Vehicle Prediction Model for Enhanced MPC Path Tracking in Formula Student Driverless

Frank Deinzer; Pascal Mei{\ss}ner; Sebastian Baader; Tamara Bergerhoff

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 24 references

Vehicle Prediction Model for Enhanced MPC Path Tracking in Formula Student Driverless

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a three-stage vehicle prediction model that lets a Formula Student race car track a path accurately from the first lap by combining a kinematic bicycle model, a Bayesian linear regression trained on past runs, and a spars

desk verdict Useful integration of an offline BLR prior for first-lap accuracy, but the evidence is thin and the transfer assumption is untested; worth a proper review, though the 57% claim is bigger than what the data shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.10732 v2 pith:VAD4VVTI submitted 2026-06-09 cs.RO

Sebastian Baader , Tamara Bergerhoff , Pascal Mei{ss}ner , Frank Deinzer This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords vehiclepredictionmodelPredictiveControlFormulaStudentDriverlessKinematicBicycleBayesianLinearRegressionSparseGaussianProcesspathtrackingresidualcorrection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a race car's motion can be predicted more accurately and more safely for model predictive control if the prediction model is split into three cascaded corrections: a physics-based nominal model, an offline statistical correction built from previous runs, and an online nonparametric correction for the current conditions. The claim is that this structure delivers high prediction accuracy and a usable uncertainty estimate from the very first lap, where existing Gaussian-process-corrected models still need a lap of data. If correct, the contribution matters because first-lap reliability is the difference between a safe autonomous racing run and an emergency stop or crash. The authors report up to 57% lower prediction error than a pure physical model and 32% lower than a GPR-corrected model, plus validation on a real Formula Student car.

What carries the argument

The central object is the additive three-stage residual correction, written µ_{t+1} = µnom_{t+1} + µoff_{t+1} + µon_{t+1}, with covariance Σ_{t+1} = JΣ_t J^T + Σoff + Σon. The offline BLR (a linear regression with Bayesian parameter distributions) generalizes residual patterns across runs; the online SGPR (a sparse Gaussian process with a radial-basis kernel) fits whatever remains in the current run; a clamping function bounds the offline correction to a trust region defined by the 99th percentile of past residuals.

What would settle it

Train the offline BLR on dry-asphalt laps, then drive one lap on wet asphalt and compare first-lap prediction error of the full model against the pure nominal model; if the clamped offline correction does not reduce error (or increases it) in rain, the normal-distribution trust-region assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a cascaded residual-correction architecture — nominal Kinematic Bicycle Model, offline Bayesian Linear Regression, online Sparse Gaussian Process Regression — yields a prediction model whose total output is simply the sum of the three submodels, with covariance propagated through the sum. Because the offline BLR supplies uncertainty and correction from stored past-run data before the current run begins, the model avoids the one-lap warm-up that GPR-only approaches require. The paper demonstrates in simulation and on a real car that this reduces both prediction error and path-tracking error, especially in the first lap, and that the resulting smoother trajectorie

Load-bearing premise

The offline correction's trust region is set from the 99th percentile of past residuals under the assumption that those residuals are normally distributed, so a run whose conditions shift the residual distribution outside that range could make the offline correction either useless or systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

First-lap prediction accuracy becomes comparable to what GPR-corrected models reach only on the second lap, reducing hazard in the first autonomous lap.
Prediction and path-tracking errors are reduced by 57% versus a pure physical model and 32% versus a GPR-corrected model in a two-lap low-friction simulation.
An uncertainty estimate is available from the start, letting the MPC enforce track-limit constraints with a tunable violation probability.
Real-time capability is maintained, and the MPC solves faster because accurate predictions reduce oscillations and keep the vehicle in well-modeled operating regions.
The approach transfers to a real Formula Student race car over one lap, showing consistently lower path error than the baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

The same three-stage residual scheme could be applied to other control tasks where a cheap physical model, historical data, and live adaptation coexist, such as road-vehicle control or state estimation, as the authors suggest.
A sharper test of the method's value would isolate the contribution of the clamped trust region by comparing the full model with a version without clamping on runs whose conditions differ from the training set.
The claim that BLR generalizes across environmental conditions is the part most worth probing; the offline tests cover different weather and asphalt, but the online lap tests are limited to a small number of runs.
Because the online SGPR deliberately overfits the current run, the method's behavior over many consecutive laps may differ from its demonstrated first-lap advantage.

