Beyond Constant Parameters: Hyper Prediction Models and HyperMPC

Grzegorz Czechmanowski; Jan W\k{e}grzynowski; Krzysztof Walas; Maciej Krupka; Piotr Kicki

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Beyond Constant Parameters: Hyper Prediction Models and HyperMPC

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that unmodeled robot dynamics can be captured by letting a base prediction model's parameters vary over the MPC horizon, with a neural network generating the parameter trajectory, and shows reduced long-horizon prediction

desk verdict A promising learning-based MPC idea that keeps the base model and makes its parameters time-varying via a neural network, but the abstract gives no numbers or protocol, so the main claim is currently unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06181 v1 pith:6ACRDGXH submitted 2025-08-08 cs.RO

Jan Węgrzynowski , Piotr Kicki , Grzegorz Czechmanowski , Maciej Krupka , Krzysztof Walas This is my paper

classification cs.RO

keywords modelpredictivecontrollearneddynamicstime-varyingparametersneuralnetworkunmodeledF1TENTHautonomousracingrobot

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

Model Predictive Control depends on an accurate dynamics model, but real systems carry unmodeled effects like friction, tire slip, and actuation delays. This paper proposes the Hyper Prediction Model (HyperPM), which represents those missing effects by making the model's parameters time-dependent over the MPC prediction horizon, with a neural network learning how the parameters evolve. The base model structure stays unchanged, so gradient-based MPC keeps its computational efficiency while gaining the capacity to anticipate previously unmodeled phenomena. The authors report that HyperPM significantly reduces long-horizon prediction errors on several systems, including real F1TENTH autonomous racing, and that the integrated HyperMPC consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art techniques.

What carries the argument

HyperPM, a dynamics model whose parameters are functions of time across the MPC prediction horizon, generated by a neural network. The network's output at each horizon step modulates the base model's parameters, so the model anticipates residual dynamics while preserving the differentiability and computational structure of the base model — the property that keeps gradient-based MPC fast and robust.

What would settle it

Train HyperPM on a system where residual dynamics change qualitatively mid-trajectory, such as a vehicle passing from dry to icy asphalt, and evaluate on a fresh segment outside the training distribution. If long-horizon prediction error is not substantially lower than a fixed-parameter base model, or if the learned parameter trajectory diverges, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that unmodeled dynamics do not have to be added as extra states, black-box residual terms, or a completely new model. Instead, the existing base model's parameters are allowed to vary over the prediction horizon, and a neural network outputs that parameter trajectory. During training, the network learns parameter evolutions that make the time-varying model reproduce recorded trajectories; during control, those parameters act like a forecast of how the real system's behavior will drift over the next steps. On the systems tested, including real-world F1TENTH racing, this projected time-dependence substantially reduces long-horizon prediction errors, and the resulti

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a neural-network-generated trajectory of the base model's parameters can faithfully represent the unmodeled physics, and that those learned parameter trajectories keep working on operating conditions outside the training distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Long-horizon predictions become more accurate on the tested systems, which means MPC can plan further ahead without compounding errors.
The computational cost of the model stays close to the base model, so real-time gradient-based control remains feasible.
The approach turns 'learning the dynamics' into 'learning how the existing parameters drift,' which is a more constrained and data-efficient learning problem.
HyperMPC consistently outperforms prior MPC techniques on the evaluated tasks, including real-world racing.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is online adaptation: condition the network on recent history so the parameter trajectories track slow changes in the environment, not just patterns seen in training.
The same time-varying-parameter mechanism could improve other forward-model tasks such as state estimation, simulation, or even non-robot forecasting, wherever a fixed-structure model under-fits dynamics.
A sharp test of the mechanism would compare HyperPM against an oracle that knows the true parameter evolution; the gap would show how much of the gain comes from the network's generalization rather than the flexibility of time-varying parameters.
Because the method only changes how parameters are generated, it can be dropped into existing MPC stacks with minimal structural changes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea here is genuinely interesting: instead of bolting on a residual term or learning a whole new dynamics model, you let a neural network produce time-varying parameters for an existing model over the MPC horizon. That is a clean way to add expressiveness without giving up the structure or computational efficiency of the base model. If it works, it is a practical contribution to learning-based MPC, and the real F1TENTH experiments are a good sign that the authors are not just running simulations.

