A Universal Vehicle-Trailer Navigation System with Neural Kinematics and Online Residual Learning

Junbo Tan; Xueqian Wang; Yanbo Chen; Yaojia Wang; Yunzhe Tan; Zhengzhe Xu

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

A Universal Vehicle-Trailer Navigation System with Neural Kinematics and Online Residual Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 A single navigation system can tow castor-wheeled trolleys, flight cases, suitcases, and even a wheelless box to their destinations with no per-trailer calibration, by pairing a neural trailer model with an online-learned residual inside…

desk verdict A practical trailer-towing system that works in real demos, but the evidence is thinner than the claims: the 0.3s memory assumption is unvalidated and the weighting cutoff is chosen on the same curves used for evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15607 v1 pith:3CUO6JOC submitted 2025-07-21 cs.RO

Yanbo Chen , Yunzhe Tan , Yaojia Wang , Zhengzhe Xu , Junbo Tan , Xueqian Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords vehicle-trailernavigationneuralkinematicsonlineresiduallearningmodelpredictivecontrolcastorwheeltrailersAckermannsteeringtrajectorytrackingautonomoustowing

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 claims that an Ackermann-steering vehicle can autonomously tow a diverse fleet of trailers—a rigid-wheel platform trolley, fully castored flight cases and suitcases, and even a wheelless storage box—without trailer-specific calibration or manual tuning. The proposed system keeps the classical nonholonomic kinematic model for the towing vehicle, lets a small neural network predict the trailer yaw rate $\omega_\zeta$ from the last three frames of hitch angle, trailer yaw rate, and control inputs, and then adds a lightweight residual network trained online on recent trajectory data to absorb modeling errors and disturbances. A model predictive controller blends the nominal and residual predictions with a time-decaying weight, which the paper shows is what keeps long-horizon predictions from degrading. If correct, this would let logistics robots at airports, supermarkets, and warehouses switch between heterogeneous trailer types with essentially zero setup cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid state-update equation $x_{k+1}=f(x_{k-n_f:k}, u_{k-n_f:k}) + e(x_{k-n_f:k}, u_{k-n_f:k})$ of Section IV-B. The nominal part $f$ applies the Ackermann nonholonomic update for the vehicle and uses a small 64-32-16 MLP $f^\omega$ for the trailer yaw rate; the residual part $e$ uses a 32-16 MLP $e^\omega$ trained online on a sliding window of 200 time steps. These networks are trained with a rolling-prediction loss over the full $N$-step horizon so that errors do not accumulate during MPC rollouts. The second mechanism is the weighted model combination in constraint (6d), $\lambda_e(k) = s_e \cdot \max(1 - k/n_c, 0)$, which activates the residual only when its past $n_e$-step rolling MSE beats the nominal model's by the threshold $\epsilon = 0.5$ and lets its influence decay to zero at $n_c = 15$. This is the mechanism that keeps long-horizon planning trustworthy.

