6 research outputs found

    On Optimizing the Conditional Value-at-Risk of a Maximum Cost for Risk-Averse Safety Analysis

    Full text link
    The popularity of Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR), a risk functional from finance, has been growing in the control systems community due to its intuitive interpretation and axiomatic foundation. We consider a non-standard optimal control problem in which the goal is to minimize the CVaR of a maximum random cost subject to a Borel-space Markov decision process. The objective takes the form CVaRฮฑ(maxโกt=0,1,โ€ฆ,NCt)\text{CVaR}_{\alpha}(\max_{t=0,1,\dots,N} C_t), where ฮฑ\alpha is a risk-aversion parameter representing a fraction of worst cases, CtC_t is a stage or terminal cost, and NโˆˆNN \in \mathbb{N} is the length of a finite discrete-time horizon. The objective represents the maximum departure from a desired operating region averaged over a given fraction ฮฑ\alpha of worst cases. This problem provides a safety criterion for a stochastic system that is informed by both the probability and severity of the potential consequences of the system's trajectory. In contrast, existing safety analysis frameworks apply stage-wise risk constraints (i.e., ฯ(Ct)\rho(C_t) must be small for all tt, where ฯ\rho is a risk functional) or assess the probability of constraint violation without quantifying its possible severity. To the best of our knowledge, the problem of interest has not been solved. To solve the problem, we propose and study a family of stochastic dynamic programs on an augmented state space. We prove that the optimal CVaR of a maximum cost enjoys an equivalent representation in terms of the solutions to this family of dynamic programs under appropriate assumptions. We show the existence of an optimal policy that depends on the dynamics of an augmented state under a measurable selection condition. Moreover, we demonstrate how our safety analysis framework is useful for assessing the severity of combined sewer overflows under precipitation uncertainty.Comment: A shorter version is under review for IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, submitted December 202

    ํ•™์Šต ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ์ž์œจ์‹œ์Šคํ…œ์˜ ๋ฆฌ์Šคํฌ๋ฅผ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•˜๋Š” ๋ถ„ํฌ์  ๊ฐ•์ธ ์ตœ์ ํ™”

