gaussian mixture penalization for trajectory optimization
play

Gaussian Mixture Penalization for Trajectory Optimization Problems - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Gaussian Mixture Penalization for Trajectory Optimization Problems C. Rommel 1 , 2 , J. F. Bonnans 1 , B. Gregorutti 2 and P. Martinon 1 CMAP Ecole Polytechnique - INRIA 1 Safety Line 2 ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA,


  1. Gaussian Mixture Penalization for Trajectory Optimization Problems C. Rommel 1 , 2 , J. F. Bonnans 1 , B. Gregorutti 2 and P. Martinon 1 CMAP Ecole Polytechnique - INRIA 1 Safety Line 2 ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 1 / 30

  2. Motivation 20 000 airplanes — 80 000 flights per day, ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 2 / 30

  3. Motivation 20 000 airplanes — 80 000 flights per day, Should double until 2033, ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 2 / 30

  4. Motivation 20 000 airplanes — 80 000 flights per day, Should double until 2033, Responsible for 3% of CO 2 emissions, ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 2 / 30

  5. Motivation 20 000 airplanes — 80 000 flights per day, Should double until 2033, Responsible for 3% of CO 2 emissions, Accounts for 30% of operational cost for an airline, ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 2 / 30

  6. Motivation 20 000 airplanes — 80 000 flights per day, Should double until 2033, Responsible for 3% of CO 2 emissions, Accounts for 30% of operational cost for an airline, Rectilinear climb trajectories at full thrust. ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 2 / 30

  7. Motivation 20 000 airplanes — 80 000 flights per day, Should double until 2033, Responsible for 3% of CO 2 emissions, Accounts for 30% of operational cost for an airline, Rectilinear climb trajectories at full thrust. ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 2 / 30

  8. Optimal Control Problem � t f min C ( t , ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) dt , ( ① , ✉ ) ∈ X × U 0  ① = g ( t , ✉ , ① ) , ˙ for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] , (OCP)   Φ( ① (0) , ① ( t f )) ∈ K Φ ,  s.t. ✉ ( t ) ∈ U ad , ① ( t ) ∈ X ad , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] ,   c ( ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) ≤ 0 , for all t ∈ [0 , t f ] .  ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 3 / 30

  9. Optimal Control Problem � t f min C ( t , ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) dt , ( ① , ✉ ) ∈ X × U 0  ① = g ( t , ✉ , ① ) , ˙ for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] , (OCP)   Φ( ① (0) , ① ( t f )) ∈ K Φ ,  s.t. ✉ ( t ) ∈ U ad , ① ( t ) ∈ X ad , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] ,   c ( ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) ≤ 0 , for all t ∈ [0 , t f ] .  ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 3 / 30

  10. Optimal Control Problem � t f min C ( t , ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) dt , ( ① , ✉ ) ∈ X × U 0  ① = ˆ ˙ g ( t , ✉ , ① ) , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] , (OCP)   Φ( ① (0) , ① ( t f )) ∈ K Φ ,  s.t. ✉ ( t ) ∈ U ad , ① ( t ) ∈ X ad , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] ,   c ( ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) ≤ 0 , for all t ∈ [0 , t f ] .  ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 3 / 30

  11. Dynamics are learned from QAR data ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 4 / 30

  12. Dynamics are learned from QAR data ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 4 / 30

  13. Dynamics are learned from QAR data ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 4 / 30

  14. Dynamics are learned from QAR data See e.g. [Rommel et al., 2017a] and [Rommel et al., 2017b] ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 4 / 30

  15. ③ ① ✉ ③ Trajectory acceptability � t f min C ( t , ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) dt , ( ① , ✉ ) ∈ X × U 0  ① = ˆ ˙ g ( t , ✉ , ① ) , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] , (OCP)   Φ( ① (0) , ① ( t f )) ∈ K Φ ,  s.t. ✉ ( t ) ∈ U ad , ① ( t ) ∈ X ad , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] ,   c ( ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) ≤ 0 , for all t ∈ [0 , t f ] .  ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 5 / 30

  16. ③ Trajectory acceptability � t f min C ( t , ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) dt , ( ① , ✉ ) ∈ X × U 0  ① = ˆ ˙ g ( t , ✉ , ① ) , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] , (OCP)   Φ( ① (0) , ① ( t f )) ∈ K Φ ,  s.t. ✉ ( t ) ∈ U ad , ① ( t ) ∈ X ad , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] ,   c ( ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) ≤ 0 , for all t ∈ [0 , t f ] .  ⇒ ˆ ③ = (ˆ ① , ˆ ✉ ) solution of (OCP). ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 5 / 30