What would settle it

One direct test is to fix the vehicle at a constant hitch angle and steering input, perturb the trailer laterally, and watch whether the one-step-ahead trailer yaw-rate prediction error of the nominal model falls toward zero as the online residual trains; if the error stays large, or if recovery requires a history longer than $n_f = 3$ frames, the model constraint (6d) is not valid. A second test would be to run the same controller on a trailer with strongly nonlinear castor dynamics (for instance, a four-castor platform with asymmetric loading) and check whether the 30-step rolling prediction of $\omega_\zeta$ stays stable across repeated trials.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the part of a vehicle-trailer system that resists first-principles modeling—the trailer yaw rate $\omega_\zeta$, especially for castor-wheel trailers—can be represented as a hybrid update $x_{k+1}=f(x_{k-n_f:k}, u_{k-n_f:k}) + e(x_{k-n_f:k}, u_{k-n_f:k})$, where the nominal model $f$ keeps exact nonholonomic kinematics for the vehicle and a small multilayer perceptron $f^\omega$ predicts the trailer yaw rate, while the residual $e^\omega$ is retrained online from the most recent 200 time steps. The historical window of $n_f = 3$ frames is the device that lets unmeasured castor-wheel angles, payloads, and surface conditions enter the model implicitly. Within MPC the residual is gated by a binary switch on its rolling prediction error relative to the nominal model, and its influence decays linearly to zero over 15 steps, so it corrects near-term error without poisoning longer-horizon rollouts. On the paper's own evidence, this scheme generalizes to trailer types and payloads outside the training set, and the real-world demonstrations show the same unchanged system delivering four different trailers to their destinations while avoiding obstacles.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the premise that the trailer yaw rate $\omega_\zeta$ is a deterministic function of the last three frames of hitch angle, trailer yaw rate, and control inputs, so that this short history implicitly encodes unmeasured castor-wheel states, payloads, and surface conditions; the paper does not separately validate that premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single pre-trained nominal trailer model transfers to trailer types never seen in training, with the online residual network absorbing the extra error during turns and on rough terrain.
The weighted combination prevents the online residual—which is reliable only on short horizons—from making multi-second predictions worse, so the MPC can plan safely over its full 30-step horizon.
In the paper's trajectory-tracking experiments, the weighted-model MPC roughly halves mean trailer tracking error compared with using the nominal model alone (0.16 m to 0.06 m for the platform trolley; 0.22 m to 0.16 m for the flight case).
Deploying the system on a new trailer reduces to hitching it up and running the same code, with no parameter file, calibration routine, or manual reconfiguration.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if short-horizon history really does encode the hidden trailer state, the same split—exact model for the towing body, learned function for the unmeasured appendage—should transfer to other articulated towing tasks, such as airport baggage carts, shopping carts with swiveling wheels, or boat trailers.
Beyond the paper: the online residual could be read as an implicit system-identification signal; logging its output during operation might reveal effective trailer parameters (caster trail, effective wheelbase) that could eventually replace the black-box correction with a physical model.
Beyond the paper: the binary residual switch and the empirically chosen cutoff $n_c = 15$ could be made continuous or uncertainty-aware; a probabilistic reliability estimate would likely behave better under disturbances that arrive at variable frequencies.
Beyond the paper: a testable extension would be to record the residual's prediction error under sudden payload shifts and see whether the system's recovery time scales with the 200-step training window, which would reveal whether online learning speed is the true bottleneck.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper is a genuine hardware effort: a vehicle that tows platform trolleys, flight cases, suitcases, and a wheelless box with no per-trailer calibration. The system combines an Ackermann model for the vehicle, a small MLP for trailer yaw rate, an online residual MLP, and MPC with a weighting that down-weights the residual after a cutoff step. That combination, applied to castor-wheel trailers, is the new bit. The real-world demos look real and the system visibly works across four trailer types and varying payloads, including dynamic obstacles and uneven ground. Credit where due: the rolling-prediction training objective, the lightweight online residual, and the weighted-model MPC are sensible engineering choices, and the paper is clearly written.

The soft spots are in the evidence, not the idea. First, the load-bearing assumption is that trailer yaw rate is a function of the last nf=3 steps (0.3 s) of state and inputs. The residual uses the same inputs, so it cannot recover hidden state with slower dynamics. The paper asserts that history 'implicitly encodes' unmeasured states, but no experiment varies nf, and no direct measurement (castor orientation, slip) checks whether the Markov assumption holds. For low-speed flat-ground towing it's plausible, but it's not validated. Second, the cutoff nc=15 is justified in Sec. VI-C.1 by the intersection of the nominal and unweighted-combination error curves on the same trajectories used for the whole evaluation. That is selection on the test set, and it inflates the apparent benefit of the weighting. Third, the experiments are single runs with no error bars, and no code or data is released. I couldn't check the numbers or rerun anything. None of this makes the central claim circular or the paper incoherent; the learned model is a legitimate approach and the system did work on four trailers. But the paper is currently a demonstration, not a rigorous validation.

