Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Online Velocity Profile Generation and Tracking for Sampling-Based Local Planning Algorithms in Autonomous Racing Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An online velocity profile keeps a sampling race planner feasible when grip drops, saving 1.42 s per section.

desk verdict A credible integration of online grip-adaptive velocity profiles with spatial sampling for local racing planners; the 1.42 s gain is real within the point-mass model, but the paper's own limitations section narrows its scope. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05157 v1 pith:CMRNTKCT submitted 2025-05-08 cs.RO

Alexander Langmann , Levent Ögretmen , Frederik Werner , Johannes Betz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords autonomousracingvelocityprofilegenerationsampling-basedmotionplanningspatialtrajectorysamplinggg-diagramgripadaptationforward-backwardsolverapexdetection
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 authors aim to establish that a local sampling-based planning algorithm for autonomous race cars should not rely on a once-computed offline speed profile, because track grip changes. They propose recomputing the speed profile online along the same offline race line, scaling the vehicle's acceleration limits by a grip factor, and passing that updated profile to the local planner. The key comparison shows that when grip is reduced, the planner using the online profile brakes later and accelerates earlier through a chicane, remaining dynamically feasible and completing the section 1.42 s faster than the same planner using the offline, grip-blind profile. The paper also claims that sampling trajectories in the spatial domain, anchored to apexes, tracks the race-line profile better than temporal sampling when the vehicle starts off the profile.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pair of the forward-backward solver and the gg-diagram feasibility model, together with a spatial sampling overlay. A gg-diagram is a speed-dependent diamond of allowed longitudinal and lateral accelerations, scaled by a grip factor α; the solver integrates the fastest acceleration forward from the start and the maximum deceleration backward from each detected apex, and the feasible profile is the pointwise minimum. Apexes are located not simply by maximum curvature but by fixed-point iteration on admissible velocity along search intervals. The local planner then generates candidate trajectories over a fixed arc length S instead of a fixed time T, so brake points and apexes line up with the track geometry instead of drifting with time.

What would settle it

Run the same planner with the online profile on a track with measured grip reduced to α = 0.7 in a high-fidelity vehicle simulation or on a real car; if the executed trajectory exceeds the vehicle's actual tire limits, loses grip, or goes unstable in a section where the gg-diagram check passed, the point-mass feasibility claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's core is the claim that a velocity profile fixed at planning time is the wrong reference for a sampling-based race planner under changing track conditions. The authors recompute the feasible speed profile along the offline race line in real time from a three-dimensional track model, using a forward-backward solver constrained by velocity-dependent gg-diagrams that are shrunk by a grip scaling factor α. When the grip is reduced to α = 0.7 on a test section, the planner using this online profile follows the race-line velocity and path while staying feasible, whereas the planner using the offline profile brakes early, deviates from the path, and loses 1.42 s over the section. In addition, when the car starts below the reference speed or off the race line, trajectories generated in the spatial domain place braking and apex points correctly, while temporal trajectories decelerate too early and accelerate before the apex.

Load-bearing premise

The whole feasibility argument rests on a point-mass quasi-steady-state model that ignores transient load transfer and actuator dynamics, so a profile that passes the gg-diagram check can still be unsafe in the real car; the paper says so itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When grip changes during a lap, a planning stack that recomputes the speed profile on the race line can keep the local planner inside its acceleration limits without switching to a more conservative global plan.
  • Spatial-domain trajectory sampling is better suited than temporal sampling for tracking a speed profile from a starting state that is off the profile, because it aligns braking and apex points with track geometry.
  • The speed profile generation is cheap enough for real-time use, with an average runtime of about 43 ms, and its cost grows linearly with the number of apexes in the horizon.
  • The method is expected to transfer to other tracks and vehicles as long as a fixed race line and a valid gg-diagram model are available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This implies a testable full-lap extension: feed a grip map rather than two constant α values into the same profile generator, and the method should show smaller but still positive lap-time gains anywhere the offline profile is out of date.
  • Because the profile is only reoptimized on the fixed race line, the method's own logic predicts its advantage mostly in single-vehicle or follow-the-line situations; in close multi-vehicle racing where the path shifts laterally, the speed profile would need to be updated on the actual path to keep the guarantee.
  • The observed abrupt acceleration switches point to a concrete add-on: a jerk penalty or low-pass smoothing on the forward-backward output would trade some lap time for actuator feasibility, a trade the current experiments do not yet measure.
  • The spatial sampling idea, being a parameterization change, could be applied to any Frenet-frame sampling planner, not just the racing one used here.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an online velocity profile generation method for autonomous racing on three-dimensional tracks, combining a forward-backward (FW-BW) solver over a fixed race line with an apex-detection procedure, and integrates the resulting velocity profile into a sampling-based local planner through a spatial-domain trajectory sampling strategy. The central claims are that the online profile adapts to changing grip conditions (modeled by a scaling factor alpha) and that, when used by the sampling planner, it enables feasible tracking and improves sector time by 1.42 s compared with an offline profile (Section III-B, Table II). Additional experiments address lateral deviation from the race line and runtime behavior.

