We first test FASTER in a simple environment and, for the same replanning step, we compare the velocities of the trajectory found by FASTER (that plans in ) with the ones of the trajectory found by a planner that plans only in F. The environment is shown in Fig. 19, and consists of a corner, with the goal on the other side of the wall, so that the UAV has to turn the corner. The initial velocity at A is 4.8 m/s, and the dynamic constraints imposed are m/s, m/s, and m/s. FASTER achieves a velocity of 6.02 m/s in the segment (segment that will actually be flown by the UAV), while planning only in F achieves a velocity of 5.06 m/s. is the Safe Trajectory, and is the Committed Trajectory. Safety is guaranteed by both planners.
We now evaluate what happens if the UAV does not compute the Safe Trajectory, but instead commits directly to the Whole Trajectory. We test this in the environment shown in Fig. 20, which consists of a corner with one obstacle behind it. This environment is especially challenging due to the presence of obstacles just behind the corner, which are not fully visible to the UAV until it turns the corner. The results in Table V show that the Safe Trajectory is not strictly necessary when flying at low speeds (m/s), but it is crucial to guarantee safety when flying at high speeds (m/s). For high speeds, the planner without the Safe Trajectory collides due to the lack of time to replan when suddenly discovering an obstacle that was in the unknown space.
Fig. 18: Time (TA) vs. Interval (IA) allocation for different number intervals N and different constraints on the total time of the trajectory T (free vs. fixed). In all the TA methods, there are N/4 intervals per polyhedron, where N is the total number of intervals. IA has a fixed time allocation, and uses binary variables to optimize the allocation of the N intervals. The plot on the left shows the 2-D projection of the 3-D flight corridor used in the experiments. The initial position is chosen randomly in the first polyhedron, and the end position is fixed inside the fourth polyhedron. The total cost in these experiments is computed as . For every method, a total of 50 runs are performed, and only the successful runs were taken into account for the costs and solve times.
Fig. 19: Trajectories obtained when planning only in F (left) and when planning in (FASTER, right). The velocity at A is 4.8 m/s. FASTER achieves a velocity of 6.02 m/s in the segment (segment that will actually be flown by the UAV), while the other planner achieves a velocity of 5.06 m/s. The ground grid is
Fig. 20: Environment with an obstacle behind the corner.
TABLE V: Safety with and without the Safe Trajectory. The ratios represent the successful runs (i.e., without crashes), for a total of 5 runs.
D. Comparison between PolyWhole and PolySafe
For the corner environment explained in Sec. IV-C (which uses 4 polyhedra), the top view and the quantitative comparison of the volumes covered are shown in Fig. 21. PolyWhole covers of unknown space that extends beyond PolySafe. Here, is the volume of the drone (a sphere of radius 0.3 m).
For the forest and office simulations (which use 2 polyhedra), the comparison of the volumes is shown in Fig. 22 and Table VI. Letting denote the volume of the sphere that models the UAV, these results show that, on average, PolyWhole is, respectively, and larger than PolySafe in the office and forest simulations. Moreover, PolySafe does not cover unknown space, while PolyWhole is able to cover, respectively, an unknown volume of and in the office and forest simulations. Note also that in the office simulation (which is more cluttered than the forest simulation), PolyWhole covers more unknown volume than in the forest simulation.
The key conclusion of these results is that, even with a relatively small number of polyhedra (2-4), the volume of
Fig. 21: Comparison of the unknown volume covered by PolySafe and PolyWhole in the corner environment. As PolySafe not cover any unknown volume. However, PolyWhole the total unknown volume covered is volume of a sphere with radius r = 0.3 m that models the UAV. This makes optimization 1 operate in a completely different space when using PolySafe than when using PolyWhole.
Fig. 22: Qualitative comparison of the volumes covered by PolyWhole and PolySafe in the office and forest simulations.
TABLE VI: Quantitative comparison of the volumes covered by PolyWhole and PolySafe in the forest and office simulations. denotes the volume of the UAV, which is modeled as a sphere.
unknown space covered by PolyWhole can be hundreds of times the volume of the UAV, especially in cluttered environments. This makes PolyWhole extend much farther than PolySafe, which is restricted to stay in F. Hence, the Whole Trajectory will benefit from a longer planning horizon, leading to a higher nominal speed in the segment of the Whole Trajectory used in the Committed Trajectory.