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

Short version: the paper adds a sensible middle stage to the standard two-stage setup. Instead of starting each run with just the nominal model and letting a sparse GP correct residuals online, they fit a Bayesian linear regression to residuals from previous runs and use that as a prior before the online GP kicks in. That is a legitimate idea, and it's the kind of thing that could matter for Formula Student or any repetitive autonomy setting where the first lap matters.

What's good: the architecture is clear, the uncertainty propagation is thought through, and the runtime comparison shows the extra model doesn't slow the MPC down. The real-vehicle lap is a plus -- many papers stop at simulation. The idea of clamping the offline correction to a trust region is also pragmatic, even if it's slightly ad hoc.

The soft spots are real. The headline "up to 57%" comes from prediction error in one two-lap simulation. Path error is shown in a plot but never aggregated, so the conclusion's phrase "57% in both prediction quality and path tracking accuracy" is an overstatement. There are no repeated trials, no confidence intervals, and no sensitivity analysis on the dictionary thresholds or noise parameters. So the central claim rests on a single run.

The deeper concern is transfer. The whole point of the offline BLR is to help on the first lap of a run whose condition may differ from previous runs. The paper never shows that the offline residuals actually transfer across conditions. The offline evaluation in Table I uses data from "different weather conditions, racetracks, and asphalt types," but we don't know whether the low-friction simulation condition is represented in the offline dictionary. If it is, the first-lap advantage is just interpolation; if it isn't, the BLR is extrapolating and the clamp at tau would either zero it out or inject a wrong correction. Either way, the paper doesn't tell us. The normality assumption after Eq. 6 is a symptom of the same problem -- the trust region is defined by the historical residual distribution, not by a demonstrated transferable error bound.

That said, the central idea is not broken. It's a plausible engineering contribution that deserves a serious referee. The fixes are straightforward: run multiple trials, report aggregate path error, and include an explicit transfer experiment where the offline data is deliberately disjoint from the test condition (e.g., dry training, wet test, or at least state what is in the dictionary). I'd send it to review, and I'd be willing to read a revised version.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-stage vehicle prediction model for MPC-based path tracking in Formula Student Driverless: (i) a nominal kinematic bicycle model; (ii) an offline Bayesian Linear Regression (BLR) model trained on residual tuples from previous runs, with clamped outputs (Eq. 5-6) defining a trust region; and (iii) an online Sparse Gaussian Process Regression (SGPR) model with a bounded dictionary (Eq. 8-10) that compensates for remaining, condition-specific residuals. The three predictions are summed (Eq. 1) and their covariances propagated (Eq. 2) into an MPC (Sec. IV) with steering and uncertainty-aware track constraints. Experiments: Table I compares offline variants on real-world vehicle data; Fig. 3 compares online model choices over 10 laps; Sec. V-B reports one two-lap simulation on a low-friction track comparing physical, GPR-corrected, and proposed models in terms of prediction error, path error, and MPC runtime; Sec. V-C reports one real-vehicle lap. The paper claims up to 57% reduction in prediction error and high prediction quality from the first lap, attributed to the offline correction.