What the paper does well, from what we have: it identifies a real limitation in gradient-based MPC—fixed-parameter models miss unmodeled effects—and proposes a formulation that directly addresses it. The idea of "projecting unmodeled dynamics onto a time-dependent dynamics model" is a reasonable, concrete framing. The abstract is coherent and the approach is plausible.

But we only have the abstract, and that is a problem. The central claims—"significantly reduces long-horizon prediction errors" and "consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art techniques"—are asserted without a single number, baseline name, error bar, or description of the train/test split. That is not evidence of a flaw in the work; it is simply an absence of information. The stress-test worry about generalization is real, but it is a concern about what the paper does not show, not about what it shows. We have no idea whether the learned parameter trajectories transfer to new tracks, speeds, or tire conditions, or whether they are conditioning on anything beyond a single learned curve. Regularization and comparison to a constant-parameter baseline under held-out conditions are exactly what is needed, and the abstract omits them.

On the positive side, the authors do not appear to be claiming anything absurd, and the idea is specific enough to be testable. The absence of detail is a reason to ask for the full paper, not to dismiss the work.

For whom: anyone working on learning dynamics for MPC, especially in robotics or autonomous racing. If the full paper ships with proper held-out evaluations and comparisons, it could be worth citing. I would not cite it based on the abstract alone.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. The idea deserves referee time, and the empirical claims are checkable once the full text is in hand.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Hyper Prediction Models (HyperPM), a class of time-dependent dynamics models in which the base model's parameters are allowed to vary over the MPC prediction horizon and are generated by a neural network. The method is intended to capture unmodeled dynamics while preserving the computational structure of the base MPC model. The authors claim that HyperPM significantly reduces long-horizon prediction errors and that HyperMPC consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art techniques, with evaluations on several systems including real-world F1TENTH autonomous racing. The manuscript supplied for review contains only the abstract; no equations, experimental results, baselines, or implementation details are available in the review materials.

Significance. If the claims hold, the proposed approach would be a practically relevant way to adapt nominal MPC models to unmodeled phenomena through learned time-varying parameters, with potentially low added inference cost. The core idea is plausible and worth investigating. However, the evidence provided in the abstract is entirely qualitative: there are no numerical error reductions, no named baselines, no statistical uncertainty, and no description of the training/evaluation protocol. The scientific contribution therefore cannot currently be assessed, and the paper needs substantial additional detail to support its central claims.

major comments (3)

[Abstract (overall evidence)] The supplied manuscript consists only of the abstract, and the two headline claims, 'significantly reduces long-horizon prediction errors' and 'consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art techniques,' are made without any quantitative support. No error metrics, baseline definitions, datasets, or train/test separation are given. The full text should provide a concrete comparison with at least a constant-parameter MPC baseline on the same tasks, including error statistics and, where possible, confidence intervals.
[Abstract (generalization of learned time-varying parameters)] The mechanism that produces the time-varying parameter trajectories is not specified beyond 'learned using a neural network.' It is unclear whether the network conditions on the current state, history, or external context, and whether the same learned schedule is applied to all operating conditions. This is load-bearing because the claimed gains could in principle come from per-training-condition fitting rather than predictive generalization. The paper must state the network inputs, the training objective, and any regularization, and it must report held-out results under distribution shift (e.g., new track segments, speeds, or tire states) to establish that the time-varying parameters transfer.
[Abstract (MPC integration and closed-loop performance)] The claim that HyperMPC 'consistently outperforms' prior methods is not quantified, and no information is given about computational overhead, closed-loop horizon, or robustness. For an MPC contribution, it is essential to report at least one closed-loop comparison against a constant-parameter MPC baseline on the same hardware or simulation, together with per-iteration computation time or an equivalent complexity measure, so that the practical benefit of the learned time-varying parameters can be evaluated.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The word 'significantly' should be replaced by exact effect sizes and statistical measures; qualitative wording is not sufficient in a scientific claim.
[Abstract] The phrase 'existing state-of-the-art techniques' is undefined. The paper should name the specific baselines (e.g., constant-parameter MPC, Gaussian-process MPC, or learned residual models) against which HyperMPC is compared.
[Abstract] F1TENTH should be identified with a reference to the platform, since not all readers will be familiar with it.
[Abstract] The statement that existing models are 'limited by computational complexity and state representation' is vague. Clarify whether the limitation concerns model class, representational capacity, or practical MPC solve times.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No specific circular reduction is visible from the available text; the core claim is an empirical generalization claim, not a definitional or self-citational tautology.