The UAVs used in the hardware experiments are shown in Fig. 23. A quadrotor was used in the experiments 1-4, and a
Fig. 23: Quadrotor (top) used in the experiments 1-4 and hexarotor (bottom) used in the experiments 5 and 6. Both are equipped with a Qualcomm® SnapDragon Flight, an Intel® NUC i7DNK, and an Intel® RealSense Depth Camera D435.
hexarotor was used in the experiments 5 and 6. In both UAVs, the perception runs on the Intel® RealSense, the mapper and planner run on the Intel® NUC, and the control runs on the Qualcomm® SnapDragon Flight.
The six hardware experiments done are shown in Figs. 24– 29. The corresponding velocity profiles are shown in Fig. 30. The maximum speed achieved was 7.8 m/s, in Experiment 5 (Fig. 28). The first and second experiments (Fig. 24 and 25) were done in similar obstacle environments with the same starting point but with different goal locations. In the first experiment (Fig. 24), the UAV performs a 3-D agile maneuver to avoid the obstacles on the table. In the second experiment (Fig. 25) the UAV flies through the narrow gap of the cardboard boxes structure, and then flies below the triangle-shaped obstacle. In these two experiments, the maximum speed was 2.1 m/s.
In the third and fourth experiments (Fig. 26 and 27), the UAV must fly through a space with poles of different heights, and finally below the cardboard boxes structure to reach the goal, achieving a maximum speed of 3.6 m/s. Finally, in the fifth and sixth experiments (Fig. 28 and 29), the UAV is allowed to fly in a much bigger space, and has to avoid some poles and several cardboard boxes structures. In the fifth experiment (Fig. 28) the UAV achieved a top speed of 7.8 m/s. In the sixth experiment (Fig. 29) the UAV was first commanded to go to a goal at the other side of the flight space, and then to come back to the starting position, achieving a top velocity of 4.6 m/s.
Fig. 30 shows the estimated velocity of the UAV, obtained by applying finite differences to the ground truth position measurements of an external motion capture system. This leads
Fig. 24: Composite images of Experiment 1. The UAV must fly from start to goal . Snapshots shown every 670 ms.
Fig. 25: Composite image of Experiment 2. The UAV must fly from start to goal . Snapshots shown every 330 ms.
Fig. 26: Composite image of Experiment 3. The UAV must fly from start to goal . Snapshots shown every 670 ms.
Fig. 27: Composite image of Experiment 4. The UAV must fly from start to goal . Snapshots shown every 670 ms.
Fig. 28: Composite image of Experiment 5. The UAV must fly from start to goal . Snapshots shown every 330 ms.
Fig. 29: Composite image of Experiment 6. The UAV must fly from start to goal 1 and then back to goal 2 . Snapshots shown every 330 ms.
Fig. 30: Velocity plots of all the UAV hardware experiments. This velocity is the estimated velocity of the UAV, obtained by applying finite differences to the ground truth position measurements of an external motion capture system. This leads to some noisy estimates, especially for the high velocities of experiments 5 and 6. Moreover, these positions measurements are not available when the UAV is passing below an obstacle, which produces also noisy velocity estimates at those points. This happens in experiment 2 at t = 4.0 s and t = 5.9 s and in experiment 4 at t = 5.0 s.
Fig. 31: Timing breakdown for the forest simulation and for the real hardware experiments. The parameters used are for the Whole Trajectory, and N = 7 for the Safe Trajectory.
to some noisy estimates, in particular for the high velocities of experiments 5 and 6. Moreover, these positions measurements are not available when the UAV is passing below an obstacle, which produces also noisy velocity estimates at those points. This happens in experiment 2 at t = 4.0 s and t = 5.9 s and in experiment 4 at t = 5.0 s.
