IET Control Theory & Applications

Brief Paper

Non-linear model predictive control for visual ISSN 1751-8644

Received on 6th December 2019
Revised 27th April 2020
servoing systems incorporating iterative Accepted on 1st June 2020
E-First on 18th August 2020
linear quadratic Gaussian doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2019.1399
www.ietdl.org

Jinhui Wu1,2, Zhehao Jin1,2, Andong Liu1,2 , Li Yu1,2

1Department of Automation, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China
2Zhejiang Provincial United Key Laboratory of Embedded Systems, Hangzhou 310023, People's Republic of China
E-mail: lad@zjut.edu.cn

Abstract: This study proposes a modified non-linear model predictive control (NMPC) to deal with the point stabilisation for the
image-based visual servoing (IBVS) of a wheeled mobile robot by using the iterative linear quadratic Gaussian (iLQG) algorithm.
Firstly, an IBVS non-linear system is modelled by taking the image coordinates and angle into account simultaneously. By
setting a loss function, a model predictive control minimisation problem with an input constraint is formulated. Then, an iLQG-
based NMPC strategy is proposed to obtain the optimal solution where a dual-gradient descent is used to deal with the input
constraint and a specific Lorentzian ρ-function is added into the loss function to reduce the static error. Finally, numerical
simulations and several comparisons are demonstrated to show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

1 Introduction first derivatives of dynamics to optimise the cost-to-go function in

In recent years, as the working environment becomes more and
more complex, the perception ability of the robot is becoming more
important. As an essential part of intelligent robots, vision has
attracted more attention. Visual servoing system is an intelligent
system that controls robots to complete tasks by visual signals so as
to enhance the extensibility and adaptivity of robots [1]. According
to different structures, visual servoing methods can be classified
into position-based visual servo [2], image-based visual servo
(IBVS) [3–6] and hybrid visual servo [7]. Due to the small
computational burden of IBVS, this method has rapidly
implemented for the last decade.
In the past two decades, a lot of methods have been proposed to
deal with visual servoing control problems, such as adaptive
control and sliding mode control [8–10]. However, these methods
are difficult to handle the constrained problems which normally
occur in mobile robots. MPC, also known as receding horizon
control, is one of the effective ways to solve constrained control
problems, and has been widely used in the field of mobile robots
[11–13]. For example, in [11], MPC was used to solve the
constrained problem of the non-holonomic mobile robot with a
linear cascade model. However, due to the inherently non-linear of
IBVS, linear MPC will lead to the performance degradation and
even causes the task failure. Under this circumstance, non-linear
MPC (NMPC) is just suitable to deal with this problem. In [14], a
state feedback predictive control was investigated for six-
dimensional non-linear hydro-turbine governing system. In [15], a
distributed MPC approach was proposed to complete the formation
control for multiple mobile robots with external disturbance and
synchronisation constraints. In [16], a distributed economic MPC
strategy was designed for non-linear multiagent system to handle
the cooperative formation problem with transmission delay. In
[17], a Lyapunov-based MPC method was proposed to enhance the
performance of trajectory tracking for dynamic underwater vehicle
systems. In [18], a collective neural network, including two
recurrent neural networks, was proposed to solve the NMPC
optimisation problem for a discrete time-invariant non-linear
system. However, a key problem of the aforementioned methods is
that they have difficulty in formulating and calculating the
predicted extension equations if the prediction step is large.
Iterative linear quadratic Gaussian (iLPG) was firstly derived
for non-linear stochastic systems to eliminate the influence of
noises [19–21]. It is a trajectory optimisation method which uses
a backward and forward manner. Hence, this method can
circumvent deriving the MPC prediction equations. Recently,
iLQG-based MPC has been proposed in [22] to deal with the
stabilisation problem for the non-holonomic four-wheeled vehicle
system with the existence of the computational delay. The non-
holonomic system was modelled as a chained form and the loss
function was chosen as a quadratic form. However, if the quadratic
loss function is used for non-linear systems, the system may trap in
local optima and result in static errors.
Motivated by the above discussions, this paper focuses on
employing an iLQG-based NMPC algorithm to solve the non-
linear stabilisation task with consideration of angles. The main
contributions of this paper are summarised as follows: (i) a
modified NMPC based on iLQG is proposed to guide the
constrained non-linear IBVS system to stay at a desired posture
without formulating the complex MPC prediction equations; (ii) a
Lorentzian ρ-function rather than a quadratic one is chosen as the
the performance index of MPC to reduce the impact of static
errors; and (iii) the result of asymptotical stability for the proposed
iLQG-based NMPC method is presented.
2 Model description
The considered visual servoing system is depicted in Fig. 1, where
Ow X wY wZ w, Or X rY rZ r and Oc X cY cZ c denote the frameworks of
world, robot and camera, respectively. (xc, yc, zc) is the coordinate
of feature point with respect to the camera coordinate system,
vr, ωr, vc, ωc represent the linear velocity and angular velocity of the
robot and camera, respectively.
Based on the camera model, the relationship between pixel
coordinate of features (px, py) and (xc, yc, zc) is shown as follows
[23]:
xc
px − p0x = f x
zc
(1)
yc
py − p0y = f y
zc
where (p0x, p0y) is the offset between the origin of image coordinates
and pixel coordinates, ( f x, f y) is the focal length of the camera.
Differentiating (1), one has