full rationale

The only text available is the abstract. HyperPM is described as learning time-varying model parameters with a neural network and then evaluating long-horizon prediction errors and MPC performance. This is a standard empirical learning-and-evaluation setup: the learned parameters are fit to data, and the claimed gains are said to come from evaluations on several systems, including real-world F1TENTH racing. There is no equation or passage in the provided text showing that the evaluation quantity is identical by construction to the training objective, nor that a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The abstract does not specify train/test separation, but absence of methodological detail is an evidentiary limitation, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Therefore, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is 'no significant circularity.'

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The entire contribution rests on learned quantities: the network weights and the time-varying parameters they output. There are no new physical entities or first-principles derivations; the axioms above are the representability and generalization assumptions the method needs. This ledger is drawn from the abstract alone, since the full text was unavailable.

free parameters (2)

Time-varying model parameters theta(t) over the MPC horizon = learned by neural network; values not specified in abstract
The core of the method: the base model's parameters become functions of time generated by a network. Their fitted values, not any first-principles derivation, carry the claimed prediction improvement.
Neural network weights = not reported in abstract
The network that outputs the parameter trajectories is trained on system data; its learned weights are the effective free parameters of the approach.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The unmodeled dynamics can be represented by making the base model's parameters time-dependent over the prediction horizon.
This is the defining assumption of HyperPM stated in the abstract; if the time-varying parameter family cannot capture the residual physics, the method cannot deliver its claimed gains.
domain assumption The learned parameter trajectories generalize from training data to evaluation conditions (including real F1TENTH racing) without harmful distribution shift.
The abstract reports real-world results, so the network must transfer from recorded trajectories to unseen runs; generalization is asserted, not proven at the abstract level.
domain assumption The base model remains computationally efficient and differentiable when parameters vary over the horizon, preserving real-time MPC.
The abstract claims the formulation preserves the computational efficiency and robustness of the base model; this requires the learned time-dependence to be cheap and differentiable, which is assumed by the architecture.

invented entities (1)

Time-varying model parameters (HyperPM's projected dynamics)
purpose: Represent unmodeled dynamics as an evolution of base-model parameters across the prediction horizon
A mathematical modeling device introduced by the paper, not a physical entity. It has no falsifiable handle outside the method itself; its validity is measured only by the method's own prediction and control performance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Constant Parameters: Hyper Prediction Models and HyperMPC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ACRDGXH

@misc{pith2026250806181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Constant Parameters: Hyper Prediction Models and HyperMPC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ACRDGXH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06181}
}

read the original abstract

Model Predictive Control (MPC) is among the most widely adopted and reliable methods for robot control, relying critically on an accurate dynamics model. However, existing dynamics models used in the gradient-based MPC are limited by computational complexity and state representation. To address this limitation, we propose the Hyper Prediction Model (HyperPM) - a novel approach in which we project the unmodeled dynamics onto a time-dependent dynamics model. This time-dependency is captured through time-varying model parameters, whose evolution over the MPC prediction horizon is learned using a neural network. Such formulation preserves the computational efficiency and robustness of the base model while equipping it with the capacity to anticipate previously unmodeled phenomena. We evaluated the proposed approach on several challenging systems, including real-world F1TENTH autonomous racing, and demonstrated that it significantly reduces long-horizon prediction errors. Moreover, when integrated within the MPC framework (HyperMPC), our method consistently outperforms existing state-of-the-art techniques.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...
[2]

Kober, J

J. Kober, J. A. Bagnell, and J. Peters. Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32 0 (11): 0 1238--1274, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

Jiang, T

Z.-P. Jiang, T. Bian, and W. Gao. Learning-based control: A tutorial and some recent results. Found. Trends Syst. Control , 8 0 (3): 0 176--284, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Brunke, M

