Optimal Scheduling of Models and Horizons for Model Hierarchy Predictive Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model predictive control (MPC) is a powerful tool to control systems with non-linear dynamics and constraints, but its computational demands impose limitations on the dynamics model used for planning. Instead of using a single complex model along the MPC horizon, model hierarchy predictive control (MHPC) reduces solve times by planning over a sequence of models of varying complexity within a single horizon. Choosing this model sequence can become intractable when considering all possible combinations of reduced order models and prediction horizons. We propose a framework to systematically optimize a model schedule for MHPC. We leverage trajectory optimization (TO) to approximate the accumulated cost of the closed-loop controller. We trade off performance and solve times by minimizing the number of decision variables of the MHPC problem along the horizon while keeping the approximate closed-loop cost near optimal. The framework is validated in simulation with a planar humanoid robot as a proof of concept. We find that the approximated closed-loop cost matches the simulated one for most of the model schedules, and show that the proposed approach finds optimal model schedules that transfer directly to simulation, and with total horizons that vary between 1.1 and 1.6 walking steps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".