Cited by 452Reinforcement Learning in RoboticsAdaptive Dynamic Programming ControlAdvanced Control Systems Optimization

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Learning deep control policies for autonomous aerial vehicles with MPC-guided policy search

Open access
Zhang, Tianhao, Kahn, Gregory, Levine, Sergey, Abbeel, Pieter·2016·2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Abstract

Model predictive control (MPC) is an effective method for controlling robotic systems, particularly autonomous aerial vehicles such as quadcopters. However, application of MPC can be computationally demanding, and typically requires estimating the state of the system, which can be challenging in complex, unstructured environments. Reinforcement learning can in principle forego the need for explicit state estimation and acquire a policy that directly maps sensor readings to actions, but is difficult to apply to unstable systems that are liable to fail catastrophically during training before an effective policy has been found. We propose to combine MPC with reinforcement learning in the framework of guided policy search, where MPC is used to generate data at training time, under full state observations provided by an instrumented training environment. This data is used to train a deep neural network policy, which is allowed to access only the raw observations from the vehicle's onboard sensors. After training, the neural network policy can successfully control the robot without knowledge of the full state, and at a fraction of the computational cost of MPC. We evaluate our method by learning obstacle avoidance policies for a simulated quadrotor, using simulated onboard sensors and no explicit state estimation at test time.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icra.2016.7487175

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 45 references

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 445

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, T., Kahn, G., Levine, S., & Abbeel, P.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-05
Pages
528-535
ISSN
1050-4729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1923344279
Cited by
452
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 93 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 8
FWCI
32.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001)
  • Army Research Office
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Adaptive Dynamic Programming Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Advanced Control Systems Optimization
Keywords
model predictive control, deep neural network policies, autonomous aerial vehicles, quadrotor control, obstacle avoidance, reinforcement learning, state estimation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review