Significance. The proposed architecture is a sensible and potentially valuable middle ground between purely physical and purely data-driven prediction models for Formula Student Driverless. The modular decomposition (nominal + offline BLR + online SGPR) with explicit uncertainty propagation (Eq. 2) and a chance-constrained track constraint (Eq. 12) is sound in conception, and the scheduling of the offline component to bootstrap the first lap addresses a real limitation of online-only GPR corrections. Strengths include: evaluation on a real Formula Student car; comparison against two relevant literature baselines; runtime evidence (Fig. 6); and a clear explanation of why offline SGPR overfits (Table I, Fig. 3) while online SGPR adapts. If the claims survive a more thorough experimental validation, in particular the condition-transfer test described below, this would be a useful contribution to the learning-based MPC literature for autonomous racing. At present, the magnitude and generality of the claimed improvements — 'up to 57%', 'right from the start of the run' — are not yet supported by the evidence as reported.

major comments (4)

[Sec. V-A, Table I] The reported quartiles are internally inconsistent. In every row the Q0.75 value is smaller than the median (e.g., Kinematic Bicycle Model row: median 0.445, Q0.75 0.117; KBM+BLR row: 0.186 vs 0.084). Since epred is a non-negative error, Q0.75 must be at least the median. Either the column labels are wrong or the entries are mis-assigned; the table as printed cannot be correct. Please correct the table and re-verify the model-selection conclusion that uses it.
[Sec. III-B, Eq. 5-6; Sec. V-B/C] The 'right from the start' advantage is the paper's core novelty and rests entirely on the offline BLR transferring across conditions, yet no transfer experiment is reported. The offline dictionary is described only as coming from 'different weather conditions, racetracks, and asphalt types' (V-A); it is not stated whether the deliberately low-friction test condition of V-B is represented in it. If it is, the first-lap result is interpolation; if it is not, the clamp at tau (the 99th percentile of historical residuals, after Eq. 6) will cap or bias the correction exactly when a condition shift occurs. The normality assumption for tau presupposes residual stationarity across runs. Please: (i) state the dictionary composition (N, conditions covered, presence/absence of low-friction data); (ii) run a controlled transfer test (offline training set with vs. without the test condition; report
[Sec. V-B (Figs. 4-6), Sec. V-C (Fig. 7)] The headline figures (57% vs physical model, 32% vs GPR model) rest on a single two-lap simulation and a single real-vehicle lap. It is not stated how the percentage is computed (mean/median/max over the run, over which time window), no repeated trials or confidence bounds are given, and the path-error reduction corresponding to Fig. 4 is never quantified. Please specify the aggregation, add repeated trials (at least several friction levels and initializations), report mean±std for epred and epath, and give at least mean/max path error for the real-vehicle test.
[Sec. VI vs Sec. V-B] The conclusion states 'an improvement of up to 57% in both prediction quality and path tracking accuracy'. In V-B, 57% is reported for prediction error only, relative to the physical model (the corresponding figure vs the GPR model is 32%), and no number for path-tracking accuracy is given anywhere. The conclusion as written overstates what was measured and should be reworded to state the metric and the comparison baseline explicitly.

minor comments (7)

[Eq. (10) and surrounding text] Notation is inconsistent: the exponent uses eta_time while the text refers to xi_time, and the insertion threshold in Eq. (9) is eta_insertion while other thresholds are xi_outlier/xi_time. Please unify.
[Eq. (10)] The removal score uses lambda_max(Sigma^off_m); presumably this should be Sigma^on_m, the online-model covariance at the dictionary point. As written, the age-weighted relevance is measured against the offline model, which does not reflect the information content of the online dictionary point. Please clarify or correct.
[Sec. V-A, Sec. V-B] Typos: 'access their performance' and 'to better access the accuracy' should read 'assess'; Sec. II contains 'a a quantitative'. Please proofread.
[Sec. III-C, Sec. V] The free parameters of the proposed model (eta_insertion, xi_outlier, xi_time, SGPR kernel hyperparameters, dictionary sizes N and M) and the baseline GPR configuration [18] are described as 'empirically chosen' but no values or tuning procedure are given. This is needed for reproducibility.
[Eq. (13), Table I] Please clarify whether |.| in Eq. (13) is the Euclidean norm or elementwise absolute value, and how the components are aggregated to produce the scalar statistics in Table I.
[Sec. V-C] The real-vehicle experiment lacks basic context: track layout, surface and weather conditions, speed range, and how the offline dictionary relates to this track. A numeric summary of epath (mean/max) would strengthen the claim beyond the qualitative figure.
[Sec. V-B, Fig. 6] Figure 6 shows a tail of MPC solution times approaching or exceeding the 0.1 s sampling interval, particularly for the GPR model. Please report the fraction of solves that exceed the real-time budget, since this is directly relevant to the 'real-time capable' claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three-stage model is evaluated on external measurements and no fitted quantity is used to define the claimed result.