  17. Trajectory acceptability � t f min C ( t , ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) dt , ( ① , ✉ ) ∈ X × U 0  ① = ˆ ˙ g ( t , ✉ , ① ) , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] , (OCP)   Φ( ① (0) , ① ( t f )) ∈ K Φ ,  s.t. ✉ ( t ) ∈ U ad , ① ( t ) ∈ X ad , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] ,   c ( ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) ≤ 0 , for all t ∈ [0 , t f ] .  ⇒ ˆ ③ = (ˆ ① , ˆ ✉ ) solution of (OCP). Is ˆ ③ inside the validity region of the dynamics model ˆ g ? ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 5 / 30

  18. Trajectory acceptability � t f min C ( t , ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) dt , ( ① , ✉ ) ∈ X × U 0  ① = ˆ ˙ g ( t , ✉ , ① ) , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] , (OCP)   Φ( ① (0) , ① ( t f )) ∈ K Φ ,  s.t. ✉ ( t ) ∈ U ad , ① ( t ) ∈ X ad , for a.e. t ∈ [0 , t f ] ,   c ( ✉ ( t ) , ① ( t )) ≤ 0 , for all t ∈ [0 , t f ] .  ⇒ ˆ ③ = (ˆ ① , ˆ ✉ ) solution of (OCP). Is ˆ ③ inside the validity region of the dynamics model ˆ g ? Does it look like a real aicraft trajectory ? ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 5 / 30

  19. Trajectory acceptability 1 NATS UK air traffic control ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 6 / 30

  20. Trajectory acceptability Pilots acceptance 1 NATS UK air traffic control ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 6 / 30

  21. Trajectory acceptability Air Traffic Control 1 Pilots acceptance 1 NATS UK air traffic control ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 6 / 30

  22. Trajectory acceptability Air Traffic Control 1 Pilots acceptance How can we quantify the closeness from the optimized trajectory to the set of real flights? 1 NATS UK air traffic control ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 6 / 30

  23. Likelihood Let X be a random variable following an absolutely continuous probability distribution with density function f depending on a parameter θ . Then the function L ( θ | x ) = f θ ( x ) (1) considered as a function of θ , is the likelihood function of theta , given the outcome x of X . 0 Picture source: wikipedia, P-Value, author: Repapetilto CC. ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 7 / 30

  24. Likelihood Let X be a random variable following an absolutely continuous probability distribution with density function f depending on a parameter θ . Then the function L ( θ | x ) = f θ ( x ) (1) considered as a function of θ , is the likelihood function of theta , given the outcome x of X . 0 Picture source: wikipedia, P-Value, author: Repapetilto CC. ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 7 / 30

  25. Likelihood Let X be a random variable following an absolutely continuous probability distribution with density function f depending on a parameter θ . Then the function L ( θ | x ) = f θ ( x ) (1) considered as a function of θ , is the likelihood function of theta , given the outcome x of X . In our case: the optimized trajectory plays the role of θ , 0 Picture source: wikipedia, P-Value, author: Repapetilto CC. ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 7 / 30

  26. Likelihood Let X be a random variable following an absolutely continuous probability distribution with density function f depending on a parameter θ . Then the function L ( θ | x ) = f θ ( x ) (1) considered as a function of θ , is the likelihood function of theta , given the outcome x of X . In our case: the optimized trajectory plays the role of θ , the set of real flights plays the role of x , 0 Picture source: wikipedia, P-Value, author: Repapetilto CC. ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 7 / 30

  27. How to apply this to functional data? Assumption: We suppose that the real flights are observations of the same functional random variable Z = ( Z t ) valued in C ( T , E ), with E compact subset of R d and T = [0 , t f ]. ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 8 / 30

  28. How to apply this to functional data? Assumption: We suppose that the real flights are observations of the same functional random variable Z = ( Z t ) valued in C ( T , E ), with E compact subset of R d and T = [0 , t f ]. Problem: Computation of probability densities in infinite dimensional space is untractable... ISMP - July 2 nd 2018 (CMAP, INRIA, Safety Line) GMM Penalization for OCP 8 / 30

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend