Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 55 references

IteraOptiRacing: A Unified Planning-Control Framework for Real-time Autonomous Racing for Iterative Optimal Performance

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 A single iterative controller, IteraOptiRacing, claims to plan overtakes and optimize lap time simultaneously in real time.

desk verdict Solid but narrow empirical study; the abstract overpromises what the evidence actually supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09714 v1 pith:5CREN3CA submitted 2025-07-13 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Yifan Zeng , Yihan Li , Suiyi He , Koushil Sreenath , Jun Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords autonomousracingiterativelinearquadraticregulatori2LQRmodelpredictivecontrolovertakingobstacleavoidancelaptimeoptimizationreal-timeplanningand
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

IteraOptiRacing is an attempt to collapse the two jobs of autonomous racing—following a fast line and overtaking rivals—into one optimization loop that runs in real time. The paper argues that by iterating on the ego car's own historical lap data, a single i2LQR controller can both improve lap time and avoid multiple moving cars, eliminating the abrupt switch between a time-optimal planner and an overtaking replanner seen in earlier methods. In high-fidelity simulations with nine randomized opponents on three tracks, it reports overtaking more cars, never failing where a baseline succeeds, and computing overtaking solutions in about 0.036 seconds on average, against 0.309–0.485 seconds for the three LMPC baselines. The value of the claim, if true, is that competitive racing does not need separate planning and control layers or expensive game-theoretic reasoning to handle multi-car traffic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the target terminal set: at each time step, K-nearest past states drawn from the ego car's stored historical laps become candidate terminal targets for K separate iLQR problems. Obstacle avoidance is inserted into the stage cost as an exponential soft constraint whose weight is increased, and whose terminal-tracking weights are divided down, whenever the open-loop trajectory violates the safety boundary (10). An affine time-varying dynamics model linearized around the previous open-loop prediction makes each candidate problem cheap, and independence of the K problems makes them parallelizable. This single optimization loop is what replaces the planner/controller switch.

What would settle it

Run the same randomized overtaking tests on the L-, M-, and elliptic tracks with opposing vehicles whose velocity and lateral deviation are updated based on the ego car's current position (for example, actively moving to block), and compare one-lap overtake success rates; if IteraOptiRacing no longer beats the three LMPC baselines, the paper's claim fails in reactive traffic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that IteraOptiRacing, built on the Iterative Linear Quadratic Regulator for Iterative Tasks (i2LQR), unifies the planner and the controller so that one local optimization produces trajectories that are simultaneously time-optimal on the basis of historical laps and collision-free against multiple moving vehicles. At each time step the algorithm builds a target terminal set from the K-nearest historical states, solves one independent iLQR problem per candidate target, encodes obstacle avoidance as a soft exponential barrier inside the cost, and dynamically relaxes terminal-tracking weights whenever the produced trajectory violates the safety boundary. The best trajectory is then selected by collision and reachability checks using the minimal cost-to-go. The paper validates this design in randomized simulations and reports that it overtakes more of the nine surrounding vehicles than LMPC with local replanning, LMPC with slacked target state, and LMPC with slack on the convex hull, at a consistently lower computational cost.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the surrounding vehicles' future trajectories are pre-generated and known in advance, and that they do not react to the ego car's maneuvers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No separate overtaking layer is needed: the same optimization that improves lap time also generates collision-free overtaking trajectories around multiple moving cars.
  • The K nearest-state candidate problems are solved independently, so parallel computing directly reduces wall-clock time, supporting the reported mean solve time of 0.036 seconds during overtaking.
  • Because obstacles are handled as soft constraints that relax terminal tracking only when safety is at risk, overtaking maneuvers can be generated without deadlock or constraint infeasibility.
  • In all reported randomized tests, whenever any baseline overtook all nine cars, IteraOptiRacing also did; and there were cases where only IteraOptiRacing succeeded, so the paper claims superiority over the baselines in these settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the K candidate iLQR problems are independent, the same history-driven terminal-set mechanism could be applied to reactive opponents by substituting an online predictor for the pre-generated trajectories, a test the paper does not run.
  • Editorial inference: the adaptive weight schedule exposes a tunable trade-off between safety margin and lap-time optimality that could be mapped explicitly as a Pareto frontier rather than fixed hyperparameters.
  • Editorial inference: the framework needs only a stored history set and a differentiable dynamics model, so it could transfer to other iterative multi-agent tasks such as drone racing or warehouse vehicle coordination, though the paper only demonstrates car racing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes IteraOptiRacing, a unified planning and control framework for autonomous racing built on i2LQR. At each time step, K nearest historical states are used as candidate terminal targets; for each candidate, an iLQR problem with affine time-varying dynamics minimizes a quadratic terminal tracking cost plus control-effort and control-rate penalties, with obstacle avoidance encoded as an exponential soft constraint and weights adaptively adjusted until a discrete collision-check condition is met. A best trajectory is then selected by collision, reachability, convergence, and cost-to-go criteria. The method is evaluated in a high-fidelity simulator against three LMPC-based baselines in randomized scenarios with multiple pre-generated PID-driven opponents, reporting higher overtaking success and lower computation time.

Significance. If the central claims held, this would be a useful real-time, parallelizable planner-controller that avoids the nonsmooth planner-controller switching of prior work and handles multiple moving obstacles while improving lap time over iterations. The empirical comparison is fairly extensive: 300 randomized tests across speed ranges plus three track shapes, with consistent improvements in overtaking counts and roughly an order-of-magnitude lower mean solve time compared with the three LMPC variants. The authors should be credited for evaluating against three distinct baselines, reporting hyperparameters in Table II, and making the non-interactive assumption explicit in Section IV-A. However, the headline claims of 'collision-free and time-optimal generated trajectories' and of overtaking 'other racing cars' are not established: the cost function does not minimize time, no safety certificate is provided, and all experiments use deterministic, non-reactive opponent trajectories.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-A2, III-C1, Remark 1] The claim that IteraOptiRacing produces time-optimal trajectories is not supported by the problem formulation. The stage cost in Eq. (5) penalizes control effort and control rate and the terminal cost in Eq. (6) penalizes quadratic deviation from a historical target zg; neither term is a time cost or a cost-to-go. The selection rule in Section III-A2 chooses the reachable candidate with the smallest cost-to-go h(zg), but because condition (12) only requires the terminal state to be within epsilon of zg, the stored cost-to-go of zg is not a valid bound on the remaining time from the actually reached terminal state. The LMPC monotonic-improvement argument in Appendix A relies on a convex-hull terminal constraint and a convex cost-to-go, neither of which is present in Eqs. (4)-(6). Remark 1 defers the obstacle-free equivalence to prior work [51], but that result is not reproduced here and cannot substitute for a derivation.
  2. [IV-A, Remark 5] The empirical support for the collision-free overtaking claim is limited to non-interactive, pre-generated opponent trajectories. Section IV-A states that all surrounding-vehicle trajectories are pre-generated and stored, that the vehicles are controlled by PID with target velocities and lateral deviations independent of the ego state, and that 'this work does not consider any interaction between the ego vehicle and other surrounding vehicles, such as Stackelberg games'; Remark 5 reaffirms that the safe-boundary checks in Eq. (10) rely on these deterministic predictions. Real racing opponents react to the ego car, so the predicted states x_{p,t+k|t} used in Eqs. (8)-(11) will generally be wrong, and a trajectory selected as collision-free at planning time can become unsafe at execution time. The abstract and contributions nevertheless claim collision-free overtaking of 'other racing cars' without this caveat; this overstatement needs to be removed or supported by experiments with reactive opponents or by a robustness guarantee against prediction error.
  3. [Remark 2, Eq. (10), Section III-D] Even with perfect predictions, the 'collision-free' property is not formally guaranteed. Obstacle avoidance is encoded as a soft exponential barrier in Eqs. (7)-(9), and Remark 2 states that weights are adjusted until condition (10) is satisfied 'or the maximum iteration number is reached'; the manuscript does not specify what happens if the maximum is reached and (10) remains violated, nor does it prove that the iterative weight adjustment converges to a trajectory satisfying (10). In addition, Eq. (10) is checked at discrete prediction nodes, so absence of collisions between nodes is not certified. Section III-D selects only among trajectories that pass the check but does not define a fallback if no candidate qualifies. A rigorous claim of 'collision-free generated trajectories' requires either a hard constraint, a certificate, or an explicit failure-handling policy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table III] The layout of the four success-rate categories in Table III is confusing: the superscripts are only placed on the first number of each block, making it difficult to map percentages to the (a)-(d) categories; please format each category as a separate labeled cell or row.
  2. [Eq. (11)] Equation (11) uses both vx,i and vx,p for the same quantity; unify the notation for the p-th surrounding vehicle's speed.
  3. [Eq. (12)] Equation (12) compares a squared norm to epsilon, while the text describes epsilon as a tracking ratio; the inequality should be written consistently, e.g., as a norm bound on the error rather than a squared norm compared to a non-squared threshold.
  4. [Table II and Eq. (11)] The values of epsilon and gamma in Table II are given without units or a sensitivity analysis, although the overtaking-range criterion (11) depends directly on them; a brief discussion of their influence on the results would improve reproducibility.
  5. [III-A2 and III-B] There is an internal inconsistency in the target-selection ordering: Section III-A2 says candidates are selected 'with cost-to-go values prioritized in descending order,' while Section III-B states that points with smaller cost-to-go are used first; the intended ordering should be stated consistently.
  6. [References] References [4] and [42] are the same paper ('A benchmark comparison of imitation learning-based control policies for autonomous racing') and should be merged into a single citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core planning-control derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against independent baselines; the only relevant self-citation (Remark 1) is peripheral and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The local iLQR problem (4) with cost (5)-(6), the obstacle constraint reformulated as an exponential cost (7)-(9), the safety check (10), and the trajectory selection criteria (11)-(13) are all explicitly defined in the paper. The main empirical claim, faster and more frequent overtaking of multiple moving vehicles, is tested in a high-fidelity simulator against three LMPC-based baselines with randomized scenarios, which gives independent grounding for the central result. The pre-generated, non-interactive opponent trajectories (Remark 5 and Section IV-A) are a limitation of the scenario rather than a circular reduction: the algorithm is evaluated against the same deterministic predictions it uses for planning, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that interactions such as Stackelberg games are not considered and are left to future work. The one self-citation that could be questioned is Remark 1, which relies on the authors' prior work [51] to assert that i2LQR matches LMPC in obstacle-free conditions. That assertion is not reproduced or formally verified here, but it is peripheral to the paper's central overtaking comparison, which does not depend on the obstacle-free equivalence. No equation is found to reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input or to an input defined in terms of the output, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the proposed choice. Thus the paper has no significant circularity; at most it contains one minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm depends on a large set of hand-tuned hyperparameters (Table II) and on several unproven modeling assumptions, notably that the affine time-varying model is accurate, that historical cost-to-go values are valid for time-optimality, that soft penalty iteration yields safety, and that opponent trajectories are known and non-reactive. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • K (number of nearest points) = 32
    Hand-tuned for the simulation; no sensitivity analysis.
  • mQN (terminal weight adaptation ratio) = 20
    Hand-tuned; directly affects reachability versus safety trade-off.
  • mR (stage weight adaptation ratio) = 5
    Hand-tuned; affects control effort penalty.
  • mdR (rate weight adaptation ratio) = 1.1
    Hand-tuned; affects input rate penalty.
  • mq2 (constraint weight adaptation ratio) = 0.1
    Hand-tuned; scales the exponential barrier exponent.
  • epsilon (safety margin ratio in Eq. 11) = 5
    Hand-tuned; determines overtaking range.
  • gamma (prediction ratio in Eq. 11) = 2
    Hand-tuned; weights speed difference in overtaking range.
  • ssafe (safety margin in Eq. 9) = 0.1 m
    Hand-tuned; adds to collision boundary.
  • tsafe (safe headway in Eq. 9) = 2 s
    Hand-tuned; velocity-dependent safety distance.
  • epsilon1, epsilon2 (tracking ratios in Eq. 12) = 0.4, 1.0
    Hand-tuned; larger with obstacles to allow overtaking trajectories.
  • psi1, psi2 (convergence ratios in Eq. 13) = 0.0, 0.03
    Hand-tuned; zero in obstacle-free case forces exact convergence.
  • q1, q2 (exponential barrier weights in Eq. 7)
    Introduced in Eq. 7 but numeric values not reported; hand-tuned.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The affine time-varying model in Eq. 4b accurately approximates the nonlinear bicycle dynamics over the prediction horizon.
    Invoked in Section III-C; the iLQR optimization uses this local linear model, and the paper provides no error analysis against the exact nonlinear dynamics used in simulation.
  • domain assumption Historical cost-to-go values provide a valid value function for minimum lap time.
    Used in Section III-A2 to justify that minimizing cost-to-go through target selection yields no worse lap time than previous laps; no formal proof is given for the obstacle case.
  • domain assumption Soft exponential penalties with iterative weight adjustment are sufficient to produce collision-free trajectories.
    Section III-C and Remark 2 describe the penalty loop but provide no safety guarantee if the maximum iteration is reached or if the penalty weights are poorly initialized.
  • domain assumption Surrounding vehicles' trajectories are known in advance and are deterministic.
    Section IV-A explicitly states no interaction is considered; Remark 5 confirms all baselines and the proposed method use pre-generated opponent paths.
  • domain assumption The K-nearest-neighbor selection with cost-to-go ordering yields a reachable and time-optimal target terminal set.
    Section III-B assumes the selected historical states are reachable within the horizon and that cost-to-go ordering preserves time optimality; no reachability analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IteraOptiRacing: A Unified Planning-Control Framework for Real-time Autonomous Racing for Iterative Optimal Performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5CREN3CA