IET Control Theory Appl., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 14, pp. 1989-1994 1989
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
 ẋc − xżc velocity of the mobile robot in the x-axis, y-axis, z-axis,
ẋ ṗx zc respectively. Differentiating (3), one has
= = (2)
ẏ ṗ y ẏc − yżc
x˙c xc
żc → →
y˙c = − ω × yc − v (4)
where x and y are the image coordinates of x-axis and y-axis, z˙c zc
respectively. As can be seen in Fig. 1, without loss of generality,
we here assume that the movement of the robot is limited in the that is
X wOwZ w plane. Hence, the velocity vector of the robot in the robot
coordinate can be defined as ξrr = (0, 0, vr, 0, ωr, 0)T and in the ẋc = − vx − ωyzc + ωzyc
camera coordinate can be defined as ξcc = (0, 0, vc, 0, ωc, 0)T. ẏc = − vy − ωz xc + ωxzc (5)
According to the physical relationship between the angular żc = − vz − ωx yc + ωy xc
velocity and the linear velocity shown in Fig. 2, we have
→ →
Then, substituting (5) into (2), a non-linear IBVS model for the
→
v =ω×r (3) mobile robot can be derived as follows:
→ → → 1 x
where v = [vx, vy, vz]T, ω = [ωx, ωy, ωz]T and r denotes the radius − 0 xy − 1 + x2 y
of rotation. vx, vy, vz, ωx, ωy and ωz denote the components of ẋ zc zc
= ξcc (6)
ẏ 1 y 2
0 − 1+y −xy −x
zc zc

Since ξcc = (0, 0, vc, 0, ωc, 0)T, we can rewrite (6) in a more compact
manner:

Ẋ = L(x, y, zc)u (7)

where the state vector X = (x, y)T, image Jacobian matrix

x
−(1 + x2)
zc
L(x, y, zc) = ,
y
−xy
zc

system input

vc
u= .
ωc

With the aim of driving the robot to a unique position in the world
framework, the angle of the robot should also be considered.
Combining with the fact that θ̇ = ωc, as a result, the model can be
further derived as follows:

Ẋ cob = Lcobu (8)

Fig. 1  Visual servoing system for the wheeled mobile robot
where Xcob = (x, y, θ)T

x
−(1 + x2)
zc
Lcob = y .
−xy
zc
0 1

By setting (x∗, y∗, θ∗) as the desired image coordinates and angle,
the error vector is defined as follows:

e = [x − x∗, y − y∗, θ − θ∗]T

The discrete error model of system (8) is also derived with

sampling period T:

e(k + 1) = f (e(k), u(k)) (9)

where f (e(k), u(k)) = e(k) + TLcobu(k).

In summary, the goal of this paper is to design a controller for
Fig. 2  3D relationship between the angular velocity and the linear velocity system (9) to drive the robot to reach the target posture such that
e → 0.

1990 IET Control Theory Appl., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 14, pp. 1989-1994
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
 In order to handle the input constraint, the following modified
performance index is further derived by introducing the dual
variables λk and ηk:

t+N−1
min Jt = ∑ lk′(ek, uk, λk, ηk) + lN (eN ) (12)
k=t

where

lk′(ek, uk, λk, ηk) = lk(ek, uk) + λk(umin − uk)

(13)
+ηk(uk − umax)

Various updating rules of Lagrange multipliers have been

discussed in [27]. In this paper, the following rules are given:

Fig. 3  Lorentzian ρ-function λk ← λk + α umin − uk (14)

3 iLQG-based NMPC ηk ← ηk + α uk − umax (15)

This section focuses on designing an iLQG-based NMPC control where α represents the updating rate.
scheme to achieve the desired posture. iLQG is a kind of recursive optimisation algorithm. To show the
As the main objective of MPC is to minimise the performance entire process of the proposed algorithm for system (9) and the
index, we define the following performance index at time step t: performance index (12), we first suppose that there exists a
t+N−1
trajectory
Jt′ = ∑ lk(ek, uk) + lN (eN ) (10)
{et, ut, . . . , et + N − 1, ut + N − 1, et + N }
k=t

where lk is the running cost and lN is the terminal cost. In general, and a value function
^ ^
the quadratic items l k = ekTQwek
+ ukTRwuk
and l N = eNT PweN
are V(et) = min Jt (16)
chosen to penalise the system, where Qw and Rw are weight U

matrices and Pw is the terminal weight matrix. However, they are

During the time interval [t, t + N − 1], the backward propagation of
inadequate because the non-linearity is prone to fall into the local
the value function is derived as
optimality and lead to static errors. Some approaches have been
employed to deal with this situation, such as particle swarm t+N−1
optimisation [24] and approximation methods [25]. Inspired by
Levine et al. [26], we here choose a non-linear loss function
V(et) = min
ut
∑ lk(ek, uk) + V( f (ek, uk)) (17)
k=t

lk = ekTW 1ek + ukTRwuk + W 2 log(ekTW 1ek + r) The key to success for the iLQG algorithm lies in the calculation of
the perturbation between tth trajectory and (t + δt)th trajectory.
lN = eNT W 1eN + W N log(eNT W 1eN + r) Hence, the following function is considered:

where the third item of lk (or the second item of lN ) is called the Q δet, δut = lk et + δet, ut + δut − lk et, ut
(18)
Lorentzian ρ-function. W 1 and W 2 are the corresponding positive +V f et + δet, ut + δut − V f et, ut
definite weight matrices which trade off the penalties [between
ekTW 1ek and log(eNT W 1eN + r)], and W N is the terminal weight According to the Taylor series expansion, we expand (18) as the
matrix. The relationship between the error state ek and the values of following second-order form:
this ρ-function is shown in Fig. 3. As we can see in Fig. 2, the
Lorentzian ρ-function is similar to the negative normal distribution, 1 T 0 QeTt QuTt 1
1
and the parameter r is to determine its minimum and its width of Q δet, δut ≃ δet Qet Qetet Qetut δet (19)
distribution. 2
δut Qut Qutet Qu u δut
  t t

Remark 1: It should be pointed out that our main concern is that

the non-linear task (10) cannot be stabilised. If the quadratic items where
^ ^
l k and l N are used, these items will become small when the robot
enters into the vicinity of the desired position. Since we have to Qet = let + f eTt V et t++11
consider the desired angle, this loss function cannot sufficiently Qut = lut + f uTtV et t++11
penalise small errors and will be prone to fall into the local
optimum (this phenomenon can been seen in the ‘Simulation’ part). Qetet = letet + f eTt V et t++11et + 1 f et + V et t++11 f etet
On the contrary, the Lorentzian ρ-function still have a negative
Qutut = lutut + f uTtV et t++11et + 1 f ut + V et t++11 f utut
curvature when the robot is close to the target. This character
encourages the algorithm to converge on the target more precisely Qutet = lutet + f uTtV et t++11et + 1 f et + V et t++11 f utet
when the robot is already close to the target.
In addition, to prevent violating the physical constraint of the
and V t + 1 means the value function at time step t + 1. Based on the
real robot system, the following constraint is given:
Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions, the optimal δut∗ can be obtained
umin ≤ uk ≤ umax, k ∈ [t, t + N − 1] (11) as follows:

δuk∗ = arg min Q δet, δut

(20)
= − Qu−1tut(Qut + Qutetδet)

IET Control Theory Appl., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 14, pp. 1989-1994 1991
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
 Substituting (20) into (19), we have

V et t = Qet − QutQu−1tutQutet (21)

V et tet = Qetet − QetutQu−1tutQutet (22)

By calculating the values of kt, Kt, V et t and V et tet from time t to

t + N − 1, the backward propagation is completed, and the learning
process is finished. When the learning process is finished, a
forward propagation should be performed to generate a new
trajectory {et, ut, …, et + N − 1, ut + N − 1, et + N } by using the obtained
control sequence {kt, Kt, …, kt + N − 1, Kt + N − 1}, where
−1 −1
kt = − QututQut, Kt = − QututQutet, the detailed forward updating
laws are shown as follows:
Fig. 4  Algorithm 1: the proposed iLQG-based NMPC algorithm
et ← et
ut ← ut + kt + Ktδet (23)
et + 1 ← f (et, ut)

Finally, the optimal trajectory can be eventually obtained by

performing the backward and forward propagations repeatedly. The
proposed algorithm is summarised in Algorithm 1 (see Fig. 4).
 
Remark 2: Notice that in [19], the iLQG has been derived as a
simpler variant of differential dynamic programming algorithm
which has the quadratic convergence properties. Hence, we can
guarantee that optimal solution δuk∗ of iLQG in (20) can be attained.
According to Remark 2, iLQG allows us to obtain the optimal
error state ek∗ and the corresponding input uk∗, and we can rewrite the
performance index (10) as the optimal one Ot∗(ek) = min Jt′, that is
t+N−1
Ot∗(ek∗) = ∑k = t ∥ ek∗ ∥W
2
1
+ ∥ uk∗ ∥2Rw +W 2log( ∥ ek∗ ∥W
2
1
+r)+lN∗ .
According to the optimum theory and
t+N
Jt′+ 1 = ∑ ∥ ek ∥2W1 + ∥ uk ∥2Rw
k =t+1 (24)
2
+W 2log( ∥ ek ∥W 1
+ r) + lN + 1

we have
Fig. 5  Comparison with different loss functions
Ot∗+ 1(ek∗) ≤ Ot∗(ek∗) − ∥ et∗ ∥2W1
(25) During the whole simulation, the state is defined as (x, y, θ).
+lN∗ + 1 + ∥ et∗+ N ∥W
2
1
+ ∥ ut∗+ N ∥2Rw The initial state is (0.5, 0.1, 0) and the initial velocity is (0, 0). The
target posture is (0, 0.35, π/4). The camera parameters are given as
By using the similar method in [28], a suitable terminal weigh p0x = 320, p0y = 240, f x = − 542.5, f y = − 542.5 and the camera
matrix for lN∗ + 1 can be designed to guarantee the following height yc = 1 m. The constraint of input is
inequality:
umin = − umax = [ − 1, − 1]T. The prediction step of MPC in each
iLQG step is N = 20 and the parameters in Algorithm 1 are set as
lN∗ + 1 + ∥ et∗+ N ∥W
2
+ ∥ ut∗+ N ∥2Rw ≤ 0 (26)
1 L1 = 2, L2 = 5. The parameters of the proposed loss functions are
given as W 1 = diag{1, 3, 0.5}, Rw = 0.05I, W 2 = 0.01, r = 0.001
As a result, the following inequality
and W N = 2.
As the parameters W 1, W 2 and W N can influence the amplitude
Ot∗+ 1(ek∗) ≤ Ot∗(ek∗) − ∥ et∗ ∥W
2
1
of oscillation and the control accuracy, we further give W 2 = 0.1 to
show the characteristic of the proposed algorithm. Meanwhile, the
holds for all t. Based on the above discussion, the result of
quadratic items with weight matrices Qw = 2I and Pw = I are given
asymptotical stability for the proposed iLQG-based NMPC method
can be stated as the following theorem. and the results are shown in Fig. 5, where blue dash-dot line, red
  dotted line and green dashed line represent the results of W 2 = 0.1,
Theorem 1: If there exists the terminal weigh matrix that W 2 = 0.01 and the quadratic items, respectively. It can be seen that
satisfies inequality (26), system (9) along with performance index the trends are totally different at the end of the process. Fig. 5a
(10) will be asymptotically stable and Ot∗(ek∗) will be a Lyapunov shows the trajectories in the image plane. When the quadratic items
are used to perform this task, the control process is smooth.
function.
However, the static error cannot be dealt with under this situation.
The proposed loss functions can tackle the static error well
4 Simulation although the oscillation occurs when close to the desired position.
In this section, some simulations and comparisons are given to In Fig. 5b, the paths of the robot in the world plane are plotted and
substantiate the advantage of the proposed iLQG-based NMPC the quadratic items stay near (1.5, 1.6) which is far from the desired
algorithm. coordinates. When the proposed loss functions are given with
W 2 = 0.1, the robot can to some extent reduce the error in a way of

1992 IET Control Theory Appl., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 14, pp. 1989-1994
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