Who gets value: colleagues building practical towing systems will find the architecture and the real-world experience useful; scientists looking for hard guarantees about generality should look elsewhere. A serious editor should send this to review — it deserves referee time — but the authors should expect requests for multi-run statistics, sensitivity to nf and nc, and ideally a released dataset or code. With those, this could be a solid RA-L or T-RO paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a universal vehicle-trailer navigation system combining a hybrid nominal kinematic model (classical nonholonomic vehicle kinematics plus a neural-network trailer yaw-rate model), an online-learned residual kinematic model, and a model predictive control (MPC) framework with a time-decaying weighted model combination. The nominal model is pre-trained with a multi-step rolling loss; the residual network is trained online on a recent 200-step window; the MPC uses the weighted model, obstacle-avoidance constraints, and input-rate penalties. Experiments evaluate multi-step prediction error for six trailer/payload conditions, trajectory tracking for two trailers, and a full autonomous navigation demonstration with four trailer types. The central claim is that the system adapts to diverse trailers, payloads, and disturbances without per-trailer calibration.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution to logistics and service robotics: a single navigation system that can tow castor-wheel trailers, flight cases, suitcases, and non-rolling loads without per-trailer model tuning. The hybrid modeling idea, the rolling-prediction training loss, and the online residual with a decaying influence in MPC are all reasonable and well motivated. The real-world demonstrations across four trailer types and several payload conditions are a strength, and the paper reports concrete quantitative prediction and tracking results. However, the evidence is not yet as strong as the paper's 'robust performance without manual tuning' claim, because the key experiments are single-run, the cutoff step nc is selected from the same data used for evaluation, and the central finite-memory kinematic assumption is not separately validated. These issues are localizable and fixable, so the manuscript is promising but needs revision.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV-B, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The load-bearing modeling assumption is that the trailer yaw rate ω_ζ at step k+1 is a deterministic function of the last nf+1 = 4 frames of θ, ω_ζ, and u. The residual network e^ω receives exactly the same inputs, so it cannot recover information that is absent from that 0.3 s window. The paper states that this history 'implicitly encode[s] unmeasured dynamic states and unknown parameters,' but no experiment varies nf, no caster-wheel state or slip state is measured, and no test is reported for maneuvers where slower hidden states (e.g., caster-wheel orientation or payload shift) might dominate. If the true kinematics require longer memory or variables outside {θ, ω_ζ, v, δ}, then both the nominal and residual networks are unidentifiable and the MPC model constraint (6d) can propagate systematically wrong trailer yaw-rate predictions over the 30-step horizon. I would like to see a validation that varies nf (e.g., 1, 3, 5, 10) and reports rolling-prediction RMSE, or direct evidence that the chosen coordinates and history are sufficient for the tested trailers.
[Sec. VI-C.1, Fig. 6] The cutoff step nc = 15 is selected from the same evaluation curves used to demonstrate the advantage of the weighted model. The text says 'the intersection between the unweighted combination and the nominal model occurs after 15 steps, which justifies our choice of nc = 15.' Because nc appears directly in the weighting function λ_e(k) of Eq. (7), the comparison in Fig. 6 and the subsequently reported tracking improvements in Table I are in-sample with respect to this parameter. The claim that the weighted model improves long-horizon prediction needs an independent evaluation: either a hold-out set for selecting nc, a sensitivity study reporting performance for a range of nc, or a clear statement that the reported numbers are a demonstration of the mechanism rather than an unbiased comparison.
[Sec. VI, Table I and Figs. 8-10] The experimental evidence for the central robustness claim is based on single runs. Table I reports mean and standard deviation of tracking error, but the standard deviation appears to be computed over time within one trajectory, not over repeated trials; there are no multiple runs, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. Likewise, each trailer type in the autonomous transportation demonstration (Fig. 8) is shown for one run. The claim of 'robust performance without manual tuning or trailer-specific calibration' requires at least a small number of repeated trials per condition, or an explicit statement that the demonstration is a feasibility study. Without such evidence, it is difficult to distinguish genuine robustness from favorable conditions in a particular run.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. IV-B, Eq. (3)] There is an inconsistency in the notation for the control history: Eq. (3) writes u_{k-nf:k}, while the following text says u_{k-nf+1:k}. Please align the notation with the definition used in Eq. (4) and with the actual input history length.
[Sec. IV-B.3] The description of online residual training says the model is trained using 'state sequence x_{k-nt:k} and control sequence u_{t-nt:t}'; the subscript 't' in the control sequence appears to be a typo for 'k'.
[Sec. VI-C.1, Fig. 6] The y-axis label in Fig. 6 is 'Error (rad/s)' and the caption says RMSE of ω_ζ, while the training-loss description in Sec. IV-B.3 uses MSE. Please make the units and the loss/error terminology consistent throughout.
[Sec. V-C.3, Eq. (11)] The sentence 'the diagonal entries scale with σ_w' is vague; please specify the exact functional dependence of Q_du on σ_w, and state whether this scaling is applied only to the input-rate penalty or also to the input penalty.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the neural kinematics are fitted and evaluated against real vehicle-trailer data, and the MPC uses the learned model prospectively; only the residual cutoff nc=15 is justified post hoc on the same evaluation curves.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. VI-B (hyperparameter setting) and Sec. VI-C.1 (Fig. 6 discussion)]
"The residual kinematic network consists of two hidden layers ... and set ϵ = 0.5, nc = 15 to calculate se and λe(k) in (7). ... Furthermore, the intersection between the unweighted combination and the nominal model occurs after 15 steps, which justifies our choice of nc = 15."

The cutoff nc=15 is declared in the experiment setup before the model evaluation, and then the same evaluation section uses the observed intersection of the unweighted-combination and nominal error curves to justify that value. Thus the reported long-horizon behavior of the weighted model in Fig. 6 is partly by construction: the point at which the residual is switched off was chosen from the very curves that demonstrate its effectiveness. This is a mild tuning/evaluation coupling rather than a derivation that assumes the central conclusion; the subsequent navigation and tracking experiments are separate evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a supervised hybrid kinematic model: f^omega is an MLP trained on collected trajectories, e^omega is an online residual trained on the most recent 200 steps, and MPC rolls these models forward. Prediction of trailer yaw rate is a fit to measured data, not a conclusion read out of the model's own assumptions. The claimed universal behavior is tested on untrained trailer types (suitcase, wheelless box) and varying payloads in real-world demonstrations, which are external to the training set and therefore provide independent content. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the only author-overlapping reference appears in related work and is not used to justify the kinematics, the residual law, or the uniqueness of the modeling choice. The main soft spot is the unvalidated finite-memory Markov assumption (nf=3) for trailer yaw rate, but that is a correctness/identifiability risk, not circularity, because the system could fail without the prediction reducing to its input. The one circularity-adjacent item is the post-hoc selection of nc=15 from the same error curves used to evaluate the weighted model; this affects the long-horizon weighting claim in Fig. 6 but does not by itself force the successful navigation results. Overall score 2 reflects this minor coupling with otherwise independent experimental grounding.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on standard kinematic modeling, a learned neural network, and several hand-chosen hyperparameters; the most consequential of these is the cutoff step nc, which is selected based on evaluation data.