L. Brunke, M. Greeff, A. W. Hall, Z. Yuan, S. Zhou, J. Panerati, and A. P. Schoellig. Safe learning in robotics: From learning-based control to safe reinforcement learning. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 5 0 (Volume 5, 2022): 0 411--444, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Czechmanowski, J

G. Czechmanowski, J. W e grzynowski, P. Kicki, and K. Walas. On learning racing policies with reinforcement learning, 2025

work page 2025
[6]

Song and D

Y. Song and D. Scaramuzza. Policy Search for Model Predictive Control With Application to Agile Drone Flight . IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 38 0 (4): 0 2114--2130, Aug. 2022

work page 2022
[7]

Y. Song, A. Romero, M. Mueller, V. Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza. Reaching the Limit in Autonomous Racing : Optimal Control versus Reinforcement Learning . Science Robotics, 8 0 (82): 0 eadg1462, Sept. 2023. arXiv:2310.10943 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[8]

Krinner, A

M. Krinner, A. Romero, L. Bauersfeld, M. Zeilinger, A. Carron, and D. Scaramuzza. MPCC++: Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Flight with Safety Constraints . In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Delft, Netherlands, July 2024

work page 2024

Show all 54 references

[9]

Kabzan, L

J. Kabzan, L. Hewing, A. Liniger, and M. N. Zeilinger. Learning- Based Model Predictive Control for Autonomous Racing . IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4 0 (4): 0 3363--3370, Oct. 2019

2019
[10]

Chrosniak, J

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, 9 0 (6): 0 5292--5297, 2024

2024
[11]

Neunert, M

M. Neunert, M. Stäuble, M. Giftthaler, C. D. Bellicoso, J. Carius, C. Gehring, M. Hutter, and J. Buchli. Whole- Body Nonlinear Model Predictive Control Through Contacts for Quadrupeds . IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3 0 (3): 0 1458--1465, July 2018. Conference Name: IE...

2018
[12]

Grandia, F

R. Grandia, F. Farshidian, R. Ranftl, and M. Hutter. Feedback mpc for torque-controlled legged robots. In 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4730--4737, 2019

2019
[13]

Hewing, A

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 ) , pages 1341--1348, Limassol, June 2018. IEEE

2018
[14]

Torrente, E

G. Torrente, E. Kaufmann, P. Foehn, and D. Scaramuzza. Data- Driven MPC for Quadrotors , Mar. 2021. arXiv:2102.05773 [cs]

2021 arXiv
[15]

Kaufmann, L

E. Kaufmann, L. Bauersfeld, A. Loquercio, M. Müller, V. Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza. Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning. Nature, 620 0 (7976): 0 982--987, Aug. 2023

2023
[16]

N. A. Spielberg, M. Brown, N. R. Kapania, J. C. Kegelman, and J. C. Gerdes. Neural network vehicle models for high-performance automated driving. Science Robotics, 4 0 (28): 0 eaaw1975, Mar. 2019

2019
[17]

K. Y. Chee, T. Z. Jiahao, and M. A. Hsieh. KNODE - MPC : A Knowledge -based Data -driven Predictive Control Framework for Aerial Robots , Jan. 2022. arXiv:2109.04821 [cs, eess]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Salzmann, E

T. Salzmann, E. Kaufmann, J. Arrizabalaga, M. Pavone, D. Scaramuzza, and M. Ryll. Real-time Neural - MPC : Deep Learning Model Predictive Control for Quadrotors and Agile Robotic Platforms . IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 8 0 (4): 0 2397--2404, Apr. 2023. arXiv:2203.077...

2023 arXiv
[19]

O'Kelly, V

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. CoRR, abs/1901.08567, 2019

1901 arXiv
[20]

Schwenzer, M

M. Schwenzer, M. Ay, T. Bergs, and D. Abel. Review on model predictive control: an engineering perspective. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 117 0 (5): 0 1327--1349, Nov 2021. ISSN 1433-3015

2021
[21]

Williams, P

G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou. Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1433--1440, 2016

2016
[22]

Williams, N

G. Williams, N. Wagener, B. Goldfain, P. Drews, J. M. Rehg, B. Boots, and E. A. Theodorou. Information theoretic mpc for model-based reinforcement learning. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1714--1721, 2017

2017
[23]