Fig. 6  Comparison with different N
Table 1 Running times with different prediction steps
Prediction steps Running time, s e, mm, mm, deg
0 0.058 (−0.12, − 0.1, − 15)
10 0.401 (−0.05, 0.02, − 10)
20 0.809 (0.0, 0.0, − 0.302)
30 1.235 (0.0, 0.0, − 0.289)
moving forward and backward. Eventually, red dotted line
(W 2 = 0.01) can reach the desired position. Fig. 5c demonstrates
the change of θ. We can see that the value of θ stops changing after
approximately 40 steps, which can explain directly why the
quadratic items cannot drive the robot to the desired posture. When
the proposed loss functions are added, the value of θ begins to
oscillate after approximately 50 steps. Although the blue one also
cannot converge to the desired angle, this pair of loss functions
enhance the ability to reduce the static error. The suitable pair of
loss functions (shown in the Fig. 5c with red dotted line) can
complete the stabilisation task with the tolerant static error. The
above analysis proves the advantage of the proposed iLQG-based
NMPC with the specific Lorentzian ρ-function.
In order to show the necessity of the combination of the MPC
and the strong impact of the prediction step, we choose three
different cases as N = 0, N = 10 and N = 20, and the results are
shown in Fig. 6. Figs. 6a and b imply that the trend of the pure
iLQG (i.e. N = 0) is not smooth and unable to reach the desired
position in 150 steps. Moreover, the angle even degenerates after
30 steps, falling down from 35° to 30°, which leads to the linear
change both in the image layer and in the world layer. The
difference between N = 10 and N = 0 is that the robot can be
closer to the desired posture when N = 10. When N = 20, the
robot approaches the desired posture after 50 steps. Then, it starts
to oscillate in order to reach the desired posture and finally
completes the task after 120 steps. Based on these three cases, we
can conclude that it is necessary to combine the MPC into iLQG to
solve the IBVS stabilisation task for wheeled mobile robot
systems.
It is well known that MPC is a powerful control scheme which
increases the control accuracy by increasing the prediction steps in
a recursive manner, but the computational burden will become
heavier. We further calculate the running time when
N = 0, 10, 20, 30 in Table 1 by using 50-time Monte Carlo test,
which contains average one-step running times and average final
errors after operating 150 loops. We can see that when the
prediction step increases from 0 to 20, the error deceases
immediately. However, when the prediction step increases from 20
to 30, the running time increases from 0.809 to 1.235 but the error
only decreases from −0.302 to −0.289. These data imply that
IET Control Theory Appl., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 14, pp. 1989-1994
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
small prediction steps have short running times but poor control
accuracy. Also, if N becomes larger, the static error will remain
basically unchanged while the running time will increase rapidly.
As illustrated by the above comparisons of control accuracy,
computational burden under different performance indexes and
different prediction steps, the proposed iLQG-based NMPC is
capable of dealing with the non-linear stabilisation with suitable
prediction steps and parameters of the Lorentzian ρ-function.
Although the added Lorentzian ρ-function may cause oscillation
when the robot is close to the desired posture, it can enhance the
performance of the IBVS wheeled mobile robot system in terms of
avoiding the local optimality and reducing the static error
effectively.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, the NMPC controller was designed by using the
iLQG algorithm for the wheeled mobile robot IBVS system to
complete the point stabilisation task. Based on the camera
perspective projection, the error model of the system was
constructed as a non-linear form where the angle was also
considered to guide the robot to the unique posture under the world
layer. By defining an MPC performance index, the constrained
MPC minimisation was derived. In order to deal with the local
optimality of the NMPC, an iLQG-based NMPC strategy with the
specific Lorentzian ρ-function was proposed to obtain the optimal
solution. Finally, numerical simulations and comparisons with
different prediction steps and different performance indices
illustrated the advantage of the proposed algorithm.
6 Acknowledgments
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
suggestions to improve the quality of this PAPER. This work was
supported partly by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China under Grants 61973275, the NSFC-Zhejiang Joint
Foundation for the Integration of Industrialization and
Informatization under Grant U1709213, the Key R&D Foundation
of Zhejiang under Grant 2020C01109, the Talent Project of
Zhejiang Association for Science and Technology under Grant
2018YCGC018.
7 References
[1] Chaumette, F., Hutchinson, S.: ‘Visual servo control. I. basic approaches’,
IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., 2006, 13, (4), pp. 82–90
[2] Shu, T., Gharaaty, S., Xie, W., et al.: ‘Dynamic path tracking of industrial
robots with high accuracy using photogrammetry sensor’, IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatronics, 2018, 23, (2), pp. 1159–1170
[3] Gao, J., Proctor, A., Shi, Y., et al.: ‘Hierarchical model predictive image-
based visual servoing of underwater vehicles with adaptive neural network