For , the boxplots of the runtimes achieved on the forest simulation (measured on an Intel Core i7-7700HQ) and on the hardware experiments (measured on the onboard Intel NUC i7DNK with the mapper and the RealSense also running on it) are shown in Fig. 31. For the runtimes of the MIQP of the Whole and the Safe Trajectories, the 75th percentile is always below 32 ms.
We now show how, by generating 2-D trajectories instead of 3-D, and changing the controller, FASTER can also be extended for skid-steer robots. To track the trajectory obtained by MADER, we generate the linear and angular velocities using a PD controller based on the derivative of the tangential angle of the trajectory [52] and the desired position and velocity. The commanded angular velocities of the wheels are then obtained from the desired angular velocities of the wheels
Fig. 32: Composite images of Experiments 7, 8 and 9. The ground robot must go from start to goal . Snapshots shown every 670 ms. To show the ability of FASTER to get out from bugtraps, only points in the depth image closer than 3 m were used to build the map in experiment 9.
Fig. 33: Velocity plots of the experiments 7, 8, and 9.
Fig. 34: Ground robot used in the experiments. It is equipped with an Intel® RealSense Depth Camera D435, and an i7-7700HQ laptop.
using a PID.
Three different experiments were done with the ground robot (see Figs. 32, 33, and 34). An external motion capture system was used to estimate the position and orientation of the robot. Experiments 7 and 8 were done in obstacle environments similar to the random forest. The maximum speeds achieved for the experiments 7 and 8 were 1.95 m/s and 2.22 m/s respectively. Note that the maximum speed specified for this ground robot is m/s [53].
To test the ability of FASTER to reuse the map built, the setup for experiment 9 was a bugtrap environment, and only points in the depth image closer than 3 m were used to build the map. The robot first enters the bugtrap because it does not see the end of it. Once the robot detects that there is no exit at the end of the bugtrap, it turns back, exits the bugtrap, passes through its left and avoids some new obstacles to finally reach the goal. The maximum speed achieved in this experiment was 1.70 m/s
This work presented FASTER, a fast and safe planner for agile flights in unknown environments. The key properties of this planner is that it leads to a higher nominal speed than other works by planning both in U and F using a convex decomposition, and ensures safety by having always a Safe Trajectory planned in F at the beginning of every replanning step. FASTER was tested successfully both in simulated and in hardware flights, achieving velocities up to 7.8 m/s. Finally, we showed how FASTER is also applicable to skid-steer robots, achieving hardware experiments at 2 m/s.
Our algorithm has also some limitations: In environments where the planning horizon is not very large (as in all the experiments shown in this article), polyhedra usually suffice, and our algorithm maintains computational tractability. However, for large known worlds (for example if a map of the environment already exists beforehand), a long planning horizon may require more than 4 polyhedra, which, as shown in Fig. 16, will increase the computation time. One possible way to address this is to solve the interval allocation only in the polyhedra that are close to the current position of the UAV, and force a predefined interval and time allocation for the polyhedra that are farther in the planning horizon. Moreover, we also noticed how important the choice of the point R is: As discussed in Sec. III-E, if the point R is chosen very close to the unknown space, it may lead to infeasibility of the optimization problem associated with the Safe Trajectory. However, if R is chosen very close to A, then the UAV may not have enough time to replan in the next iteration, which will lead to keep executing the previous trajectory, and may eventually decrease the nominal speed of the flight. Nonheuristic ways to solve this tradeoff seems like a promising direction for future work. Further future work includes the relaxation of the assumption 1: we plan to include the uncertainty associated with the map (due to estimation error and/or sensor noise) in the replanning function, and to extend this planner to dynamic environments. We also plan to use onboard estimation algorithms like VIO instead of an external motion capture system for the real hardware experiments.
Finally, another promising future work is the reduction of the computation times of the time allocation approaches. Experiments in Sec. IV-B use a generic nonconvex solver to optimize the time allocation, which may be inefficient in some situations. Exploitation of the structure of the time allocation problem and/or the use of hierarchical optimization could help to reduce the associated computation times [54], [55]. This could potentially avoid the use of binary variables needed for the interval allocation, or allow the optimization of both the interval and the time allocation in the trajectory planning problem.