full rationale

The prediction chain is μ_{t+1} = μ_nom + μ_off + μ_on (Eq. 1), with μ_off learned by BLR from previous-run residuals (Eqs. 4–5) and μ_on learned online by SGPR from the remaining residuals (Eqs. 7–8). The evaluation metric e_pred = |B(o_{t+1} − μ_{t+1})| (Eq. 13) is computed against measured states that are not used as the training target at that same time step. The offline BLR provides an initial correction from past data, but this is a modeling choice, not a definitional equivalence: the claimed improvement of up to 57% is measured against physical and GPR baselines on a low-friction simulation and on a real vehicle lap, which are external benchmarks. The paper contains no self-citations that carry the argument; references to Kabzan et al. [18] are for the standard dictionary/scoring mechanism, not for the paper's central claim. The trust-region threshold τ is set from the residual distribution (Eq. 6 and following), a parameter-estimation step, not a prediction that reduces to its own input. The skeptical concern about offline-transfer validity, i.e. whether the prior dictionary already contains the test condition, concerns external validity and possible train/test overlap, not circularity; under the available evidence it cannot be exhibited as an equation-level reduction. Thus no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is empirical; its load-bearing input consists of distributional assumptions about prediction residuals, transferability assumptions about prior data, and several hand-chosen thresholds with unreported values. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (6)

clamp threshold tau
Set per residual component as the 99th percentile of offline residuals under the normality assumption; limits offline correction range (Eq. (6)).
dictionary insertion threshold eta_insertion
Empirically chosen in Eq. (9) to decide when online residuals enter the dictionary; value not reported.
outlier threshold xi_outlier
Empirically chosen bound on ||epsilon_on|| for safety filtering; value not reported.
age weighting xi_time
Parametric factor controlling age-based removal in Eq. (10); value not reported.
SGPR kernel hyperparameters (RBF lengthscales, likelihood noise)
Fit from online data for each target variable; no values or optimization scheme reported.
MPC weights eta_c, eta_l, eta_s, eta_p = 100, 30, 10, 0.95
Fixed for all experiments (Section V); affect path-error comparison but not the prediction model itself.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Offline residuals are approximately normally distributed, so the 99th percentile defines a safe clamp threshold tau.
Section III-B: 'Assuming the residuals are normally distributed...' This is the trust region for all offline corrections.
domain assumption Kinematic Bicycle Model assumptions (negligible tire slip, rigid geometry) hold well enough at low speeds for the nominal term; high-speed errors are assigned to residuals.
Section III-A relies on KBM; the paper acknowledges accuracy drops at high speeds.
domain assumption A linear BLR in velocity/steering/throttle features trained on past runs generalizes to unseen tracks, weather, and asphalt within the clamp range.
Section III-B claims transferability; no explicit validation of distribution shift.
domain assumption A fixed-size dictionary with insertion/removal heuristics remains representative of the current driving situation for online SGPR.
Section III-C; dictionary score and Eq. (10) rely on this heuristic.
domain assumption Prediction errors are Gaussian enough for covariance propagation (Eq. (2)) and the chance constraint in the MPC (Eq. (12)).
Section IV depends on the Gaussian covariance propagation and the track-limit probability constraint.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vehicle Prediction Model for Enhanced MPC Path Tracking in Formula Student Driverless." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VAD4VVTI

