EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Philipp Foehn
dblp:212/6086
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0001-9585-1278ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 4 · 1 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 4 · 1 first-authorApplied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 2 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
4 papers |
Motion planning and robot control · 44% Legged, aerial and field robots · 35% Robot navigation and mapping · 15% |
Topics — the 14 heaviest of 14, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots › aerial robot control › UAV control
quadrotor control |
0.9 | 2 | 2022 | A Comparative Study of Nonlinear MPC and Differential-Flatness-Based Control for Quadrotor Agile Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 Onboard State Dependent LQR for Agile Quadrotors · ICRA 2018 |
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots
aerial robots |
0.7 | 2 | 2022 | A Comparative Study of Nonlinear MPC and Differential-Flatness-Based Control for Quadrotor Agile Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control
model predictive control |
0.7 | 2 | 2022 | Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 Beauty and the Beast: Optimal Methods Meet Learning for Drone Racing · ICRA 2019 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control › optimal control
time-optimal control |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
trajectory optimization |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › robot control
trajectory tracking |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | A Comparative Study of Nonlinear MPC and Differential-Flatness-Based Control for Quadrotor Agile Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping › mobile robot navigation › 3d navigation
aerial robot navigation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Beauty and the Beast: Optimal Methods Meet Learning for Drone Racing · ICRA 2019 |
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots › aerial robots › agile flight
autonomous drone racing |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Beauty and the Beast: Optimal Methods Meet Learning for Drone Racing · ICRA 2019 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference › bayesian inference › bayesian filtering › kalman filtering
extended kalman filter |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Beauty and the Beast: Optimal Methods Meet Learning for Drone Racing · ICRA 2019 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
state estimation |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Beauty and the Beast: Optimal Methods Meet Learning for Drone Racing · ICRA 2019 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot control |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Onboard State Dependent LQR for Agile Quadrotors · ICRA 2018 |
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots › aerial robots › quadrotor
quadrotor flight |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor Flight · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2022 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping
localization |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Onboard State Dependent LQR for Agile Quadrotors · ICRA 2018 |
Robotics › Robot navigation and mapping › state estimation › visual state estimation
visual-inertial state estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Onboard State Dependent LQR for Agile Quadrotors · ICRA 2018 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
optimization · 0.6nonlinear model predictive control · 0.6incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion · 0.6differential-flatness-based control · 0.6contouring control · 0.6model predictive control · 0.4extended kalman filter · 0.4convolutional network · 0.4state-dependent linearization · 0.3linear quadratic regulator · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Model Predictive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor FlightabstractIn this article, we tackle the problem of flying time-optimal trajectories through multiple waypoints with quadrotors. State-of-the-art solutions split the problem into a planning task—where a global time-optimal trajectory is generated—and a control task—where this trajectory is accurately tracked. However, at the current state, generating a time-optimal trajectory that considers the full quadrotor model requires solving a difficult time allocation problem via optimization, which is computationally demanding (in the order of minutes or even hours). This is detrimental for replanning in the presence of disturbances. We overcome this issue by solving the time allocation problem and the control problem concurrently via Model Predictive Contouring Control (MPCC). Our MPCC optimally selects the future states of the platform at runtime, while maximizing the progress along the reference path and minimizing the distance to it. We show that, even when tracking simplified trajectories, the proposed MPCC results in a path that approaches the true time-optimal one, and which can be generated in real time. We validate our approach in the real world, where we show that our method outperforms both the current state of the art and a world-class human pilot in terms of lap time achieving speeds of up to 60 km/h. Angel Romero, Sihao Sun, Philipp Foehn, Davide Scaramuzza 0001 |
IEEE Trans. Robotics | 3 |
| 2022 | A Comparative Study of Nonlinear MPC and Differential-Flatness-Based Control for Quadrotor Agile FlightabstractAccurate trajectory-tracking control for quadrotors is essential for safe navigation in cluttered environments. However, this is challenging in agile flights due to nonlinear dynamics, complex aerodynamic effects, and actuation constraints. In this article, we empirically compare two state-of-the-art control frameworks: the nonlinear-model-predictive controller (NMPC) and the differential-flatness-based controller (DFBC), by tracking a wide variety of agile trajectories at speeds up to 20 m/s (i.e., 72 km/h). The comparisons are performed in both simulation and real-world environments to systematically evaluate both methods from the aspect of tracking accuracy, robustness, and computational efficiency. We show the superiority of the NMPC in tracking dynamically infeasible trajectories, at the cost of higher computation time and risk of numerical convergence issues. For both methods, we also quantitatively study the effect of adding an inner loop controller using the incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion method, and the effect of adding an aerodynamic drag model. Our real-world experiments, performed in one of the world’s largest motion capture systems, demonstrate more than 78% tracking error reduction of both NMPC and DFBC, indicating the necessity of using an inner loop controller and aerodynamic drag model for agile trajectory tracking. Sihao Sun, Angel Romero, Philipp Foehn, Elia Kaufmann, Davide Scaramuzza 0001 |
