
We study the reduction by symmetry for optimality conditions in optimal control problems of left-invariant affine multi-agent control systems, with partial symmetry breaking cost functions for continuous-time and discrete-time systems. We recast the optimal control problem as a constrained variational problem with a partial symmetry breaking Lagrangian and obtain the reduced optimality conditions from a reduced variational principle via symmetry reduction techniques in both settings continuous-time, and discrete-time. We apply the results to a collision and obstacle avoidance problem for multiple vehicles evolving on SE(2) in the presence of a static obstacle.
Citation: Efstratios Stratoglou, Alexandre Anahory Simoes, Leonardo J. Colombo. Reduction in optimal control with broken symmetry for collision and obstacle avoidance of multi-agent system on Lie groups[J]. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(2): 1-23. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023001
[1] | Sixing Tao . Lie symmetry analysis, particular solutions and conservation laws for the dissipative (2 + 1)- dimensional AKNS equation. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(3): 494-514. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023024 |
[2] | Velimir Jurdjevic . Time optimal problems on Lie groups and applications to quantum control. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2024, 16(2): 345-387. doi: 10.3934/cam.2024017 |
[3] | Jonas Schnitzer . No-go theorems for $ r $-matrices in symplectic geometry. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2024, 16(3): 448-456. doi: 10.3934/cam.2024021 |
[4] | Anthony Bloch, Marta Farré Puiggalí, David Martín de Diego . Metriplectic Euler-Poincaré equations: smooth and discrete dynamics. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2024, 16(4): 910-927. doi: 10.3934/cam.2024040 |
[5] | Jinli Yang, Jiajing Miao . Algebraic Schouten solitons of Lorentzian Lie groups with Yano connections. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(4): 763-791. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023037 |
[6] | Isaac Neal, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol . A characteristics approach to shock formation in 2D Euler with azimuthal symmetry and entropy. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2025, 17(1): 188-236. doi: 10.3934/cam.2025009 |
[7] | Erlend Grong, Irina Markina . Harmonic maps into sub-Riemannian Lie groups. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(3): 515-532. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023025 |
[8] | Hongxia Lin, Sabana, Qing Sun, Ruiqi You, Xiaochuan Guo . The stability and decay of 2D incompressible Boussinesq equation with partial vertical dissipation. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2025, 17(1): 100-127. doi: 10.3934/cam.2025005 |
[9] | Richard Cushman . Normalization and reduction of the Stark Hamiltonian. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(3): 457-469. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023022 |
[10] | Long Ju, Jian Zhou, Yufeng Zhang . Conservation laws analysis of nonlinear partial differential equations and their linear soliton solutions and Hamiltonian structures. Communications in Analysis and Mechanics, 2023, 15(2): 24-49. doi: 10.3934/cam.2023002 |
We study the reduction by symmetry for optimality conditions in optimal control problems of left-invariant affine multi-agent control systems, with partial symmetry breaking cost functions for continuous-time and discrete-time systems. We recast the optimal control problem as a constrained variational problem with a partial symmetry breaking Lagrangian and obtain the reduced optimality conditions from a reduced variational principle via symmetry reduction techniques in both settings continuous-time, and discrete-time. We apply the results to a collision and obstacle avoidance problem for multiple vehicles evolving on SE(2) in the presence of a static obstacle.
Symmetries linked to Lie groups appear naturally in many control systems problems [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Numerical integrators evolving on Lie groups are commonly employed to improve its accuracy, as well as to avoid singularities by working with coordinate-free expressions in the Lie algebra associated to the Lie group, on which the system evolves. Typical tasks include trajectory tracking and estimation algorithms for the pose of mechanical systems.
Optimization problems on Lie groups [14] have applications in control engineering. Indeed, there are many examples of robotic systems that possess invariant quantities steaming from existing symmetries. Invariant quantities can be used as leverage to reduce the complexity of the equations, by projecting them into lower dimensional spaces. Techniques taking advantage of symmetries have been studied in [15,16,17,18,19,20], among many others, mainly for applications in robotic and aerospace engineering and, in particular, for spacecraft attitude control and underwater vehicles [21]. Most of the applications provided in the literature focus on the single-agent situation and only a few works explore symmetry reduction in a multi-agent scenario (see for instance [22,23,24,25]). In this work, we employ symmetry reduction to study optimal control problems with broken symmetry for multi-agent systems on Lie groups, while agents avoid collisions and obstacles in the configuration space.