Significance. If the claims hold, the contribution is practically relevant: real-time adaptation of reference velocity profiles to grip changes is a recognized gap in autonomous racing, and the spatial sampling extension is a reasonable way to align local trajectories with brake points and apexes. The FW-BW formulation in Section II-D is standard and correctly applied, the spatial transformation in Eq. (11) is mathematically sound, and the paper is unusually candid about its limitations, especially in Section IV-C. The deterministic simulation setup and clear parameter tables support reproducibility of the reported scenarios. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a single simulation run within a point-mass quasi-steady-state model, and the real-time claim is weakened by the reported runtime exceeding the planning interval.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-D and Table I] The average runtime of the entire planning step is reported as 114 ms, while Table I fixes the simulation time per planning step at 100 ms. This means the average computation time exceeds the planning period, so the statement that the approach demonstrates 'feasibility for online application' and 'real-time capable calculation' is not directly supported. Please report the runtime distribution (maximum, percentile), clarify how a 114 ms average is consistent with a 100 ms planning step (e.g., asynchronous execution, lookahead, or budget-free simulation), or revise the real-time claim accordingly.
  2. [Section II-B, Eq. (4) and Section IV-C] Feasibility throughout the paper is defined by the point-mass quasi-steady-state gg-diagram in Eq. (4), and the central comparison in Section III-B reports that the sampling planner with the online profile 'remain[s] feasible.' The paper's own Section IV-C acknowledges that transient effects 'are not integrated into the online velocity profile, which might lead to unstable driving states while remaining feasible in the point-mass formulation.' Consequently, the 1.42 s improvement and the feasibility statement are not evidence that the profile is safe or feasible for the physical vehicle; they are only evidence of feasibility within the simplified model. The authors should either validate the claimed improvement with a higher-fidelity vehicle dynamics model (or a transient-feasibility check) or explicitly and consistently scope the central claim to the point-mass model.
  3. [Section III-B, Table II and Section III-C] The main quantitative result, the 1.42 s sector-time improvement, is based on a single deterministic simulation scenario with one grip-scaling value (alpha = 0.7) and one initial condition. No sensitivity analysis is provided with respect to alpha, velocity optimization horizon, cost weights, start state, or track section. Without such variation, the claim of 'robust performance' and the generality of the 1.42 s improvement are not established. Please add parameter sweeps or at least a few additional scenarios (e.g., different alpha values, different initial velocity offsets, and a different track section) to support the claimed robustness.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The notation in Eq. (11) is confusing because 's' denotes both the arc-length coordinate in the spatial domain and the progress coordinate of the reference line; for instance, the left-hand side 'ddot s(s)' mixes the two roles. A clearer notation, such as using sigma or q for the spatial coordinate, would improve readability.
  2. [Eq. (6) and Appendix] In Eq. (6), the symbol hat a_y is used for the admissible lateral acceleration, but in the body text and Eq. (13) it is also used for the actual lateral acceleration. This conflation makes the fixed-point iteration harder to follow. Please define hat a_y explicitly as the lateral acceleration limit implied by the gg-diagram for the current velocity.
  3. [Abstract and Section I-C] The abstract and contributions list describe the approach as suitable for 'competitive single- and multi-vehicle scenarios,' but Section IV-B states that the velocity profile is guaranteed feasible only on the race line and that the approach is 'only partially suitable for multi-vehicle scenarios.' Please align the abstract and contribution statements with this limitation.
  4. [References and typos] Minor editorial issues: 'Subotits et al.' appears twice in Section I-B and should be 'Subosits et al.,' and the reference to Lipp and Boyd is missing venue and year information. These should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the 1.42 s comparison follows from the stated point-mass model, with acknowledged transient limitations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's central claim. The online velocity profile is generated from the gg-diagram feasibility condition (Eq. 4) by a forward-backward solve (Eqs. 7-10); apex locations are refined by fixed-point iteration on V = sqrt(a_y/Ω_z) (Eq. 6), with Eq. (5) only providing an initial guess. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: α = 0.7 is a scenario input, and the same α is used for both the planner's feasibility checks and the simulation's dynamic constraints, which is an internally consistent test rather than a circular derivation. The offline profile in Eq. (5) enters only as an initialization and baseline, not as the source of the converged result. Citations to prior work ([6], [24]) provide the race line, track model, and baseline planner, but they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the paper's conclusion; they are independent method components. The Discussion (Sec. IV-C) explicitly acknowledges that transient effects are not modeled; that is a scope limitation affecting real-world validity, not a circularity. Therefore no step reduces the central claim to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the point-mass quasi-steady-state model, a linearly scaled gg-diagram, and apex locations computed from curvature alone. These are standard racing-domain simplifications but are not validated against real vehicle data here. The method has two hand-set inputs (alpha and cost weights w_i) that are not estimated or reported.