@misc{pith2026250709714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IteraOptiRacing: A Unified Planning-Control Framework for Real-time Autonomous Racing for Iterative Optimal Performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5CREN3CA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09714}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a unified planning-control strategy for competing with other racing cars called IteraOptiRacing in autonomous racing environments. This unified strategy is proposed based on Iterative Linear Quadratic Regulator for Iterative Tasks (i2LQR), which can improve lap time performance in the presence of surrounding racing obstacles. By iteratively using the ego car's historical data, both obstacle avoidance for multiple moving cars and time cost optimization are considered in this unified strategy, resulting in collision-free and time-optimal generated trajectories. The algorithm's constant low computation burden and suitability for parallel computing enable real-time operation in competitive racing scenarios. To validate its performance, simulations in a high-fidelity simulator are conducted with multiple randomly generated dynamic agents on the track. Results show that the proposed strategy outperforms existing methods across all randomly generated autonomous racing scenarios, enabling enhanced maneuvering for the ego racing car.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09714 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Snapshots from two simulation cases of the overtaking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. IteraOptiRacing racing strategy. Initial historical data are collected offline through recursive tasks. During the online optimization, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An illustration of the iterative cycle for target terminal state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshots from simulation of the overtaking behavior using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution analysis of overtaking performance across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution analysis of overtaking performance across the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [51]