The authors would like to thank Pablo Tordesillas (ETSAMUPM) for his help with some figures, to Parker Lusk and Aleix Paris (ACL-MIT) for their help with the hardware, and to Helen Oleynikova (ASL-ETH) for the data of the forest simulation. The authors would also like to thank John Carter and John Ware (CSAIL-MIT) for their help with the mapper used. This work was supported in part by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as part of the Fast Lightweight Autonomy (FLA) program grant number HR0011-15-C-0110. Views expressed here are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official views or policies of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. The hardware was supported in part by Boeing Research and Technology. The first author of this article was also financially supported by La Caixa fellowship.
[1] M. W. Mueller, M. Hehn, and R. D’Andrea, “A computationally ef- ficient motion primitive for quadrocopter trajectory generation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1294–1310, 2015.
[2] B. T. Lopez and J. P. How, “Aggressive 3-d collision avoidance for high-speed navigation,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp. 5759–5765.
[3] ——, “Aggressive collision avoidance with limited field-of-view sens- ing,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1358–1365.
[4] J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, J. Carter, J. Ware, and J. P. How, “Real- time planning with multi-fidelity models for agile flights in unknown environments,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019.
[5] R. Deits and R. Tedrake, “Efficient mixed-integer planning for uavs in cluttered environments,” in 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 42–49.
[6] S. Liu, M. Watterson, K. Mohta, K. Sun, S. Bhattacharya, C. J. Taylor, and V. Kumar, “Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-D complex environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1688–1695, 2017.
[7] J. A. Preiss, K. Hausman, G. S. Sukhatme, and S. Weiss, “Trajectory optimization for self-calibration and navigation.” in Robotics: Science and Systems, 2017.
[8] B. Landry, R. Deits, P. R. Florence, and R. Tedrake, “Aggressive quadrotor flight through cluttered environments using mixed integer programming,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1469–1475.
[9] J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, and J. P. How, “FASTER: Fast and safe tra- jectory planner for flights in unknown environments,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019.
[10] D. Mellinger and V. Kumar, “Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 2520–2525.
[11] M. J. Van Nieuwstadt and R. M. Murray, “Real-time trajectory generation for differentially flat systems,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control: IFAC-Affiliated Journal, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 995–1020, 1998.
[12] C. Richter, A. Bry, and N. Roy, “Polynomial trajectory planning for aggressive quadrotor flight in dense indoor environments,” in Robotics Research. Springer, 2016, pp. 649–666.
[13] G. Loianno, C. Brunner, G. McGrath, and V. Kumar, “Estimation, control, and planning for aggressive flight with a small quadrotor with a single camera and IMU,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 404–411, 2017.
[14] P. Florence, J. Carter, and R. Tedrake, “Integrated perception and control at high speed: Evaluating collision avoidance maneuvers without maps,” in Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XII. Springer, 2016, pp. 304– 319.
[15] N. Bucki and M. W. Mueller, “Rapid collision detection for multicopter trajectories,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 7234–7239.
[16] M. Ryll, J. Ware, J. Carter, and N. Roy, “Efficient trajectory planning for high speed flight in unknown environments,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019.
[17] A. Spitzer, X. Yang, J. Yao, A. Dhawale, K. Goel, M. Dabhi, M. Collins, C. Boirum, and N. Michael, “Fast and agile vision-based flight with teleoperation and collision avoidance on a multirotor,” in International Symposium on Experimental Robotics. Springer, 2018, pp. 524–535.
[18] S. Liu, N. Atanasov, K. Mohta, and V. Kumar, “Search-based motion planning for quadrotors using linear quadratic minimum time control,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 2017, pp. 2872–2879.
[19] S. Liu, K. Mohta, N. Atanasov, and V. Kumar, “Search-based motion planning for aggressive flight in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 2439–2446, 2018.
[20] B. Zhou, F. Gao, L. Wang, C. Liu, and S. Shen, “Robust and effi- cient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3529–3536, 2019.
[21] H. Oleynikova, M. Burri, Z. Taylor, J. Nieto, R. Siegwart, and E. Galceran, “Continuous-time trajectory optimization for online uav replanning,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 5332–5339.