In [26], the authors studied symmetry reduction in optimal control problems with broken symmetry for single-agent systems. In this work, we advance on the results of [26] by considering a multi-agent scenario. Hence, a generalization of the previous variational principle and reduction by symmetries performance are needed. The results in this paper are the Lagrangian/variational counterpart of those in [22]; we also develop a discrete-time version of the results. At the continuous-time side, we obtain the Euler–Poincaré equations from a constrained variational principle while after discretizing the variational principle in time, we obtain the discrete-time Lie–Poisson equations.
The approach in this work to obtain the reduced optimality conditions is a generalization of the one followed in [26], and is as follows. First, we consider a collection of free agents evolving on a Lie group G and an artificial potential V0, used to prevent collisions with a fixed obstacle, which is not symmetry invariant. At the same time, we consider a representation of G on a dual vector space W∗ and a graph G to describe interactions between neighboring agents. Though the artificial potential is not symmetry invariant, the interaction between neighbouring agents is, which is the standard situation when the interaction is done through a potential dependent on relative positions. Coupling the artificial potential a parameter depending on vectors in W∗, we obtain a symmetry invariant potential function under the action of G. Loosely speaking, the agents are coupled with vectors in W∗ that are acted by the representation. The associated action considered at this stage restores the full Lie group symmetry in the cost function from our optimal control problem and allows us to apply the semi-direct product reduction theory [3,27,28,29,30,31,32], to obtain the corresponding Euler-Poincaré system on the semi-direct product Lie algebra g⋉W∗ at each node. This gives rise to a new system that finds no analogs in classical reduced-order models in optimal control of mechanical systems.
The paper is organized as follows, in Section 2, we introduce some preliminaries about geometric mechanics on Lie groups and Lie group actions. In Section 3.1, we present the problem together with a motivating example. In Section 4, we study the Euler–Poincaré reduction of optimal control problems for left-invariant multi-agent control systems on Lie groups with partial symmetry breaking cost functions. Furthermore, we consider the discrete-time framework and obtain the discrete-time Lie–Poisson equations in Section 5. In Section 6, an example is considered to illustrate the theory. Finally, some concluding remarks are given in Section 7.
Consider a manifold Q to be the configuration space of a mechanical system and let it be differentiable of dimension d which can be described locally by coordinates q=(q1,…,qd). Denote by TQ the tangent bundle of Q, with local coordinates described by positions and velocities for the system, vq=(q1,…,qd,˙q1,…,˙qd)∈TQ with dim(TQ)=2d. Let T∗Q be its cotangent bundle, locally described by the positions and the momenta for the system, i.e., (q,p)∈T∗Q with dim(T∗Q)=2d. The tangent space at q∈Q has a vector space structure, and it is denoted as TqQ. The cotangent space at q∈Q is just the dual space of TqQ and is denoted as T∗qQ. The dynamics of a mechanical system is described by the equations of motion determined by a Lagrangian function L:TQ→R given by L(q,˙q)=K(q,˙q)−V(q), where K:TQ→R denotes the kinetic energy and V:Q→R the potential energy of the system. The equations of motion are given by the Euler-Lagrange equations ddt(∂L∂˙qi)=∂L∂qi,i=1,…,d, which determine a system of second-order differential equations. In case, the configuration space of the system is a Lie group, Euler-Lagrange equations can be reduced to a system of first-order ordinary differential equations.
Definition 2.1. Let G be a Lie group and Q a smooth manifold. A left-action of G on Q is a smooth map Φ:G×Q→Q, such that Φ(ˉe,g)=g and Φ(h,Φ(g,q))=Φ(hg,q) for all g,h∈G and q∈Q, where ˉe is the identity of the group G and the map Φg:Q→Q given by Φg(q)=Φ(g,q) is a diffeomorphism for all g∈G.
Definition 2.2. A function f:Q→R is called left invariant under Φg if f∘Φg=f for any g∈G.