Pinneri, S

C. Pinneri, S. Sawant, S. Blaes, J. Achterhold, J. Stueckler, M. Rolinek, and G. Martius. Sample-efficient cross-entropy method for real-time planning. In Conference on Robot Learning 2020, 2020

2020
[24]

S. J. Wang, H. Zhu, and A. M. Johnson. Pay Attention to How You Drive : Safe and Adaptive Model - Based Reinforcement Learning for Off - Road Driving , Oct. 2023. arXiv:2310.08674 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Williams, P

G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou. Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applications to autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 34 0 (6): 0 1603--1622, 2018

2018
[26]

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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15783, 2024

2024 arXiv
[27]

Hanover, P

D. Hanover, P. Foehn, S. Sun, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza. Performance, precision, and payloads: Adaptive nonlinear mpc for quadrotors. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7 0 (2): 0 690--697, 2022. doi:10.1109/LRA.2021.3131690

2022
[28]

Salzmann, J

T. Salzmann, J. Arrizabalaga, J. Andersson, M. Pavone, and M. Ryll. Learning for CasADi : Data-driven models in numerical optimization. In Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC), 2024

2024
[29]

Verschueren, M

R. Verschueren, M. Zanon, R. Quirynen, and M. Diehl. Time-optimal race car driving using an online exact hessian based nonlinear mpc algorithm. In 2016 European Control Conference (ECC), pages 141--147, 2016

2016
[30]

Liniger, A

A. Liniger, A. Domahidi, and M. Morari. Optimization-based autonomous racing of 1: 43 scale rc cars. Optimal Control Applications and Methods, 36 0 (5): 0 628--647, 2015

2015
[31]

Hansen, H

N. Hansen, H. Su, and X. Wang. TD-MPC2 : Scalable, robust world models for continuous control. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

2024
[32]

Zhang, S

M. Zhang, S. Vikram, L. Smith, P. Abbeel, M. Johnson, and S. Levine. Solar: Deep structured representations for model-based reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 7444--7453. PMLR, 2019 a

2019
[33]

Zhang, M

C. Zhang, M. Ren, and R. Urtasun. Graph hypernetworks for neural architecture search. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019 b

2019
[34]

Hegde, Z

S. Hegde, Z. Huang, and G. S. Sukhatme. Hyperppo: A scalable method for finding small policies for robotic control. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 10821--10828, 2024

2024
[35]

Z. Xian, S. Lal, H.-Y. Tung, E. A. Platanios, and K. Fragkiadaki. HyperDynamics : Meta-learning object and agent dynamics with hypernetworks. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

2021
[36]

Tsuchiya, T

Y. Tsuchiya, T. Balch, P. Drews, and G. Rosman. Online adaptation of learned vehicle dynamics model with meta-learning approach. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 802--809, 2024. doi:10.1109/IROS58592.2024.10801427

2024
[37]

Gasparyan and H

O. Gasparyan and H. Darbinyan. L1 adaptive control of quadcopters. In 2019 Computer Science and Information Technologies (CSIT), pages 96--100, 2019. doi:10.1109/CSITechnol.2019.8895217

2019
[38]

P. Werbos. Backpropagation through time: what it does and how to do it. Proceedings of the IEEE, 78 0 (10): 0 1550--1560, Oct. 1990. Conference Name: Proceedings of the IEEE

1990
[39]

Verschueren, G

R. Verschueren, G. Frison, D. Kouzoupis, J. Frey, N. van Duijkeren, A. Zanelli, B. Novoselnik, T. Albin, R. Quirynen, and M. Diehl. acados -- a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control. Mathematical Programming Computation, 2021

2021
[40]

B. B. Carlos, T. Sartor, A. Zanelli, G. Frison, W. Burgard, M. Diehl, and G. Oriolo. An efficient real-time nmpc for quadrotor position control under communication time-delay. In 2020 16th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), pages 982...