dynamic control’, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 2016, 26, (10), pp. 2323–2334
[4] Liang, X., Wang, H., Liu, Y., et al.: ‘Image-based position control of mobile
robots with a completely unknown fixed camera’, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, 2018, 63, (9), pp. 3016–3023
[5] Wu, J., Chen, X., Liu, A., et al.: ‘Predictive control for visual servoing control
of cyber physical systems with packet loss’, Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl., 2019,
12, pp. 1774–1784
[6] Liang, X., Wang, H., Chen, W., et al.: ‘Adaptive image-based trajectory
tracking control of wheeled mobile robots with an uncalibrated fixed camera’,
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 2015, 23, (6), pp. 2266–2282
[7] He, Z., Wu, C., Zhang, S., et al.: ‘Moment-based 2 1/2D visual servoing for
texture-less planar part grasping’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2019, 66, (10),
pp. 7821–7830
[8] Chen, J., Jia, B., Zhang, K.: ‘Trifocal tensor-based adaptive visual trajectory
tracking control of mobile robots’, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 2016, 47, (11), pp.
3784–3798
[9] Yi, Y., Chen, D.: ‘Disturbance observer-based backstepping sliding mode
fault-tolerant control for the hydro-turbine governing system with dead-zone
input’, ISA Trans., 2019, 88, pp. 127–141
[10] Yi, Y., Chen, D., Xie, Q.: ‘Controllability of nonlinear fractional order
integrodifferential system with input delay’, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 2019,
42, (11), pp. 3799–3817
[11] Ke, F., Li, Z., Xiao, H., et al.: ‘Visual servoing of constrained mobile robots
based on model predictive control’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst.,
2017, 47, (7), pp. 1428–1438
[12] Liu, A., Zhang, W., Chen, M., et al.: ‘Moving horizon estimation for mobile
robots with multirate sampling’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 2017, 64, (2), pp.
1457–1467
1993
[13] Lee, S., Myung, H.: ‘Receding horizon particle swarm optimisation-based
formation control with collision avoidance for non-holonomic mobile robots’,
IET Control Theory Applic., 2015, 9, (14), pp. 2075–2083
[14] Yi, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, D, et al.: ‘State feedback predictive control for
nonlinear hydro-turbine governing system’, J. Vib. Control, 2018, 24, (21),
pp. 4945–4959
[15] Liu, A., Zhang, W., Yu, L., et al.: ‘Formation control of multiple mobile
robots incorporating an extended state observer and distributed model
predictive approach’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst., 2018, doi
10.1109/TSMC.2018.2855444
[16] He, D., Lu, L., Luo, R., et al.: ‘Energy-efficient cooperative predictive control
for multi-agent non-linear systems with transmission delay’, IET Control
Theory Applic., 2019, 13, (17), pp. 2730–2737
[17] Shen, C., Shi, Y., Buckham, B.: ‘Trajectory tracking control of an autonomous
underwater vehicle using Lyapunov-based model predictive control’, IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., 2017, 65, (7), pp. 5796–5805
[18] Yan, Z., Wang, J.: ‘Nonlinear model predictive control based on collective
neurodynamic optimization’, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst., 2015,
26, (4), pp. 840–850
[19] Todorov, E., Li, W.: ‘A generalized iterative LQG method for locally-optimal
feedback control of constrained nonlinear stochastic systems’. Proc. of
American Control Conf., Portland, OR, USA, 2005, pp. 300–306
[20] Kaczynski, P., Socha, L.: ‘Iterative procedures in application of the LQG
approach to control problems for polynomial stochastic systems’, IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, 2010, 55, (8),pp. 1875–1881
1994
[21] Park, B., Oh, S., Lee, J.: ‘Stochastic iterative learning model predictive
control based on stochastic approximation’, IFAC-Papers On Line, 2019, 52,
(1), pp. 604–609
[22] Qian, Y, Ushio, T.: ‘Receding horizon control with iLQG method considering
computational delay and its application to nonholonomic systems’. IEEE
Conf. on Control Technology and Applications, Kohala Coast, Hawaii, USA,
2017, pp. 644–649
[23] Ke, F., Li, Z., Yang, C.: ‘Robust tube-based predictive control for visual
servoing of constrained differential-drive mobile robots’, IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., 2018, 65, (4), pp. 3437–3446
[24] Eberhart, R., Shi, Y.: ‘Particle swarm optimization: developments,
applications and resources’. Proc. of Congress on Evolutionary Computation,
Seoul, South Korea, 2001, pp. 81–86
[25] Pan, Y., Wang, J.: ‘Model predictive control of unknown nonlinear dynamical
systems based on recurrent neural networks’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
2012, 59, (8), pp. 3089–3101
[26] Levine, S., Wagener, N., Abbeel, P.: ‘Learning contact-rich manipulation
skills with guided policy search’. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and
Automation, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2015, pp. 156–163
[27] Boyd, S., Vandenberghe, L.: ‘Convex optimization’ (Cambridge University
Press, UK, 2004)
[28] Liu, A., Zhang, W., Yu, L.: ‘Robust predictive trajectory tracking control for
mobile robots with intermittent measurement and quantization’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., 2019, doi: 10.1109/TIE.2019.2962424
IET Control Theory Appl., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 14, pp. 1989-1994
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020