@misc{pith2026260610732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vehicle Prediction Model for Enhanced MPC Path Tracking in Formula Student Driverless},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VAD4VVTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.10732}
}

read the original abstract

Autonomous race cars, such as in Formula Student Driverless, operate close to their physical handling limits. The resulting highly nonlinear vehicle behavior increases the path tracking complexity, especially on narrow tracks. Model Predictive Control (MPC) is commonly used to address this issue, a method whose performance is closely tied to the accuracy of the underlying prediction model. This paper presents a novel, real-time capable prediction model for autonomous race cars that adjusts to changing conditions by combining information from past runs and the current driving situation. Our model is divided into three consecutive submodels: a nominal Kinematic Bicycle Model, an offline Bayesian Linear Regression (BLR) model, and an online Sparse Gaussian Process Regression (SGPR) model. The proposed approach enables efficient integration of all available data without significantly increasing computational cost, ensuring high prediction accuracy and a quantitative uncertainty assessment right from the start of the run. Compared to existing approaches, an improvement in prediction accuracy of up to 57% was achieved. Further, we successfully demonstrated the practical applicability of the model within an MPC-based path tracking controller on a real Formula Student race car.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.10732 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Race car MF17 during autonomous driving on the competition Formula Student Germany. MF17 is a 195 kg electric rear wheel driven race car with a top speed of 137 km/h. Also visible are the blue and yellow cones indicating the track. © Formula Student Germany - Photo by lodholz of control largely depends on the accuracy of the underlying vehicle prediction model, as even small model deviations can lead to suboptimal b… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overview of our vehicle prediction model. It shows the three main components, Nominal Model (III-A), Offline Model (III-B), and Online Model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of different online models in terms of improvement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of different vehicle prediction models in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of different vehicle prediction models in relation to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of different prediction models based on the path [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Comparison of different vehicle prediction models based on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

F. S. Germany. (2025) Formula student rules 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.formulastudent.de/fsg/rules/

2025
[2]

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

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

2022
[3]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, and M. M. Diehl, Model Predictive Control: Theory and Design , 2nd ed. Nob Hill Publishing, 2017

2017
[4]

Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control , 2nd ed

R. Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control , 2nd ed. Springer US, 2012

2012
[5]

Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine,

M. E. Tipping, “Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 1, pp. 211–244, 2001

2001
[6]

Model predictive control with learned vehicle dynamics for au- tonomous vehicle path tracking,

M. Rokonuzzaman, N. Mohajer, S. Nahavandi, and S. Mohamed, “Model predictive control with learned vehicle dynamics for au- tonomous vehicle path tracking,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 128 233– 128 249, 2021

2021
[7]

Neural network and anfis based auto-adaptive mpc for path tracking in autonomous vehicles,

Y . Kebbati, N. Ait-Oufroukh, V . Vigneron, and D. Ichalal, “Neural network and anfis based auto-adaptive mpc for path tracking in autonomous vehicles,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC) , vol. 1, 2021, pp. 1–6

2021
[8]

Learning-based model predictive control for an autonomous formula student racing car,

D. R. Gomes, M. A. Botto, and P. U. Lima, “Learning-based model predictive control for an autonomous formula student racing car,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 12 556–12 562

2024

Show all 24 references

[9]

Experience-based model selection to enable long-term, safe control for repetitive tasks under changing conditions,

C. D. McKinnon and A. P. Schoellig, “Experience-based model selection to enable long-term, safe control for repetitive tasks under changing conditions,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2018, pp. 2977–2984

2018
[10]

Lla-mpc: Fast adaptive control for autonomous racing,

M. F. AL-Sunni, H. Almubarak, K. Horng, and J. M. Dolan, “Lla-mpc: Fast adaptive control for autonomous racing,” 2025, arXiv:2505.19512 [cs.RO]

2025 arXiv
[11]

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, 2020

2020
[12]

Learning model predictive control for competitive au- tonomous racing,

L. Brunke, “Learning model predictive control for competitive au- tonomous racing,” 2020, arXiv:2005.00826 [cs.LG]

2020 arXiv
[13]

An improved kinematic model predictive control for high-speed path tracking of autonomous vehicles,