For a finite dimensional Lie group G, its Lie algebra g is defined as the tangent space to G at the identity, g:=TˉeG. Let Lg:G→G be the left translation of the element g∈G given by Lg(h)=gh, where h∈G. Lg is a diffeomorphism on G and a left-action of G on G [33]. Its tangent map (i.e, the linearization or tangent lift) is denoted by ThLg:ThG→TghG. In a similar way, the cotangent map (cotangent lift), is denoted by (ThLg)∗, and is defined as the dual map of the tangent lift denoted by T∗hLg:T∗ghG→T∗hG, and determined by the relation ⟨(ThLg)∗(αgh),yh⟩=⟨αgh,(ThLg)yh⟩, yh∈ThG, αgh∈T∗ghG. As it is known, the tangent and cotangent lift of a Lie group action are Lie group actions as well. Here, ⟨⋅,⋅⟩:W∗×W→R with W a finite-dimensional vector space denotes the usual natural pairing between vectors and co-vectors, and defined by ⟨y,x⟩:=y⋅x for y∈W∗ and x∈W. For a matrix Lie algebra ⟨y,x⟩=yTx (see [33], Section 2.3). Using the natural pairing between vectors and co-vectors, for g,h∈G, y∈g∗ and x∈g, we write ⟨T∗gLg−1(y),TˉeLg(x)⟩=⟨y,x⟩.
Denote by ad∗:g×g∗→g∗, (ξ,μ)↦ad∗ξμ the co-adjoint operator, defined by ⟨ad∗ξμ,η⟩=⟨μ,adξη⟩ for all η∈g, where the ad:g×g→g denotes the adjoint operator on g given by the Lie-bracket, i.e., adξη=[ξ,η], ξ,η∈g. We also define the adjoint action of G on g, denoted by Adg:g→g and, in the case the Lie algebra is a matrix Lie group, it is given by Adgχ:=gχg−1, where χ∈g, and the co-adjoint action of G on g∗, denoted by Ad∗g:g∗→g∗, and given by ⟨Ad∗gα,ξ⟩=⟨α,Adgξ⟩ with α∈g∗.
For q∈Q, the isotropy (or stabilizer or symmetry) group of Φ at q is given by Gq:={g∈G|Φg(q)=q}⊂G. Since the map Φ(⋅,q)=Φq:G→Q is a continuous, Gq=(Φq)−1(q) is a closed subgroup, and thus, a Lie subgroup of G (see [34] Sec. 9.3 for instance).
Example 1. Consider the special Euclidean group SE(2) of rotations and translations on the plane. Elements on SE(2) can be expressed by transformations of R2 of the form z↦Rz+r, with r∈R2 and R∈SO(2). This transformation can be represented by g=(R,r), for R=(cosθ−sinθsinθcosθ) and r=[x,y]T. The composition law is (R,r)⋅(S,s)=(RS,Rs+r) with identity element (I,0) and inverse (R,r)−1=(R−1,−R−1r). Under this composition rule, SE(2) has the structure of the semidirect product Lie group SO(2)⋉R2. Here, as usual in the literature, we denote by ⋉ the semidirect product of Lie groups.
The Lie algebra se(2) of SE(2) is determined by se(2)={(Ab00)|A∈so(2)≃R,b∈R2}. In the following, for simplicity, we write A=−aJ, a∈R, where J=(01−10). Therefore, we denote ξ=(a,b)∈se(2). The adjoint action of SE(2) on se(2) is given by Ad(R,r)(a,b)=(a,aJr+Rb) (see [35], pp. 153 for instance), so, Ad(R,r)−1(a,b)=(a,RT(b−aJr)).
Next, we provide the infinitesimal description of a Lie group action, that will be an important concept in the remainder of the paper.
Definition 2.3. Given a Lie group action Φ:G×Q→Q, for ξ∈g, the map Φexp(tξ):Q→Q is a flow on Q, where exp is the exponential map of G. The corresponding vector field on Q, given by ξQ(q):=ddt∣t=0Φexp(tξ)(q) is called the infinitesimal generator of the action corresponding to ξ.
Definition 2.4. Let us denote the set of vector fields on a Lie group G by X(G). A left invariant vector field is an element X of X(G) such that ThLg(X(h))=X(Lg(h))=X(gh) ∀g,h∈G.
Especially, for h=ˉe, we have that a vector field X is left-invariant if X(g)=TˉeLgξ for ξ=X(ˉe)∈g. As a consequence, left invariant vector fields are identified with its corresponding element of g. Thus, for every g∈G and ξ∈g, we define the left-invariant vector field as ξ(g):=TˉeLg(ξ).