    i2lqr: Iterative lqr for iterative tasks in dynamic environments,

    Y . Zeng, S. He, H. H. Nguyen, Y . Li, Z. Li, K. Sreenath, and J. Zeng, “i2lqr: Iterative lqr for iterative tasks in dynamic environments,” in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5255–5260

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Indy au- tonomous challenge-autonomous race cars at the handling limits,

    A. Wischnewski, M. Geisslinger, J. Betz, T. Betz, F. Fent, A. Heilmeier, L. Hermansdorfer, T. Herrmann, S. Huch, P. Karle et al. , “Indy au- tonomous challenge-autonomous race cars at the handling limits,” in 12th International Munich Chassis Symposium 2021: chassis. tech plus . Springer, 2022, pp. 163–182

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Tum autonomous motorsport: An autonomous racing software for the indy autonomous challenge,

    J. Betz, T. Betz, F. Fent, M. Geisslinger, A. Heilmeier, L. Hermansdorfer, T. Herrmann, S. Huch, P. Karle, M. Lienkamp et al., “Tum autonomous motorsport: An autonomous racing software for the indy autonomous challenge,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 783–809, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Reach- ing the limit in autonomous racing: Optimal control versus reinforcement learning,

    Y . Song, A. Romero, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Reach- ing the limit in autonomous racing: Optimal control versus reinforcement learning,” Science Robotics , vol. 8, no. 82, p. eadg1462, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A model-free algorithm to safely approach the handling limit of an autonomous racecar,