2020
[41]

Hochreiter and J

S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber. Long Short - Term Memory . Neural Comput., 9 0 (8): 0 1735--1780, Nov. 1997

1997
[42]

S. Bai, J. Z. Kolter, and V. Koltun. An Empirical Evaluation of Generic Convolutional and Recurrent Networks for Sequence Modeling , Apr. 2018. arXiv:1803.01271 [cs]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Chung, C

J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, K. Cho, and Y. Bengio. Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling , Dec. 2014. arXiv:1412.3555 [cs]

2014 arXiv
[44]

Kicki, P

P. Kicki, P. Liu, D. Tateo, H. Bou-Ammar, K. Walas, P. Skrzypczyński, and J. Peters. Fast Kinodynamic Planning on the Constraint Manifold With Deep Neural Networks . IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40: 0 277--297, 2024

2024
[45]

M. Fey, J. E. Lenssen, F. Weichert, and H. Muller. SplineCNN : Fast Geometric Deep Learning with Continuous B - Spline Kernels . In 2018 IEEE / CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 869--877, Salt Lake City, UT, June 2018. IEEE

2018
[46]

Towers, A

M. Towers, A. Kwiatkowski, J. Terry, J. U. Balis, G. De Cola, T. Deleu, M. Goul \ a o, A. Kallinteris, M. Krimmel, A. KG, et al. Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments. arXiv:2407.17032, 2024

2024 arXiv
[47]

Todorov, T

E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y. Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 5026--5033, 2012

2012
[48]

Liniger, A

A. Liniger, A. Domahidi, and M. Morari. Optimization‐based autonomous racing of 1:43 scale rc cars. Optimal Control Applications and Methods, 36: 0 628 -- 647, 2015

2015
[49]

Srinivasan, S

S. Srinivasan, S. N. Giles, and A. Liniger. A Holistic Motion Planning and Control Solution to Challenge a Professional Racecar Driver . IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6 0 (4): 0 7854--7860, Oct. 2021

2021
[50]

A. J. S. I. J.M. Besselink and H. B. Pacejka. An improved Magic Formula/Swift tyre model that can handle inflation pressure changes. Vehicle System Dynamics, 48 0 (sup1): 0 337--352, 2010

2010
[51]

Savitzky and M

A. Savitzky and M. J. E. Golay. Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analytical Chemistry, 36 0 (8): 0 1627--1639, 1964

1964
[52]

Verschueren, S

R. Verschueren, S. De Bruyne, M. Zanon, J. V. Frasch, and M. Diehl. Towards time-optimal race car driving using nonlinear MPC in real-time. In 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pages 2505--2510, Los Angeles, CA, USA, Dec. 2014. IEEE

2014
[53]

T. Novi, A. Liniger, R. Capitani, and C. Annicchiarico. Real-time control for at-limit handling driving on a predefined path. Vehicle System Dynamics, 58 0 (7): 0 1007--1036, July 2020

2020
[54]

Balkwill

J. Balkwill. Chapter 3 - weight transfer and wheel loads. In J. Balkwill, editor, Performance Vehicle Dynamics, pages 53--73. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2018. ISBN 978-0-12-812693-6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812693-6.00003-1

2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

[2] [2]

Kober, J

J. Kober, J. A. Bagnell, and J. Peters. Reinforcement learning in robotics: A survey. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32 0 (11): 0 1238--1274, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

Jiang, T

Z.-P. Jiang, T. Bian, and W. Gao. Learning-based control: A tutorial and some recent results. Found. Trends Syst. Control , 8 0 (3): 0 176--284, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Brunke, M

L. Brunke, M. Greeff, A. W. Hall, Z. Yuan, S. Zhou, J. Panerati, and A. P. Schoellig. Safe learning in robotics: From learning-based control to safe reinforcement learning. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 5 0 (Volume 5, 2022): 0 411--444, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Czechmanowski, J

G. Czechmanowski, J. W e grzynowski, P. Kicki, and K. Walas. On learning racing policies with reinforcement learning, 2025

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Song and D

Y. Song and D. Scaramuzza. Policy Search for Model Predictive Control With Application to Agile Drone Flight . IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 38 0 (4): 0 2114--2130, Aug. 2022

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Y. Song, A. Romero, M. Mueller, V. Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza. Reaching the Limit in Autonomous Racing : Optimal Control versus Reinforcement Learning . Science Robotics, 8 0 (82): 0 eadg1462, Sept. 2023. arXiv:2310.10943 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Krinner, A

M. Krinner, A. Romero, L. Bauersfeld, M. Zeilinger, A. Carron, and D. Scaramuzza. MPCC++: Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Flight with Safety Constraints . In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Delft, Netherlands, July 2024

work page 2024