    R. Y . Hindiyeh and J. Christian Gerdes, “A controller framework for autonomous drifting: Design, stability, and experimental validation,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 136, no. 5, p. 051015, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Modeling and control for dynamic drifting trajectories,

    T. P. Weber and J. C. Gerdes, “Modeling and control for dynamic drifting trajectories,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    One model to drift them all: Physics-informed con- ditional diffusion model for driving at the limits,

    F. Djeumou, T. J. Lew, N. Ding, M. Thompson, M. Suminaka, M. Greiff, and J. Subosits, “One model to drift them all: Physics-informed con- ditional diffusion model for driving at the limits,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Autonomous drifting using simulation-aided reinforcement learning,

    M. Cutler and J. P. How, “Autonomous drifting using simulation-aided reinforcement learning,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, May 2016, pp. 5442–5448

    2016

  3. [11]

    Deep Drifting: Autonomous Drifting of Arbitrary Trajectories using Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    F. Domberg, C. C. Wembers, H. Patel, and G. Schildbach, “Deep Drifting: Autonomous Drifting of Arbitrary Trajectories using Deep Reinforcement Learning,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, May 2022, pp. 7753–7759

    2022

  4. [12]

    Simultaneous stabilization and tracking of basic automobile drifting trajectories,

    J. Y . Goh and J. C. Gerdes, “Simultaneous stabilization and tracking of basic automobile drifting trajectories,” in 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2016, pp. 597–602

    2016

  5. [13]

    A nonlinear model predic- tive control for automated drifting with a standard passenger vehicle,

    S. Meijer, A. Bertipaglia, and B. Shyrokau, “A nonlinear model predic- tive control for automated drifting with a standard passenger vehicle,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10859 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A multi-layer drifting controller for all-wheel drive vehicles beyond driving limits,

    X. Tian, S. Yang, Y . Yang, W. Song, and M. Fu, “A multi-layer drifting controller for all-wheel drive vehicles beyond driving limits,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 1229– 1239, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    A controller for automated drifting along complex trajectories,

    J. Y . Goh, T. Goel, and J. C. Gerdes, “A controller for automated drifting along complex trajectories,” in 14th International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control (AVEC 2018) , vol. 7, 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  8. [16]

    A novel model predictive controller for the drifting vehicle to track a circular trajectory,

    C. Hu, L. Xie, Z. Zhang, and H. Xiong, “A novel model predictive controller for the drifting vehicle to track a circular trajectory,” Vehicle System Dynamics, pp. 1–30, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Nonlinear model pre- dictive control for autonomous vehicle drifting,

    Z. Shi, H. Chen, S. Yu, R. Findeisen, and H. Guo, “Nonlinear model pre- dictive control for autonomous vehicle drifting,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control , 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    On steady-state cornering equilibria for wheeled vehicles with drift,

    E. Velenis, E. Frazzoli, and P. Tsiotras, “On steady-state cornering equilibria for wheeled vehicles with drift,” in Proceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference . IEEE, 2009, pp. 3545–3550

    2009

  11. [19]

    Steady-state drifting stabilization of rwd vehicles,

    E. Velenis, D. Katzourakis, E. Frazzoli, P. Tsiotras, and R. Happee, “Steady-state drifting stabilization of rwd vehicles,”Control Engineering Practice, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1363–1376, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    A new control approach for automated drifting in consideration of the driving characteristics of an expert human driver,

    E. Joa, H. Cha, Y . Hyun, Y . Koh, K. Yi, and J. Park, “A new control approach for automated drifting in consideration of the driving characteristics of an expert human driver,”Control Engineering Practice, vol. 96, p. 104293, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Autonomous drifting with 3 minutes of data via learned tire models,

    F. Djeumou, J. Goh, U. Topcu, and A. Balachandran, “Autonomous drifting with 3 minutes of data via learned tire models,” in 2023 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Pilco: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search,

    M. Deisenroth and C. E. Rasmussen, “Pilco: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on machine learning (ICML-11) , 2011, pp. 465–472

    2011

  15. [23]

    Autonomous drifting rc car with reinforcement learning,

    S. Bhattacharjee, K. D. Kabara, R. Jain, and K. Kabara, “Autonomous drifting rc car with reinforcement learning,” Dept. Comput. Sci., Univ. Hong Kong, Tech. Rep , 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    J. M. Gonzales, Planning and control of drift maneuvers with the Berkeley autonomous race car . University of California, Berkeley, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Project- based, collaborative, algorithmic robotics for high school students: Programming self-driving race cars at mit,

    S. Karaman, A. Anders, M. Boulet, J. Connor, K. Gregson, W. Guerra, O. Guldner, M. Mohamoud, B. Plancher, R. Shin et al. , “Project- based, collaborative, algorithmic robotics for high school students: Programming self-driving race cars at mit,” in 2017 IEEE integrated STEM ed...

    2017

  18. [26]

    Mushr: A low-cost, open-source robotic racecar for education and research,

    S. S. Srinivasa, P. Lancaster, J. Michalove, M. Schmittle, C. Summers, M. Rockett, J. R. Smith, S. Choudhury, C. Mavrogiannis, and F. Sadeghi, “Mushr: A low-cost, open-source robotic racecar for education and research,” 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    K. Hart, C. Montella, G. Petitpas, D. Schweisinger, A. Shariati, B. Sourbeer, T. Trephan, and J. Spletzer, “RoSCAR,” in Proceedings of the 2014 workshop on Mobile augmented reality and robotic technology- based systems - MARS '14 . ACM Press, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    F1/10: An open-source autonomous cyber-physical platform,

    M. O’Kelly, V . Sukhil, H. Abbas, J. Harkins, C. Kao, Y . V . Pant, R. Mangharam, D. Agarwal, M. Behl, P. Burgio, and M. Bertogna, “F1/10: An open-source autonomous cyber-physical platform,” 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Vehicle drifting dynamics: discovery of new equilibria,

    S. Milani, H. Marzbani, and R. N. Jazar, “Vehicle drifting dynamics: discovery of new equilibria,” Vehicle System Dynamics, pp. 1–26, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning,

    V . Makoviychuk, L. Wawrzyniak, Y . Guo, M. Lu, K. Storey, M. Macklin, D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, A. Allshire, A. Handa et al. , “Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10470, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    F1tenth: An open-source evaluation environment for continuous control and reinforcement learning,

    M. O’Kelly, H. Zheng, D. Karthik, and R. Mangharam, “F1tenth: An open-source evaluation environment for continuous control and reinforcement learning,” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , vol. 123, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, and A. Lerer, “Automatic differentiation in pytorch,” 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Prox- imal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Trust region policy optimization,

    J. Schulman, S. Levine, P. Abbeel, M. Jordan, and P. Moritz, “Trust region policy optimization,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2015, pp. 1889–1897

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.