Example 2. Consider the Euclidean Lie group Rn with the sum as group operation. For all g∈Rn, the left translation Lg is the usual translation on Rn, that is, Lg(h)=g+h, h∈Rn. So that, the tangent map to Lg is the identity map on Rn, that is, T0Lg=idT0Rn, where we are using that ThRn≃Rn for all h∈Rn, since Rn is a vector space. Therefore, left-invariant vector fields are constant vector fields, that is, X=v1∂∂x1+…+vn∂∂xn for v=(v1,…,vn)∈T0Rn and x=(x1,…,xn)∈Rn.
Consider a Lie group G, a vector space W and the representation of G on W, given by ρ:G×W→W, (g,v)↦ρg(v), which is a left action, and it is defined by the relation ρg1(ρg2(v))=ρg1g2(v), g1,g2∈G. Its dual is given by ρ∗:G×W∗→W∗, (g,α)↦ρ∗g−1(α), satisfying ⟨ρ∗g−1(α),v⟩=⟨α,ρg−1(v)⟩, and it is also a left action of G now on W∗.
The infinitesimal generator of the left action of G on W is ρ′:g×W→W, (ξ,v)↦ρ′(ξ,v)=ddt|t=0ρexp(tξ)(v). For every v∈W, consider the linear transformation ρ′v:g→W, ξ↦ρ′v(ξ)=ρ′(ξ,v) and its dual ρ′∗v:W∗→g∗, α↦ρ′∗v(α). The last transformation defines the momentum map JW:W×W∗→g∗, (v,α)↦JW(v,α):=ρ′∗v(α), such that for every ξ∈g, ⟨JW(v,α),ξ⟩=⟨ρ′∗v(α),ξ⟩=⟨α,ρ′v(ξ)⟩=⟨α,ρ′(ξ,v)⟩.
For ξ∈g, consider the map ρ′ξ:W→W, v↦ρ′ξ(v)=ρ′(ξ,v) and its dual ρ′∗ξ:W∗→W∗, α↦ρ′∗ξ(α), such that ⟨ρ′∗ξ(α),v⟩=⟨α,ρ′ξ(v)⟩. Then, this satisfies ⟨JW(v,α),ξ⟩=⟨α,ρ′(ξ,v)⟩=⟨α,ρ′ξ(v)⟩=⟨ρ′∗ξ(α),v⟩. See [33] and [34] for more details on the momentum map.
Example 3. Let W=g and ρ the adjoint representation of G on W, i.e., ρg=Adg, for any g∈G. So, for α∈W∗=g∗, ρ∗ is the coadjoint representation of G on W∗, i.e., ρ∗g=Ad∗g. We also have that the infinitesimal generator for the adjoint representation is ρ′ξ=adξ for any ξ∈W (see [33], Def. 6.4, pp. 225), and it follows that ⟨JW(x,α),ξ⟩=⟨α,adξx⟩=⟨α,−adxξ⟩=⟨−ad∗xα,ξ⟩, for x∈W=g, which gives JW(x,α)=−ad∗xα.
Similarly, if now W=g∗ and the coadjoint representation of G on W is ρ, i.e., ρg=Ad∗g−1, for any g∈G, then ρ′ξ=−ad∗ξ for any ξ∈g. So, if x,ξ∈g and α∈g∗, it follows that ⟨JW(α,x),ξ⟩=⟨−ad∗ξα,x⟩=⟨α,adxξ⟩=⟨ad∗xα,ξ⟩, which gives JW(α,x)=ad∗xα.
Denote, by N, a set consisting of s≥2 free agents, and by E⊂N×N the set describing the interaction between them. The neighboring relationships are illustrated by an undirected graph G=(N,E), where N is the set of vertices and E the set of edges for G. We further assume G is static and connected. For every agent i∈N the set Ni={j∈N:(i,j)∈E} denotes the neighbors of that agent. The agent i∈N evolves on an n-dimensional Lie group G, and its configuration is denoted by gi∈G. We denote by Gs and by TeGs=:gs the cartesian products of s copies of G and g, respectively, where e=(¯e,¯e,…,¯e) is the identity of Gs, and ¯e the identity element of G.