free parameters (6)

cutoff step nc = 15
Set to 15 because the observed error intersection between the unweighted combination and the nominal model occurs after 15 prediction steps in the evaluation experiments (Sec. VI-C.1). This is a post hoc selection on test data.
history length nf = 3
Number of past frames concatenated as network input; chosen by the authors without an ablation (Sec. VI-B).
online training window nt = 200
Sliding window of recent trajectory used to update the residual network (Sec. VI-B).
model evaluation window ne = 15
Window over which nominal and residual model MSE are compared to set the switch se (Sec. VI-B).
residual activation threshold epsilon = 0.5
Threshold on the MSE ratio sigma_fe/sigma_f for activating the residual model (Sec. V-B.2).
MPC cost weights = not reported
Weight matrices Qt, Qref, Qu, Qdu and obstacle cost parameters lambda_f, lambda_r, gamma_f, gamma_r are introduced but numerical values are not given (Sec. V-C).

assumptions (3)

standard math Ackermann nonholonomic vehicle model
Used for the towing vehicle kinematics in Eq. (4), standard in mobile robotics.
domain assumption Planar 2D motion assumption
Assumes flat operating environments so the system can be modeled in 2D (Sec. IV-A).
domain assumption Finite-history sufficiency
Assumes the past nf+1 states and inputs are enough to predict trailer yaw rate, implicitly encoding caster wheel states, payload, and disturbances (Sec. IV-B.1).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Universal Vehicle-Trailer Navigation System with Neural Kinematics and Online Residual Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3CUO6JOC

@misc{pith2026250715607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Universal Vehicle-Trailer Navigation System with Neural Kinematics and Online Residual Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3CUO6JOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15607}
}

read the original abstract

Autonomous navigation of vehicle-trailer systems is crucial in environments like airports, supermarkets, and concert venues, where various types of trailers are needed to navigate with different payloads and conditions. However, accurately modeling such systems remains challenging, especially for trailers with castor wheels. In this work, we propose a novel universal vehicle-trailer navigation system that integrates a hybrid nominal kinematic model--combining classical nonholonomic constraints for vehicles and neural network-based trailer kinematics--with a lightweight online residual learning module to correct real-time modeling discrepancies and disturbances. Additionally, we develop a model predictive control framework with a weighted model combination strategy that improves long-horizon prediction accuracy and ensures safer motion planning. Our approach is validated through extensive real-world experiments involving multiple trailer types and varying payload conditions, demonstrating robust performance without manual tuning or trailer-specific calibration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15607 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the navigation system. The framework integrates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Definitions for the vehicle-trailer system. For obstacle avoidance, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Structure of the proposed neural network kinematics for the trailer, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Experimental robot platform. The vehicle (HUNTER SE) is equipped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Tracking trajectories of the trailers using the nominal model and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Multi-step rolling prediction RMSE of ω ζ using three models: the nominal model, the unweighted combination, and the weighted model. (a)- (b) Platform trolley with different payloads; (c)-(d) Flight case with different payloads; (e) Suitcase; (f) Wheelless storage box.…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Snapshots of the autonomous trailer transportation experiment demonstrating the proposed system’s capability to navigate and deliver various types [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Prediction performance of the model in transportation experiments, with gray-shaded regions indicating activation of the residual kinematics ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Control inputs of the Ackermann-steering vehicle during trailer transportation experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Back driving assistant for passenger cars with trailer,

C. Lundquist, W. Reinelt, and O. Enqvist, “Back driving assistant for passenger cars with trailer,” SAE Technical Paper, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Reversing the general one-trailer system: Asymptotic curvature stabilization and path tracking,

M. Werling, P. Reinisch, M. Heidingsfeld, and K. Gresser, “Reversing the general one-trailer system: Asymptotic curvature stabilization and path tracking,” IEEE Transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 627–636, 2013

work page 2013
[3]

A universal and reconfig- urable stability control methodology for articulated vehicles with any configurations,

Y . Zhang, A. Khajepour, and M. Ataei, “A universal and reconfig- urable stability control methodology for articulated vehicles with any configurations,” IEEE transactions on vehicular technology , vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 3748–3759, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

Robotic autonomous trolley collection with progressive perception and nonlinear model predictive control,