[22] H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “Safe local explo- ration for replanning in cluttered unknown environments for microaerial vehicles,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1474–1481, 2018.
[23] Y. Mao, M. Szmuk, and B. Acikmese, “Successive convexification: A superlinearly convergent algorithm for non-convex optimal control problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06539, 2018.
[24] F. Augugliaro, A. P. Schoellig, and R. D’Andrea, “Generation of collision-free trajectories for a quadrocopter fleet: A sequential convex programming approach,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1917–1922.
[25] J. Schulman, Y. Duan, J. Ho, A. Lee, I. Awwal, H. Bradlow, J. Pan, S. Patil, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Motion planning with sequential convex optimization and convex collision checking,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1251–1270, 2014.
[26] C. Liu, C.-Y. Lin, and M. Tomizuka, “The convex feasible set algorithm for real time optimization in motion planning,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 2712–2733, 2018.
[27] M. Watterson, S. Liu, K. Sun, T. Smith, and V. Kumar, “Trajectory optimization on manifolds with applications to Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2018.
[28] F. Gao, W. Wu, W. Gao, and S. Shen, “Flying on point clouds: Online trajectory generation and autonomous navigation for quadrotors in cluttered environments,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 710–733, 2019.
[29] S.-p. Lai, M.-l. Lan, Y.-x. Li, and B. M. Chen, “Safe navigation of quadrotors with jerk limited trajectory,” Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 107–119, 2019.
[30] G. Rousseau, C. S. Maniu, S. Tebbani, M. Babel, and N. Martin, “Minimum-time B-spline trajectories with corridor constraints. application to cinematographic quadrotor flight plans,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 89, pp. 190–203, 2019.
[31] O. K. Sahingoz, “Generation of B´ezier curve-based flyable trajectories for multi-UAV systems with parallel genetic algorithm,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 74, no. 1-2, pp. 499–511, 2014.
[32] S. Liu, M. Watterson, S. Tang, and V. Kumar, “High speed navigation for quadrotors with limited onboard sensing,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1484– 1491.
[33] Z. Wang, X. Zhou, C. Xu, J. Chu, and F. Gao, “Alternating minimiza- tion based trajectory generation for quadrotor aggressive flight,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4836–4843, 2020.
[34] M. M. de Almeida, R. Moghe, and M. Akella, “Real-time minimum snap trajectory generation for quadcopters: Algorithm speed-up through machine learning,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 683–689.
[35] F. Gao, W. Wu, J. Pan, B. Zhou, and S. Shen, “Optimal time allocation for quadrotor trajectory generation,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 4715–4722.
[36] T. Schouwenaars, ´E. F´eron, and J. How, “Safe receding horizon path planning for autonomous vehicles,” in Proceedings of the Annual Allerton Conference on Communication Control and Computing, vol. 40, no. 1. The University; 1998, 2002, pp. 295–304.
[37] D. Dey, K. S. Shankar, S. Zeng, R. Mehta, M. T. Agcayazi, C. Eriksen, S. Daftry, M. Hebert, and J. A. Bagnell, “Vision and learning for deliberative monocular cluttered flight,” in Field and Service Robotics. Springer, 2016, pp. 391–409.
[38] P. R. Florence, J. Carter, J. Ware, and R. Tedrake, “Nanomap: Fast, uncertainty-aware proximity queries with lazy search over local 3d data,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 7631–7638.
[39] B. Lau, C. Sprunk, and W. Burgard, “Improved updating of euclidean distance maps and voronoi diagrams,” in Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 2010, pp. 281–286.
[40] H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “Voxblox: Incremental 3D euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017.
[41] M. Pivtoraiko, D. Mellinger, and V. Kumar, “Incremental micro-UAV motion replanning for exploring unknown environments,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2013, pp. 2452–2458.
[42] J. Chen, T. Liu, and S. Shen, “Online generation of collision-free trajectories for quadrotor flight in unknown cluttered environments,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1476–1483.
[43] J. E. Bresenham, “Algorithm for computer control of a digital plotter,” IBM Systems journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25–30, 1965.