For each agent i∈N, there is an associated left-invariant control system described by the kinematic equations
˙gi=T¯eLgi(ui),gi(0)=g0i, | (3.1) |
where gi(t)∈C1([0,T],G),T∈R fixed, ui∈g is the control input and gi0∈G is considered as the initial state condition. Letting dimg=n, we can have as many basis for the Lie algebra as the number of agents. Thus, for each i∈N, we have g=span{e1,e2,…,en} and the control inputs may be described by coordinates ui=[u1i,u2i,…,umi]T, where ui(t)∈C1([0,T],g), with m≤n. Hence, the control input for each agent is given by ui(t)=ei0+m∑k=1uki(t)ek, where ei0∈g. Thus, the left-invariant control systems (3.1) for each agent i∈N can be written as
˙gi(t)=gi(t)(e0+m∑k=1uki(t)ek),gi(0)=g0i. | (3.2) |
Note that the class of control systems described by (3.2) belongs to the family of underactuated control systems.
Following with Example 1, consider the agents i∈N and j∈Ni represented as gk=(Rk,rk), k∈{i,j}. Note that g−1igj=(RTiRj,−RTi(ri−rj)), then, Adg−1igj(1,0)=(1,JRTi(rj−ri)). The inner product on se(2) is given by ⟨ξ1,ξ2⟩=tr(ξT1ξ2) for ξ1,ξ2∈se(2) and, hence, the norm is given by ||ξ||=√tr(ξTξ), for any ξ∈se(2). For ξ=(a,b)∈se(2) we can write the norm of ξ as ||(a,b)||=√2a2+bTb. Therefore, ||Adg−1igj(1,0)||2=2+|JRTi(rj−ri)|2=2+|rj−ri|2, where we have used that R,J∈SO(2) for the last equality. Hence, it follows that |ri−rj|=√||Adg−1igj(1,0)||2−2.
The previous computation shows that, if the interaction between agents is determined by a function depending on the distances between them, that is, Vij:G×G→R, is such that Vij(gi,gj)=V(|ri−rj|) for some V:R≥0→R; then, Vij is SE(2)-invariant, that is Vij(hgi,hgj)=Vij(gi,gj). An alternative reasoning of this invariance property has been shown in [36].
Next, suppose that we wish to write the distance from an arbitrary point r∈R2 to a fixed point x0∈R2 in terms of the adjoint action. Consider ξ0=(1,Jx0)∈se(2). Then, for any (R,r)∈SE(2), we have Ad(R,r)−1(1,Jx0)=(1,RTJ(x0−r)), and, therefore, ||Ad(R,r)−1(1,Jx0)||2=2+|x0−r|2. Next, assume we have an obstacle avoidance function V0i:SE(2)→R for each agent i∈N which can be written as V0i(Ri,ri)=V(|ri|) with V:R≥0→R. Note that under this assumption, V may be chosen arbitrarily. Then, V0i is not SE(2)-invariant, but it is SO(2) invariant, i.e., V0i(R0Ri,ri)=V0i(Ri,ri) for any R0∈SO(2). Note also that SO(2) is the isotropy group for the coadjoint action, that is, SO(2)≃{g∈SE(2)∣Adg(ξ0)=ξ0}, therefore, the obstacle avoidance potential functions V0i are invariant under the left action of the isotropy group.
In this situation, one can redefine the potential function V0i to make it SE(2)-invariant as follows. Consider x0=0, so, ξ0=(R0,x0)=(−J,0)∈se(2), and ‖Ad(Ri,ri)−1ξ0‖=2+|ri|2. Hence, V0i(Ri,ri)=V(|ri|)=V(√||Ad(Ri,ri)−1ξ0||2−2). This gives a motivation to define an extended obstacle avoidance function Vexti,0:G⋉W∗→R with G⋉W∗=SE(2)⋉se(2) as Vexti,0(gi,ξ):=V(√||Adg−1iξ||2−2).
Note that the extended obstacle avoidance function possesses an SE(2)-symmetry (i.e., Vexti,0 is invariant under a left action of SE(2)) since Vexti,0∘˜Φ(h,(g,ξ))=Vexti,0(Lhg,Adhξ)=Vexti,0(g,ξ), for any h∈SE(2), with left action ˜Φ given by
˜Φ:SE(2)×(SE(2)×se(2))→SE(2)×se(2),(h,(g,ξ))↦(Lh(g),Adh(ξ)). | (3.3) |
The problem under study consists on finding reduced necessary conditions for optimality in an optimal control problem for (3.1) (or equivalently (3.2)). These solution curves should minimize a cost function and prevent collisions among agents, while they should also avoid static obstacles in the workspace.