L. Tang, F. Yan, B. Zou, K. Wang, and C. Lv, “An improved kinematic model predictive control for high-speed path tracking of autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 51 400–51 413, 2020

2020
[14]

A nonlinear model predictive control strategy for autonomous racing of scale vehicles,

V . Cataffo, G. Silano, L. Iannelli, V . Puig, and L. Glielmo, “A nonlinear model predictive control strategy for autonomous racing of scale vehicles,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , 2022, pp. 100–105

2022
[15]

Optimization-based hierarchical motion planning for autonomous racing,

J. L. V ´azquez, M. Br ¨uhlmeier, A. Liniger, A. Rupenyan, and J. Lygeros, “Optimization-based hierarchical motion planning for autonomous racing,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2020, pp. 2397–2403

2020
[16]

Dynamic path planning for formula automous racing cars,

Y . Liu, W. Sun, S. Liu, W. Xu, X. Xiong, L. Hao, F. Hu, and L. Qu, “Dynamic path planning for formula automous racing cars,” in 2021 40th Chinese Control Conference (CCC) , 2021, pp. 6087–6093

2021
[17]

Real-time control for autonomous racing based on viability theory,

A. Liniger and J. Lygeros, “Real-time control for autonomous racing based on viability theory,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 464–478, 2019

2019
[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
[19]

Learning- based model predictive control for autonomous racing,

J. Pinho, G. Costa, P. U. Lima, and M. Ayala Botto, “Learning- based model predictive control for autonomous racing,” World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 14, no. 7, 2023

2023
[20]

Cautious model predictive control using gaussian process regression,

L. Hewing, J. Kabzan, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Cautious model predictive control using gaussian process regression,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2736–2743, 2020

2020
[21]

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
[22]

Amz driverless: The full autonomous racing system,

J. Kabzan, M. I. Valls, V . J. F. Reijgwart, H. F. C. Hendrikx, C. Ehmke, M. Prajapat, A. B ¨uhler, N. Gosala, M. Gupta, R. Sivanesan, A. Dhall, E. Chisari, N. Karnchanachari, S. Brits, M. Dangel, I. Sa, R. Dub ´e, A. Gawel, M. Pfeiffer, A. Liniger, J. Lygeros, and R. Siegwart...

2020
[23]

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,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 1497–1527, 2020

2020
[24]

Sequential quadratic programming,

P. T. Boggs and J. W. Tolle, “Sequential quadratic programming,” Acta Numerica, vol. 4, pp. 1–51, 1995

1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F. S. Germany. (2025) Formula student rules 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.formulastudent.de/fsg/rules/

2025

[2] [2]

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

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

2022

[3] [3]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, and M. M. Diehl, Model Predictive Control: Theory and Design , 2nd ed. Nob Hill Publishing, 2017

2017

[4] [4]

Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control , 2nd ed

R. Rajamani, Vehicle Dynamics and Control , 2nd ed. Springer US, 2012

2012

[5] [5]

Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine,

M. E. Tipping, “Sparse bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 1, pp. 211–244, 2001

2001

[6] [6]

Model predictive control with learned vehicle dynamics for au- tonomous vehicle path tracking,

M. Rokonuzzaman, N. Mohajer, S. Nahavandi, and S. Mohamed, “Model predictive control with learned vehicle dynamics for au- tonomous vehicle path tracking,” IEEE Access , vol. 9, pp. 128 233– 128 249, 2021

2021

[7] [7]

Neural network and anfis based auto-adaptive mpc for path tracking in autonomous vehicles,

Y . Kebbati, N. Ait-Oufroukh, V . Vigneron, and D. Ichalal, “Neural network and anfis based auto-adaptive mpc for path tracking in autonomous vehicles,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC) , vol. 1, 2021, pp. 1–6

2021

[8] [8]

Learning-based model predictive control for an autonomous formula student racing car,

D. R. Gomes, M. A. Botto, and P. U. Lima, “Learning-based model predictive control for an autonomous formula student racing car,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 12 556–12 562

2024