IEEE Trans. Robotics | 3 |
| 2020 | Faster than FAST: GPU-Accelerated Frontend for High-Speed VIOabstractThe recent introduction of powerful embedded graphics processing units (GPUs) has allowed for unforeseen improvements in real-time computer vision applications. It has enabled algorithms to run onboard, well above the standard video rates, yielding not only higher information processing capability, but also reduced latency. This work focuses on the applicability of efficient low-level, GPU hardware-specific instructions to improve on existing computer vision algorithms in the field of visual-inertial odometry (VIO). While most steps of a VIO pipeline work on visual features, they rely on image data for detection and tracking, of which both steps are well suited for parallelization. Especially non-maxima suppression and the subsequent feature selection are prominent contributors to the overall image processing latency. Our work first revisits the problem of non-maxima suppression for feature detection specifically on GPUs, and proposes a solution that selects local response maxima, imposes spatial feature distribution, and extracts features simultaneously. Our second contribution introduces an enhanced FAST feature detector that applies the aforementioned non-maxima suppression method. Finally, we compare our method to other state-of-the-art CPU and GPU implementations, where we always outperform all of them in feature tracking and detection, resulting in over 1000fps throughput on an embedded Jetson TX2 platform. Additionally, we demonstrate our work integrated into a VIO pipeline achieving a metric state estimation at ~200fps.Code available at: https://github.com/uzh-rpg/vilib. Philipp Foehn, Davide Scaramuzza 0001 |
IROS | 2 |
| 2019 | Beauty and the Beast: Optimal Methods Meet Learning for Drone RacingabstractAutonomous micro aerial vehicles still struggle with fast and agile maneuvers, dynamic environments, imperfect sensing, and state estimation drift. Autonomous drone racing brings these challenges to the fore. Human pilots can fly a previously unseen track after a handful of practice runs. In contrast, state-of-the-art autonomous navigation algorithms require either a precise metric map of the environment or a large amount of training data collected in the track of interest. To bridge this gap, we propose an approach that can fly a new track in a previously unseen environment without a precise map or expensive data collection. Our approach represents the global track layout with coarse gate locations, which can be easily estimated from a single demonstration flight. At test time, a convolutional network predicts the poses of the closest gates along with their uncertainty. These predictions are incorporated by an extended Kalman filter to maintain optimal maximum-a-posteriori estimates of gate locations. This allows the framework to cope with misleading high-variance estimates that could stem from poor observability or lack of visible gates. Given the estimated gate poses, we use model predictive control to quickly and accurately navigate through the track. We conduct extensive experiments in the physical world, demonstrating agile and robust flight through complex and diverse previously-unseen race tracks. The presented approach was used to win the IROS 2018 Autonomous Drone Race Competition, outracing the second-placing team by a factor of two. Elia Kaufmann, Mathias Gehrig, Philipp Foehn, René Ranftl, Alexey Dosovitskiy, Vladlen Koltun, Davide Scaramuzza 0001 |
ICRA | 3 |
| 2018 | Onboard State Dependent LQR for Agile QuadrotorsabstractState-of-the-art approaches in quadrotor control split the problem into multiple cascaded subproblems, exploiting the different time scales of the rotational and translational dynamics. They calculate a desired acceleration as input for a cascaded attitude controller but omit the attitude dynamics. These approaches use limits on the desired acceleration to maintain feasibility and robustness through the control cascade. We propose an implementation of an LQR controller, which: (I) is linearized depending on the quadrotor's state; (II) unifies the control of rotational and translational states; (III) handles time-varying system dynamics and control parameters. Our implementation is efficient enough to compute the full linearization and solution of the LQR at a minimum of 10 Hz on the vehicle using a common ARM processor. We show four successful experiments: (I) controlling at hover state with large disturbances; (II) tracking along a trajectory; (III) tracking along an infeasible trajectory; (IV) tracking along a trajectory with disturbances. All the experiments were done using only onboard visual inertial state estimation and LQR computation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first implementation and evaluation of a state-dependent LQR capable of onboard computation while providing this amount of versatility and performance. Philipp Foehn, Davide Scaramuzza 0001 |
ICRA | 1 |
| 2018 | PAMPC: Perception-Aware Model Predictive Control for QuadrotorsabstractWe present the first perception-aware model predictive control framework for quadrotors that unifies control and planning with respect to action and perception objectives. Our framework leverages numerical optimization to compute trajectories that satisfy the system dynamics and require control inputs within the limits of the platform. Simultaneously, it optimizes perception objectives for robust and reliable sensing by maximizing the visibility of a point of interest and minimizing its velocity in the image plane. Considering both perception and action objectives for motion planning and control is challenging due to the possible conflicts arising from their respective requirements. For example, for a quadrotor to track a reference trajectory, it needs to rotate to align its thrust with the direction of the desired acceleration. However, the perception objective might require to minimize such rotation to maximize the visibility of a point of interest. A model-based optimization framework, able to consider both perception and action objectives and couple them through the system dynamics, is therefore necessary. Our perception-aware model predictive control framework works in a receding-horizon fashion by iteratively solving a non-linear optimization problem. It is capable of running in real-time, fully onboard our lightweight, small-scale quadrotor using a low-power ARM computer, together with a visual-inertial odometry pipeline. We validate our approach in experiments demonstrating (I) the conflict between perception and action objectives, and (II) improved behavior in extremely challenging lighting conditions. Davide Falanga, Philipp Foehn, Peng Lu 0003, Davide Scaramuzza 0001 |
IROS | 2 |