free parameters (3)
  • Grip scaling factor alpha = 0.7 (in experiments); not estimated online in this work
    Chooses the reduced-grip scenario manually. The method's adaptivity claim depends on alpha being known correctly; the paper does not estimate alpha and notes reliance on accurate grip estimation as a limitation (Section IV-A).
  • Cost weights w_i in the local planner cost functional = Not reported
    'The weights w_i are tuned to produce favorable behavior in racing situations' (Section II-E). Values are not given, so the tracking results depend on undisclosed manual tuning.
  • Apex detection tolerance epsilon and maximum fixed-point iterations = Not reported
    Section II-C states termination condition |V_new - V_old| < epsilon with a maximum step count, but no values are given; convergence and fallback behavior depend on these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quasi-steady-state point-mass vehicle model with negligible transients
    Section II-B: 'The accelerations ... assumed under a quasi-steady-state assumption, neglecting transient effects.' The velocity profile feasibility check relies on this; Discussion IV-C concedes transient effects can make states unstable while remaining point-mass-feasible.
  • domain assumption gg-diagram shape and exponent rho imported from prior work [5], [6]
    Section II-B: 'we use implicitly defined gg-diagrams ... based on [5]' and 'We use the exponent rho based on [6] to morph the shape'. These parameters are not validated in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear scaling of the gg-diagram with alpha
    Section II-B: 'we introduce a scaling factor alpha in (0,1] that scales the acceleration limits of the diamond linearly.' There is no experimental validation that grip reduction scales the entire acceleration envelope linearly.
  • ad hoc to paper Apex velocity is determined by lateral acceleration only, V = sqrt(ay/Omega_z), neglecting 3D and longitudinal coupling
    Section II-C and Appendix equations (13)-(15): 'assuming no longitudinal acceleration present' and 'neglecting effects of three-dimensional nature'. This is used to locate apexes and seed the FW-BW solver.
  • domain assumption Perfect state estimation, control, and perception in simulation
    Section III: 'We neglect potential influences by inaccuracies in the state estimation, control or perception module by ensuring the planned trajectory is tracked perfectly.' The performance claims depend on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Online Velocity Profile Generation and Tracking for Sampling-Based Local Planning Algorithms in Autonomous Racing Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMRNTKCT

@misc{pith2026250505157,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Online Velocity Profile Generation and Tracking for Sampling-Based Local Planning Algorithms in Autonomous Racing Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMRNTKCT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05157}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents an online velocity planner for autonomous racing that adapts to changing dynamic constraints, such as grip variations from tire temperature changes and rubber accumulation. The method combines a forward-backward solver for online velocity optimization with a novel spatial sampling strategy for local trajectory planning, utilizing a three-dimensional track representation. The computed velocity profile serves as a reference for the local planner, ensuring adaptability to environmental and vehicle dynamics. We demonstrate the approach's robust performance and computational efficiency in racing scenarios and discuss its limitations, including sensitivity to deviations from the predefined racing line and high jerk characteristics of the velocity profile.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05157 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An exemplary speed profile of a race car for turns 6 and 7 at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the proposed online velocity planning framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exemplary gg-diagrams for v = 40 m/s, g˜ = 9.81 m/s 2 and ρ = 1.3, adjusted by three different scaling factors α. Note that the longitudinal acceleration potential a˜x,eng is not affected by α. acceleration limits of the diamond linearly. If the inequalities a˜x ≤ a˜x,eng and 1 ≤  a˜x α a˜x,lim ρ +  a˜y α a˜y,max ρ with a˜x,lim = ( a˜x,max if a˜x > 0, a˜x,min else, (4) hold, an acceleration state of the vehicle … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of relative longitudinal sampling strategies in the spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The online velocity profile respecting an acceleration limit scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Velocity profiles (left) and paths (right) produced by the sampling planner (SP) when tracking the online and offline velocity profile. The rectangles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Velocity profiles (left) and paths (right) produced by the sampling planner (SP) with and without an online calculated velocity profile. The grip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Expert Knowledge-driven Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Racing via Trajectory Guidance and Dynamics Constraints

