Safety-Filtered Distributed Koopman-MPC

Practical Tips

Practical tips and how-to guidance will be added by our editorial team.

中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站将优先为睡眠改善、失眠治疗、助眠方法等高价值文章补充中文说明。

Article Summary

Distributed model predictive control (DMPC) often constructs both predictions and collision constraints from neighbor trajectories, so packet loss can remove both. We separate these roles: received trajectories drive Koopman-MPC, while local sensing and shelf geometry define a hard-constrained quadratic program (QP) that projects the applied input. Its radial demand is the least constant acceleration that keeps a supporting-plane clearance nonnegative throughout one zero-order-hold interval. Complementary pair rows recover the coupled demand without exchanging safety decisions. We give an intersample separation theorem under bounded snapshot and directional plant errors, an exact max-min test for simultaneous local feasibility, and a sensing-radius condition for switching interaction graphs. Anticipatory high-order rows may be relaxed for performance, but the finite-hold rows contain no safety slack. Matched eight-robot warehouse simulations use a frozen Koopman model, nonlinear drift, bounded inputs and speed, shelf constraints, a 120 ms control period, and packet dropout. The full controller is collision-free in 20/20 matched trials and reaches 160/160 robot goals; predictive Koopman-MPC without the final projection is collision-free in 1/20 trials. All 38,400 full-method hard-row sets pass the online feasibility test, and every local QP solves. Five-stream fleet sweeps are collision-free and hard-row feasible through 16 robots; the 20-robot boundary fails only after the online margin turns negative, while the reconstructed per-agent critical path remains below the sampling period. Bounded-sensing and differential-drive tests provide additional deployment stress.

Sources & References

• Original source
• Full article (PDF)

Comments