A. Xiao, H. Luan, Z. Zhao, Y . Hong, J. Zhao, W. Chen, J. Wang, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Robotic autonomous trolley collection with progressive perception and nonlinear model predictive control,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 4480–4486

work page 2022
[5]

Real-time decision making and path planning for robotic autonomous luggage trolley collection at air- ports,

J. Wang and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Real-time decision making and path planning for robotic autonomous luggage trolley collection at air- ports,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 2174–2183, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Learning quadrotor dynamics using neural network for flight control,

S. Bansal, A. K. Akametalu, F. J. Jiang, F. Laine, and C. J. Tomlin, “Learning quadrotor dynamics using neural network for flight control,” in 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 4653–4660

work page 2016
[7]

Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,

J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V . Tsounis, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 26, p. eaau5872, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

Neural network vehicle models for high-performance automated driving,

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 , vol. 4, no. 28, p. eaaw1975, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 29 references

[9]

Disturbance-observer-based control and related methods—an overview,

W.-H. Chen, J. Yang, L. Guo, and S. Li, “Disturbance-observer-based control and related methods—an overview,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 1083–1095, 2016

2016
[10]

Robust trajectory tracking control of an autonomous tractor-trailer considering model parameter uncertainties and disturbances,

E. Lu, J. Xue, T. Chen, and S. Jiang, “Robust trajectory tracking control of an autonomous tractor-trailer considering model parameter uncertainties and disturbances,” Agriculture, vol. 13, no. 4, p. 869, 2023

2023
[11]

System identification—a survey,

K. J. ˚Astr¨om and P. Eykhoff, “System identification—a survey,” Automatica, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 123–162, 1971

1971
[12]

Scalable parametric-identification procedure for kinematics of automated n-trailer vehicles,

M. M. Michałek, “Scalable parametric-identification procedure for kinematics of automated n-trailer vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 7758–7770, 2024

2024
[13]

A review on vehicle- trailer state and parameter estimation,

A. H. Korayem, A. Khajepour, and B. Fidan, “A review on vehicle- trailer state and parameter estimation,” IEEE Transactions on intelli- gent transportation systems , vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 5993–6010, 2021

2021
[14]

Online learning of unknown dynamics for model-based controllers in legged locomotion,

Y . Sun, W. L. Ubellacker, W.-L. Ma, X. Zhang, C. Wang, N. V . Csomay-Shanklin, M. Tomizuka, K. Sreenath, and A. D. Ames, “Online learning of unknown dynamics for model-based controllers in legged locomotion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 8442–8449, 2021

2021
[15]

Adaptive model predictive control with data-driven error model for quadrupedal locomotion,

X. Zeng, H. Zhang, L. Yue, Z. Song, L. Zhang, and Y .-H. Liu, “Adaptive model predictive control with data-driven error model for quadrupedal locomotion,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 5731–5737

2024
[16]

Learning model predictive control with error dynamics regression for autonomous racing,

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

2024
[17]

Knode-mpc: A knowledge- based data-driven predictive control framework for aerial robots,

K. Y . Chee, T. Z. Jiahao, and M. A. Hsieh, “Knode-mpc: A knowledge- based data-driven predictive control framework for aerial robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2819–2826, 2022

2022
[18]

Neural network model predictive motion control applied to automated driving with unknown friction,

N. A. Spielberg, M. Brown, and J. C. Gerdes, “Neural network model predictive motion control applied to automated driving with unknown friction,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1934–1945, 2021

1934
[19]

Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,

Z. Jian, Z. Yan, X. Lei, Z. Lu, B. Lan, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 3679–3685

2023
[20]

Enhancing feasibility and safety of nonlinear model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier functions,

J. Zeng, Z. Li, and K. Sreenath, “Enhancing feasibility and safety of nonlinear model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier functions,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6137–6144

2021
[21]

Quadruped guidance robot for the visually impaired: A comfort-based approach,

Y . Chen, Z. Xu, Z. Jian, G. Tang, L. Yang, A. Xiao, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Quadruped guidance robot for the visually impaired: A comfort-based approach,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 12 078–12 084