[44] D. Harabor and A. Grastien, “Online graph pruning for pathfinding on grid maps,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 2011, pp. 1114–1119.
[45] L. Gurobi Optimization, “Gurobi optimizer reference manual,” 2021.
[46] B. T. Lopez, “Low-latency trajectory planning for high-speed navigation in unknown environments,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2016.
[47] N. Koenig and A. Howard, “Design and use paradigms for Gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,” in 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), vol. 3. IEEE, 2004, pp. 2149–2154.
[48] A. Bircher, M. Kamel, K. Alexis, H. Oleynikova, and R. Siegwart, “Receding horizon “next-best-view” planner for 3D exploration,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1462–1468.
[49] “Matlab optimization toolbox,” 2020, the MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA.
[50] J. L¨ofberg, “Yalmip : A toolbox for modeling and optimization in matlab,” in In Proceedings of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004.
[51] ——, “Pre- and post-processing sum-of-squares programs in practice,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1007–1011, 2009.
[52] W. MathWorld, “Tangential angle,” http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ TangentialAngle.html, 06 2019, (Accessed on 06/02/2019).
[53] Clearpath, “Jackal UGV - Small weatherproof robot,” https://clearpathrobotics.com/jackal-small-unmanned-ground-vehicle/, 06 2019, (Accessed on 06/15/2019).
[54] W. Sun, G. Tang, and K. Hauser, “Fast uav trajectory optimization using bilevel optimization with analytical gradients,” in 2020 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 82–87.
[55] G. Tang, W. Sun, and K. Hauser, “Enhancing bilevel optimization for uav time-optimal trajectory using a duality gap approach,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2515–2521.
Jesus Tordesillas (Student Member, IEEE) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in Electronic engineering and Robotics from the Technical University of Madrid (Spain) in 2016 and 2018 respectively. He then received his M.S. in Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT in 2019. He is currently pursuing the PhD degree with the Aeronautics and Astronautics Department, as a member of the Aerospace Controls Laboratory (MIT) under the supervision of Jonathan P. How. His research interests include path planning for UAVs in unknown environments and optimization. He held an internship position at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, working with the Robotic Aerial Mobility Group. His work was a finalist for the Best Paper Award on Search and Rescue Robotics in IROS 2019.
Brett T. Lopez (Student Member, IEEE) is a Postdoctoral Scholar at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the Robotic Aerial Mobility Group where he leads a team of engineers and researchers designing the next generation of autonomous aerial robots for the DARPA Subterranean Challenge. He obtained his PhD (2019) and SM (2016) from MIT working with Prof. Jonathan How. He obtained his BS (2014) from UCLA where he received the Aerospace Engineering Outstanding Bachelor of Science award. His research establishes performance guarantees for complex autonomous systems through nonlinear/adaptive control theory and optimization.
Michael Everett (Student Member, IEEE) is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Aerospace Controls Laboratory at MIT. He received the SM degree (2017) and the SB degree (2015) from MIT in Mechanical Engineering. His research addresses fundamental gaps in the connection of machine learning and real mobile robotics. He was an author of works that won the Best Paper Award on Cognitive Robotics at IROS 2019, the Best Student Paper Award and finalist for the Best Paper Award on Cognitive Robotics at IROS 2017, and finalist for the Best MultiRobot Systems Paper Award at ICRA 2017.
Jonathan P. How (Fellow, IEEE) received the B.A.Sc. degree from the University of Toronto (1987), and the S.M. and Ph.D. degrees in aeronautics and astronautics from MIT (1990 and 1993). Prior to joining MIT in 2000, he was an Assistant Professor at Stanford University. He is currently the Richard C. Maclaurin Professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT. Some of his awards include the IEEE CSS Distinguished Member Award (2020), AIAA Intelligent Systems Award (2020), IROS Best Paper Award on Cognitive Robotics (2019), and the AIAA Best Paper in Conference Awards (2011, 2012, 2013). He was the Editor-in-chief of IEEE Control Systems Magazine (2015–2019), is a Fellow of AIAA, and was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2021.