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Embedding a minimum-curvature racing line and CBF dynamics constraints into curriculum RL yields faster, more stable simulated laps than PPO, DDPG, and trajectory-aided baselines on Tempelhof.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    On- line Time-Optimal Trajectory Planning on Three-Dimensional Race Tracks,

    M. Rowold, L. ¨Ogretmen, U. Kasolowsky, and B. Lohmann, “On- line Time-Optimal Trajectory Planning on Three-Dimensional Race Tracks,” 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [24]

    Sampling- Based Motion Planning with Online Racing Line Generation for Autonomous Driving on Three-Dimensional Race Tracks,

    L. ¨Ogretmen, M. Rowold, A. Langmann, and B. Lohmann, “Sampling- Based Motion Planning with Online Racing Line Generation for Autonomous Driving on Three-Dimensional Race Tracks,” in 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 811– 818

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    TUM autonomous motorsport: An autonomous racing software for the Indy Autonomous Challenge,

    J. Betz, T. Betz, F. Fent, M. Geisslinger, A. Heilmeier, L. Hermans- dorfer, T. Herrmann, S. Huch, P. Karle, M. Lienkamp, B. Lohmann, F. Nobis, L. ¨Ogretmen, M. Rowold, F. Sauerbeck, T. Stahl, R. Trauth, F. Werner, and A. Wischnewski, “TUM autonomous motorsport: An autonomous racing software for the Indy Autonomous Challenge,” Journal of Field Robotics , ...

    work page 2023

  4. [2]

    Accelerating autonomy: Insights from pro racers in the era of autonomous racing - an expert interview study,

    F. Werner, R. Oberhuber, and J. Betz, “Accelerating autonomy: Insights from pro racers in the era of autonomous racing - an expert interview study,” in 2024 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 6/2/2024 - 6/5/2024, pp. 329–336

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    A quasi steady state approach to race car lap simulation in order to understand the effects of racing line and centre of gravity location,

    D. L. Brayshaw and M. F. Harrison, “A quasi steady state approach to race car lap simulation in order to understand the effects of racing line and centre of gravity location,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering , vol. 219, no. 6, pp. 725–739, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [4]

    A free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum lap-time of race vehicles,

    M. Veneri and M. Massaro, “A free-trajectory quasi-steady-state optimal-control method for minimum lap-time of race vehicles,” Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 933–954, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    A three-dimensional free-trajectory quasi- steady-state optimal-control method for minimum-lap-time of race vehicles,

    S. Lovato and M. Massaro, “A three-dimensional free-trajectory quasi- steady-state optimal-control method for minimum-lap-time of race vehicles,” Vehicle System Dynamics , vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1512–1530, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Optimal Control of a Formula One Car on a Three-Dimensional Track—Part 1: Track Modeling and Identification,

    G. Perantoni and D. J. N. Limebeer, “Optimal Control of a Formula One Car on a Three-Dimensional Track—Part 1: Track Modeling and Identification,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 137, no. 5, p. 051018, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    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

  2. [9]

    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

  3. [10]

    A Sequential Two-Step Algorithm for Fast Generation of Vehicle Racing Trajectories,

    N. R. Kapania, J. Subosits, and J. C. Gerdes, “A Sequential Two-Step Algorithm for Fast Generation of Vehicle Racing Trajectories,”Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control , vol. 138, no. 9, p. 091005, 2016

    2016

  4. [11]

    Time- optimal trajectory planning for a race car considering variable tyre- road friction coefficients,

    F. Christ, A. Wischnewski, A. Heilmeier, and B. Lohmann, “Time- optimal trajectory planning for a race car considering variable tyre- road friction coefficients,” Vehicle System Dynamics , vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 588–612, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Time- optimal Control Strategies for a Hybrid Electric Race Car,