2023
[22]

Configuration-aware model pre- dictive motion planning for tractor–trailer mobile robot,

N. Ito, H. Okuda, and T. Suzuki, “Configuration-aware model pre- dictive motion planning for tractor–trailer mobile robot,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 329–343, 2023

2023
[23]

Mpc-based motion planning for autonomous truck-trailer maneuvering,

M. Bos, B. Vandewal, W. Decr ´e, and J. Swevers, “Mpc-based motion planning for autonomous truck-trailer maneuvering,” IF AC- PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 4877–4882, 2023

2023
[24]

Real-time neural mpc: Deep learning model predictive control for quadrotors and agile robotic platforms,

T. Salzmann, E. Kaufmann, J. Arrizabalaga, M. Pavone, D. Scara- muzza, and M. Ryll, “Real-time neural mpc: Deep learning model predictive control for quadrotors and agile robotic platforms,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2397–2404, 2023

2023
[25]

Npc: Neural predictive control for fuel-efficient autonomous trucks,

J. Ren, J. Xiang, H. Gao, J. Zhang, Y . Ren, Y . Ma, Y . Wu, R. Yang, and W. Li, “Npc: Neural predictive control for fuel-efficient autonomous trucks,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 14 251–14 257

2024
[26]

Direct lidar-inertial odome- try: Lightweight lio with continuous-time motion correction,

K. Chen, R. Nemiroff, and B. T. Lopez, “Direct lidar-inertial odome- try: Lightweight lio with continuous-time motion correction,” in 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 3983–3989

2023
[27]

A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu et al. , “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in kdd, vol. 96, no. 34, 1996, pp. 226–231

1996
[28]

Path planning for autonomous vehicles in unknown semi-structured environments,

D. Dolgov, S. Thrun, M. Montemerlo, and J. Diebel, “Path planning for autonomous vehicles in unknown semi-structured environments,” The international journal of robotics research , vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 485– 501, 2010

2010
[29]

acados – a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control,

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

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Back driving assistant for passenger cars with trailer,

C. Lundquist, W. Reinelt, and O. Enqvist, “Back driving assistant for passenger cars with trailer,” SAE Technical Paper, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Reversing the general one-trailer system: Asymptotic curvature stabilization and path tracking,

M. Werling, P. Reinisch, M. Heidingsfeld, and K. Gresser, “Reversing the general one-trailer system: Asymptotic curvature stabilization and path tracking,” IEEE Transactions on intelligent transportation systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 627–636, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [3]

A universal and reconfig- urable stability control methodology for articulated vehicles with any configurations,

Y . Zhang, A. Khajepour, and M. Ataei, “A universal and reconfig- urable stability control methodology for articulated vehicles with any configurations,” IEEE transactions on vehicular technology , vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 3748–3759, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Robotic autonomous trolley collection with progressive perception and nonlinear model predictive control,

A. Xiao, H. Luan, Z. Zhao, Y . Hong, J. Zhao, W. Chen, J. Wang, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Robotic autonomous trolley collection with progressive perception and nonlinear model predictive control,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 4480–4486

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Real-time decision making and path planning for robotic autonomous luggage trolley collection at air- ports,

J. Wang and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Real-time decision making and path planning for robotic autonomous luggage trolley collection at air- ports,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 2174–2183, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Learning quadrotor dynamics using neural network for flight control,

S. Bansal, A. K. Akametalu, F. J. Jiang, F. Laine, and C. J. Tomlin, “Learning quadrotor dynamics using neural network for flight control,” in 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 4653–4660

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,

J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, A. Dosovitskiy, D. Bellicoso, V . Tsounis, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 26, p. eaau5872, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Neural network vehicle models for high-performance automated driving,

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 , vol. 4, no. 28, p. eaaw1975, 2019

work page 2019