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (์„์‚ฌ) -- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ๊ณต๊ณผ๋Œ€ํ•™ ์ „๊ธฐยท์ •๋ณด๊ณตํ•™๋ถ€, 2020. 8. ์–‘์ธ์ˆœ.In this thesis, a risk-aware motion control scheme is considered for autonomous systems to avoid randomly moving obstacles when the true probability distribution of uncertainty is unknown. We propose a novel model predictive control (MPC) method for motion planning and decision-making that systematically adjusts the safety and conservativeness in an environment with randomly moving obstacles. The key component is the Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR), employed to limit the safety risk in the MPC problem. Having the empirical distribution obtained using a limited amount of sample data, Sample Average Approximation (SAA) is applied to compute the safety risk. Furthermore, we propose a method, which limits the risk of unsafety even when the true distribution of the obstacles movements deviates, within an ambiguity set, from the empirical one. By choosing the ambiguity set as a statistical ball with its radius measured by the Wasserstein metric, we achieve a probabilistic guarantee of the out-of-sample risk, evaluated using new sample data generated independently of the training data. A set of reformulations are applied on both SAA-based MPC (SAA-MPC) and Wasserstein Distributionally Robust MPC (DR-MPC) to make them tractable. In addition, we combine the DR-MPC method with Gaussian Process (GP) to predict the future motion of the obstacles from past observations of the environment. The performance of the proposed methods is demonstrated and analyzed through simulation studies using a nonlinear vehicle model and a linearized quadrotor model.๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ ์ž์œจ ์‹œ์Šคํ…œ์ด ์•Œ๋ ค์ง€์ง€ ์•Š์€ ํ™•๋ฅ  ๋ถ„ํฌ๋กœ ๋žœ๋คํ•˜๊ฒŒ ์›€์ง์ด๋Š” ์žฅ์• ๋ฌผ์„ ํ”ผํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ์œ„ํ—˜ ์ธ์‹์„ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•˜๋Š” ๋ชจ์…˜ ์ œ์–ด ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•์„ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ ๋ณธ ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์—์„œ ์•ˆ์ „์„ฑ๊ณผ ๋ณด์ˆ˜์„ฑ์„ ์ฒด๊ณ„์ ์œผ๋กœ ์กฐ์ ˆํ•˜๋Š” ์ƒˆ๋กœ์šด Model Predictive Control (MPC) ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์„ ์ œ์•ˆํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ™์˜ ํ•ต์‹ฌ ์š”์†Œ๋Š” MPC ๋ฌธ์ œ์˜ ์•ˆ์ „์„ฑ ๋ฆฌ์Šคํฌ๋ฅผ ์ œํ•œํ•˜๋Š” Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR)๋ผ๋Š” ๋ฆฌ์Šคํฌ ์ฒ™๋„์ด๋‹ค. ์•ˆ์ „์„ฑ ๋ฆฌ์Šคํฌ๋ฅผ ๊ณ„์‚ฐํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ์ œํ•œ๋œ ์–‘์˜ ํ‘œ๋ณธ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋ฅผ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์–ป์–ด์ง„ ๊ฒฝํ—˜์  ๋ถ„ํฌ๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜๋Š” Sample Average Approximation (SAA)์„ ์ ์šฉํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ๊ฒฝํ—˜์  ๋ถ„ํฌ๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ์‹ค์ œ ๋ถ„ํฌ๊ฐ€ Ambiguity Set๋ผ๋Š” ์ง‘ํ•ฉ ๋‚ด์—์„œ ๋ฒ—์–ด๋‚˜๋„ ๋ฆฌ์Šคํฌ๋ฅผ ์ œํ•œํ•˜๋Š” ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์„ ์ œ์•ˆํ•œ๋‹ค. Ambiguity Set๋ฅผ Wasserstein ๊ฑฐ๋ฆฌ๋กœ ์ธก์ •๋œ ๋ฐ˜์ง€๋ฆ„์„ ๊ฐ€์ง„ ํ†ต๊ณ„์  ๊ณต์œผ๋กœ ์„ ํƒํ•จ์œผ๋กœ์จ ํ›ˆ๋ จ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ์™€ ๋…๋ฆฝ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ƒ์„ฑ๋œ ์ƒˆ๋กœ์šด ์ƒ˜ํ”Œ ๋ฐ์ดํ„ฐ๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ํ‰๊ฐ€ํ•œ out-of-sample risk์— ๋Œ€ํ•œ ํ™•๋ฅ ์  ๋ณด์žฅ์„ ๋‹ฌ์„ฑํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์—์„œ SAA๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ MPC (SAA-MPC)์™€ Wasserstein Distributionally Robust MPC (DR-MPC)๋ฅผ ์—ฌ๋Ÿฌ ๊ณผ์ •์„ ํ†ตํ•˜์—ฌ ๋‹ค๋ฃจ๊ธฐ ์‰ฌ์šด ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์œผ๋กœ ์žฌํŽธ์„ฑํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ํ™˜๊ฒฝ์˜ ๊ณผ๊ฑฐ ๊ด€์ธก์œผ๋กœ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ ์žฅ์• ๋ฌผ์˜ ๋ฏธ๋ž˜ ์›€์ง์ž„์„ ์˜ˆ์ธกํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด Distributionally Robust MPC ๋ฐฉ๋ฒ•์„ Gaussian Process (GP)์™€ ๊ฒฐํ•ฉํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์—์„œ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ๋˜๋Š” ๊ธฐ๋ฒ•๋“ค์˜ ์„ฑ๋Šฅ์„ ๋น„์„ ํ˜• ์ž๋™์ฐจ ๋ชจ๋ธ๊ณผ ์„ ํ˜•ํ™”๋œ ์ฟผ๋“œ๋กœํ„ฐ ๋ชจ๋ธ์„ ์ด์šฉํ•œ ์‹œ๋ฎฌ๋ ˆ์ด์…˜ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•˜์—ฌ ๋ถ„์„ํ•œ๋‹ค.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 1 1.1 Motivation and Objectives 1 1.2 Research Contributions 2 1.3 Thesis Organization 3 2 RISK-AWARE MOTION PLANNING AND CONTROL USING CVAR-CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 System and Obstacle Models 8 2.3 CVaR-constrained Motion Planning and Control 10 2.3.1 Reference Trajectory Planning 10 2.3.2 Safety Risk 11 2.3.3 Risk-Constrained Model Predictive Control 13 2.3.4 Linearly Constrained Mixed Integer Convex Program 18 2.4 Numerical Experiments 20 2.4.1 Effect of Confidence Level 21 2.4.2 Effect of Sample Size 23 2.5 Conclusions 24 3 WASSERSTEIN DISTRIBUTIONALLY ROBUST MPC 28 3.1 Introduction 28 3.2 System and Obstacle Models 31 3.3 Wasserstein Distributionally Robust MPC 33 3.3.1 Distance to the Safe Region 36 3.3.2 Reformulation of Distributionally Robust Risk Constraint 38 3.3.3 Reformulation of the Wasserstein DR-MPC Problem 43 3.4 Out-of-Sample Performance Guarantee 45 3.5 Numerical Experiments 47 3.5.1 Nonlinear Car-Like Vehicle Model 48 3.5.2 Linearized Quadrotor Model 53 3.6 Conclusions 57 4 LEARNING-BASED DISTRIBUTIONALLY ROBUST MPC 58 4.1 Introduction 58 4.2 Learning the Movement of Obstacles Using Gaussian Processes 60 4.2.1 Obstacle Model 60 4.2.2 Gaussian Process Regression 61 4.2.3 Prediction of the Obstacle's Motion 63 4.3 Gaussian Process based Wasserstein DR-MPC 65 4.4 Numerical Experiments 70 4.5 Conclusions 74 5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK 75 Abstract (In Korean) 87Maste

    Safety-Aware Optimal Control of Stochastic Systems Using Conditional Value-at-Risk

    No full text
    In this paper, we consider a multi-objective control problem for stochastic systems that seeks to minimize a cost of interest while ensuring safety. We introduce a novel measure of safety risk using the conditional value-at-risk and a set distance to formulate a safety risk-constrained optimal control problem. Our reformulation method using an extremal representation of the safety risk measure provides a computationally tractable dynamic programming solution. A useful byproduct of the proposed solution is the notion of a risk-constrained safe set, which is a new stochastic safety verification tool. We also establish useful connections between the risk-constrained safe sets and the popular probabilistic safe sets. The tradeoff between the risk tolerance and the mean performance of our controller is examined through an inventory control problem.N
    corecore