    A. Wischnewski, J. Betz, and B. Lohmann, “A model-free algorithm to safely approach the handling limit of an autonomous racecar,” in 2019 IEEE international conference on connected vehicles and expo (ICCVE) , 2019, pp. 1–6

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Delay-aware robust control for safe autonomous driving and racing,

    D. Kalaria, Q. Lin, and J. M. Dolan, “Delay-aware robust control for safe autonomous driving and racing,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Minimum curvature trajectory planning and control for an autonomous race car,

    A. Heilmeier, A. Wischnewski, L. Hermansdorfer, J. Betz, M. Lienkamp, and B. Lohmann, “Minimum curvature trajectory planning and control for an autonomous race car,” V ehicle System Dynamics, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Optimization-based path planning for an autonomous vehicle in a racing track,

    S. A. Bonab and A. Emadi, “Optimization-based path planning for an autonomous vehicle in a racing track,” in IECON 2019-45th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society , vol. 1, 2019, pp. 3823–3828

    2019

  2. [10]

    Towards the design of robotic drivers for full-scale self-driving racing cars,

    D. Caporale, A. Settimi, F. Massa, F. Amerotti, A. Corti, A. Fagiolini, M. Guiggiani, A. Bicchi, and L. Pallottino, “Towards the design of robotic drivers for full-scale self-driving racing cars,” in 2019 Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019, pp....

    2019

  3. [11]

    Autonomous racing using linear parameter varying-model predictive control (lpv-mpc),

    E. Alcal ´a, V . Puig, J. Quevedo, and U. Rosolia, “Autonomous racing using linear parameter varying-model predictive control (lpv-mpc),” Control Engineering Practice , vol. 95, p. 104270, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Real-time adaptive velocity optimization for autonomous electric cars at the limits of handling,

    T. Herrmann, A. Wischnewski, L. Hermansdorfer, J. Betz, and M. Lienkamp, “Real-time adaptive velocity optimization for autonomous electric cars at the limits of handling,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 665–677, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    A holistic motion planning and control solution to challenge a professional racecar driver,

    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 , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7854–7860, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Inherently robust suboptimal mpc for autonomous racing with anytime feasible sqp,

    L. Numerow, A. Zanelli, A. Carron, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Inherently robust suboptimal mpc for autonomous racing with anytime feasible sqp,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Path-tracking for autonomous vehicles at the limit of friction,

    V . A. Laurense, J. Y . Goh, and J. C. Gerdes, “Path-tracking for autonomous vehicles at the limit of friction,” in 2017 American control conference (ACC), 2017, pp. 5586–5591

    2017

  8. [16]

    Cautious nmpc with gaussian process dynamics for autonomous miniature race cars,

    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) , 2018, pp. 1341–1348

    2018

  9. [17]

    Tire modeling to enable model predictive control of automated vehicles from standstill to the limits of handling,

    V . Zhang, S. M. Thornton, and J. C. Gerdes, “Tire modeling to enable model predictive control of automated vehicles from standstill to the limits of handling,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Advanced V ehicle Control, Nagoya, Japan , 2018, pp. 14–18

    2018

  10. [18]

    Learning-based model predictive control for autonomous racing,

    J. Kabzan, L. Hewing, A. Liniger, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Learning-based model predictive control for autonomous racing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3363–3370, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Learning how to autonomously race a car: a predictive control approach,

    U. Rosolia and F. Borrelli, “Learning how to autonomously race a car: a predictive control approach,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2713–2719, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Learning at the racetrack: Data- driven methods to improve racing performance over multiple laps,

    N. R. Kapania and J. C. Gerdes, “Learning at the racetrack: Data- driven methods to improve racing performance over multiple laps,”IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 8232–8242, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Deriving overtaking strategy from nonlinear model predictive control for a race car,

    A. Buyval, A. Gabdulin, R. Mustafin, and I. Shimchik, “Deriving overtaking strategy from nonlinear model predictive control for a race car,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) , 2017, pp. 2623–2628

    2017

  14. [22]

    Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,

    J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,” in 2021 American Control Conference (ACC) , 2021, pp. 3882–3889

    2021

  15. [23]

    Gaus- sian process-based stochastic model predictive control for overtaking in autonomous racing,

    T. Br ¨udigam, A. Capone, S. Hirche, D. Wollherr, and M. Leibold, “Gaus- sian process-based stochastic model predictive control for overtaking in autonomous racing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.12236 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Motion planning and control for multi vehicle autonomous racing at high speeds,

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

    2022

  17. [25]

    Efficient spa- tiotemporal graph search for local trajectory planning on oval race tracks,

    M. Rowold, L. ¨Ogretmen, T. Kerbl, and B. Lohmann, “Efficient spa- tiotemporal graph search for local trajectory planning on oval race tracks,” in Actuators, vol. 11, no. 11. MDPI, 2022, p. 319

    2022

  18. [26]

    Multilayer graph- based trajectory planning for race vehicles in dynamic scenarios,

    T. Stahl, A. Wischnewski, J. Betz, and M. Lienkamp, “Multilayer graph- based trajectory planning for race vehicles in dynamic scenarios,” in 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC) , 2019, pp. 3149–3154

    2019

  19. [27]

    Moving obstacle avoidance for large, high-speed autonomous ground vehicles,

    H. Febbo, J. Liu, P. Jayakumar, J. L. Stein, and T. Ersal, “Moving obstacle avoidance for large, high-speed autonomous ground vehicles,” in 2017 American Control Conference (ACC) , 2017, pp. 5568–5573

    2017

  20. [28]

    Autonomous racing with multiple vehicles using a parallelized optimization with safety guarantee using control barrier functions,

    S. He, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Autonomous racing with multiple vehicles using a parallelized optimization with safety guarantee using control barrier functions,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022, pp. 3444–3451

    2022

  21. [29]

    A noncooperative game approach to au- tonomous racing,

    A. Liniger and J. Lygeros, “A noncooperative game approach to au- tonomous racing,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 884–897, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Game- theoretic planning for self-driving cars in multivehicle competitive scenarios,

    M. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Talbot, J. C. Gerdes, and M. Schwager, “Game- theoretic planning for self-driving cars in multivehicle competitive scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1313– 1325, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Game-theoretic model predictive control with data-driven identification of vehicle model for head-to-head autonomous racing,

    C. Jung, S. Lee, H. Seong, A. Finazzi, and D. H. Shim, “Game-theoretic model predictive control with data-driven identification of vehicle model for head-to-head autonomous racing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04094 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Computing the racing line using bayesian optimization,

    A. Jain and M. Morari, “Computing the racing line using bayesian optimization,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2020, pp. 6192–6197

    2020

  25. [33]

    End-to-end driving in a realistic racing game with deep reinforcement learning,

    E. Perot, M. Jaritz, M. Toromanoff, and R. De Charette, “End-to-end driving in a realistic racing game with deep reinforcement learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2017, pp. 3–4

    2017

  26. [34]

    Formula rl: Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous racing using telemetry data,

    A. Remonda, S. Krebs, E. Veas, G. Luzhnica, and R. Kern, “Formula rl: Deep reinforcement learning for autonomous racing using telemetry data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.11106 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Super- human performance in gran turismo sport using deep reinforcement learning,

    F. Fuchs, Y . Song, E. Kaufmann, D. Scaramuzza, and P. D ¨urr, “Super- human performance in gran turismo sport using deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4257–4264, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Latent imagination facilitates zero-shot transfer in autonomous racing,

    A. Brunnbauer, L. Berducci, A. Brandst ´atter, M. Lechner, R. Hasani, D. Rus, and R. Grosu, “Latent imagination facilitates zero-shot transfer in autonomous racing,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022, pp. 7513–7520

    2022

  29. [37]

    Residual policy learning facilitates efficient model-free autonomous racing,

    R. Zhang, J. Hou, G. Chen, Z. Li, J. Chen, and A. Knoll, “Residual policy learning facilitates efficient model-free autonomous racing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 625–11 632, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    High-speed autonomous racing using trajectory-aided deep reinforcement learning,

    B. D. Evans, H. A. Engelbrecht, and H. W. Jordaan, “High-speed autonomous racing using trajectory-aided deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Safe reinforcement learning for high-speed autonomous racing,

    B. D. Evans, H. W. Jordaan, and H. A. Engelbrecht, “Safe reinforcement learning for high-speed autonomous racing,” Cognitive Robotics, vol. 3, pp. 107–126, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Towards end-to- end deep learning for autonomous racing: On data collection and a unified architecture for steering and throttle prediction,

    S. N. Wadekar, B. J. Schwartz, S. S. Kannan, M. Mar, R. K. Manna, V . Chellapandi, D. J. Gonzalez, and A. E. Gamal, “Towards end-to- end deep learning for autonomous racing: On data collection and a unified architecture for steering and throttle prediction,” arXiv preprint arX...

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    An intermittent learning algorithm for high-speed autonomous driving in unknown environments,

    P. K. Gundu, K. G. Vamvoudakis, and R. M. Gerdes, “An intermittent learning algorithm for high-speed autonomous driving in unknown environments,” in 2019 American Control Conference (ACC) , 2019, pp. 4286–4292

    2019

  34. [42]

    A benchmark comparison of imitation learning-based control policies for autonomous racing,

    X. Sun, M. Zhou, Z. Zhuang, S. Yang, J. Betz, and R. Mangharam, “A benchmark comparison of imitation learning-based control policies for autonomous racing,” in 2023 IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  35. [43]

    Deepracing: Parameterized trajectories for autonomous racing,

    T. Weiss and M. Behl, “Deepracing: Parameterized trajectories for autonomous racing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.05178 , 2020

    2005 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Learning policies for automated racing using vehicle model gradients,

    N. A. Spielberg, M. Templer, J. Subosits, and J. C. Gerdes, “Learning policies for automated racing using vehicle model gradients,”IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Track based offline policy learning for overtaking maneuvers with autonomous racecars,

    J. Bhargav, J. Betz, H. Zheng, and R. Mangharam, “Track based offline policy learning for overtaking maneuvers with autonomous racecars,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.09782 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A gaussian process model for opponent prediction in autonomous racing,

    E. L. Zhu, F. L. Busch, J. Johnson, and F. Borrelli, “A gaussian process model for opponent prediction in autonomous racing,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 8186–8191

    2023

  39. [47]

    Active exploration in iterative gaussian process regression for uncertainty modeling in autonomous racing,

    T. Benciolini, C. Tang, M. Leibold, C. Weaver, M. Tomizuka, and W. Zhan, “Active exploration in iterative gaussian process regression for uncertainty modeling in autonomous racing,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Au- tonomous overtaking in gran turismo sport using curriculum reinforce- ment learning,

    Y . Song, H. Lin, E. Kaufmann, P. D ¨urr, and D. Scaramuzza, “Au- tonomous overtaking in gran turismo sport using curriculum reinforce- ment learning,” in 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , 2021, pp. 9403–9409

    2021

  41. [49]

    Constrained iterative lqr for on-road autonomous driving motion planning,

    J. Chen, W. Zhan, and M. Tomizuka, “Constrained iterative lqr for on-road autonomous driving motion planning,” in 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) , 2017, pp. 1–7

    2017

  42. [50]

    Trajectory optimization with optimization-based dynamics,

    T. A. Howell, S. Le Cleac’h, S. Singh, P. Florence, Z. Manchester, and V . Sindhwani, “Trajectory optimization with optimization-based dynamics,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6750–6757, 2022

    2022

  43. [52]

    Learning model predictive control for iterative tasks. a data-driven control framework,

    U. Rosolia and F. Borrelli, “Learning model predictive control for iterative tasks. a data-driven control framework,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1883–1896, 2017

    2017

  44. [53]

    Rajamani, V ehicle dynamics and control

    R. Rajamani, V ehicle dynamics and control . Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  45. [54]

    Minimum time learning model predictive control,

    U. Rosolia and F. Borrelli, “Minimum time learning model predictive control,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control , vol. 31, no. 18, pp. 8830–8854, 2021

    2021

  46. [55]

    Game theoretic motion planning for multi-robot racing,

    Z. Wang, R. Spica, and M. Schwager, “Game theoretic motion planning for multi-robot racing,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems: The 14th International Symposium . Springer, 2019, pp. 225–238. APPENDIX A. Learning-based MPC By using the historical data from previous ite...

    2019

  47. [56]

    Qslack,2 is the weighting factor that allows for a degree of relaxation of the convex hull. Remark 5: Notice that in Appendices B C and D, the ob- stacle avoidance constraints of the controller are implemented using discrete control barrier functions, expressed as follows: b(x...

Pith tools

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