    S. Ebbesen, M. Salazar, P. Elbert, C. Bussi, and C. H. Onder, “Time- optimal Control Strategies for a Hybrid Electric Race Car,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 233– 247, 2018

    2018

  6. [13]

    From the Racetrack to the Road: Real-Time Trajectory Replanning for Autonomous Driving,

    J. K. Subosits and J. C. Gerdes, “From the Racetrack to the Road: Real-Time Trajectory Replanning for Autonomous Driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 309–320, 2019

    2019

  7. [14]

    Minimum-Time Speed Optimization Over a Fixed Path

    T. Lipp and S. Boyd, “Minimum-Time Speed Optimization Over a Fixed Path.”

  8. [15]

    A Simple Mono-Dimensional Approach for Lap Time Optimisation,

    B. Lenzo and V . Rossi, “A Simple Mono-Dimensional Approach for Lap Time Optimisation,” Applied Sciences , vol. 10, no. 4, p. 1498, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Real-Time Adaptive Velocity Optimization for Au- tonomous Electric Cars at the Limits of Handling,

    T. Herrmann, A. Wischnewski, L. Hermansdorfer, J. Betz, and M. Lienkamp, “Real-Time Adaptive Velocity Optimization for Au- tonomous Electric Cars at the Limits of Handling,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 665–677, 2021

    2021

  10. [17]

    Autonomous vehicle control for emergency maneuvers: The effect of topography,

    J. Subosits and J. C. Gerdes, “Autonomous vehicle control for emergency maneuvers: The effect of topography,” in 2015 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2015, pp. 1405–1410

    2015

  11. [18]

    Computationally Efficient Minimum-Time Motion Primitives for Vehicle Trajectory Planning,

    M. Piccinini, S. Gottschalk, M. Gerdts, and F. Biral, “Computationally Efficient Minimum-Time Motion Primitives for Vehicle Trajectory Planning,” IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 5, pp. 642–655, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Development of vehicle dynamics tools for motorsports,

    C. Patton, “Development of vehicle dynamics tools for motorsports,” Dissertation, Oregon State University, March 2013, scholarsArchive@OSU. [Online]. Available: http://localhost/files/ tx31qm51z

    2013

  13. [20]

    FRENETIX: A High-Performance and Modular Motion Planning Framework for Autonomous Driving,

    R. Trauth, K. Moller, G. W ¨ursching, and J. Betz, “FRENETIX: A High-Performance and Modular Motion Planning Framework for Autonomous Driving,” IEEE Access , vol. 12, pp. 127 426–127 439, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Optimal trajectory generation for dynamic street scenarios in a Frenet Frame,

    M. Werling, J. Ziegler, S. Kammel, and S. Thrun, “Optimal trajectory generation for dynamic street scenarios in a Frenet Frame,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2010, pp. 987–993

    2010

  15. [22]

    Sampling-Based Optimal Trajectory Generation for Autonomous Vehicles Using Reachable Sets,

    G. Wursching and M. Althoff, “Sampling-Based Optimal Trajectory Generation for Autonomous Vehicles Using Reachable Sets,” in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 828–835

    2021

  16. [23]

    Motion Planning and Control for Multi Vehicle Autonomous Racing at High Speeds,

    A. Raji, A. Liniger, A. Giove, A. Toschi, N. Musiu, D. Morra, M. Verucchi, D. Caporale, and M. Bertogna, “Motion Planning and Control for Multi Vehicle Autonomous Racing at High Speeds,” in 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems (ITSC) ...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Smooth Trajectory Planning at the Handling Limits for Oval Racing,

    L. ¨Ogretmen, M. Rowold, M. Ochsenius, and B. Lohmann, “Smooth Trajectory Planning at the Handling Limits for Oval Racing,” Actua- tors, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 318, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    MPTree: A Sampling-based Vehicle Motion Planner for Real-time Obstacle Avoid- ance,

    M. Piazza, M. Piccinini, S. Taddei, and F. Biral, “MPTree: A Sampling-based Vehicle Motion Planner for Real-time Obstacle Avoid- ance,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 146–153, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    A Hybrid Trajectory Planning Approach for Autonomous Rule- Compliant Multi-Vehicle Oval Racing,

    L. ¨Ogretmen*, M. Rowold*, T. Betz, A. Langmann, and B. Lohmann, “A Hybrid Trajectory Planning Approach for Autonomous Rule- Compliant Multi-Vehicle Oval Racing,” SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 12–07–01–0007, 2023. APPENDIX As...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.