Problem (collision and obstacle avoidance): Find reduced optimality conditions on g(t)=(g1(t),…,gs(t))∈Gs and the controls u(t)=(u1(t),…,us(t))∈gs avoiding collision among the agents and obstacles (which will be defined shortly) in the workspace, and such that (g(t),u(t))∈Gs×gs minimize the following cost function,
min(g,u)s∑i=1∫T0(Ci(gi(t),ui(t))+V0i(gi)+12∑j∈NiVij(gi(t),gj(t)))dt, | (3.4) |
subject to the kinematics ˙gi(t)=T¯eiLgi(t)(ui(t)), boundary conditions g(0)=(g1(0),…,gn(0))=(g01,…,g0s) and g(T)=(g1(T),…,gs(T))=(gT1,…,gTs) with T∈R+ the final time, and under the following assumptions:
(i) There is a left representation ρ of G on a vector space V.
(ii) Ci:G×g→R are G-invariant functions for each i∈N (under a left action of G on G×g, which is given below) and are also differentiable almost everywhere.
(iii) Vij:G×G→R (collision avoidance potential functions) satisfying Vij=Vji are G-invariant functions under Φ, defined by
Φ:G×(G×G)⟶G×G,(g,(g1,g2))⟼(Lg(g1),Lg(g2)), | (3.5) |
i.e., Vij∘Φg=Vij, for any g∈G, that is, Vij(Lg(gi),Lg(gj))=Vij(gi,gj), for any (gi,gj)∈E, j∈Ni and they are also differentiable almost everywhere.
(iv) V0i:G→R (obstacle avoidance potential functions) are not G-invariant functions and they are also differentiables almost everywhere, for i∈N.
(v) The obstacle avoidance functions V0i depend on a parameter α0∈W∗. Hence, we can define the extended potential function as Vexti,0:G×W∗→R, with Vexti,0(⋅,α0)=V0i, by making the parameter evolve - due to the group action - with initial value α0.
(vi) The extended obstacle avoidance functions are G-invariant under ˜Φ, defined by
˜Φ:G×(G×W∗)⟶G×W∗,(g,(h,α))⟼(Lg(h),ρ∗g−1(α)), | (3.6) |
where ρ∗g−1∈W∗ is the adjoint of ρg−1∈W, i.e., Vexti,0∘˜Φg=Vexti,0, for any g∈G, or Vexti,0(Lg(h),ρ∗g−1(α))=Vexti,0(g,α) where α∈W∗.
(vii) The obstacle avoidance potential functions are invariant under the left action of the isotropy group
Gα0={g∈G∣ρ∗g(α0)=α0}. | (3.7) |
Note that G×g is a trivial vector bundle over G and, in order to respect assumption (ⅱ), we define the left action of G on G×g as follows,
Ψ:G×(G×g)⟶(G×g),(g,(h,u))⟼(Lg(h),u). | (3.8) |
We further assume that each Ci:G×g→R is G-invariant under (3.8), i.e., Ci∘Ψg=Ci, for any g∈G. In addition, each agent i∈N occupies a disk of radius ¯r on G. This radius is consider to be small enough in order that all agents can be packed on G and, hence the potential functions are well defined and feasible for d(gi(t),gj(t))>2¯r for all t, where d(⋅,⋅):G×G→R denotes a distance function on G.
We next study reduced optimality conditions for extrema for the OCP. We address the problem as a constrained variational problem and obtain the Euler-Poincaré equations that extremal must satisfy in Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 4.2.
The optimal control problem (3.4) can be resolved as a constrained variational problem by utilizing the Lagrangian multipliers λgi=T∗giLg−1i(λi)∈T∗giG, where λi∈C1([0,T],g∗) into the cost functional.
Let {e1,…,em,em+1,…,en} be a basis of g∗ dual of the basis {ei} of g. Then λi=n∑k=m+1λikek, where λik are the components of the vector λi in the given basis of the Lie algebra g. Thus, we define the Lagrangian L:Gs×gs×(T∗giG)s→R by
L(g,u,λ)=s∑i=1[Ci(gi(t),ui(t))+⟨λgi,T¯eiLgiui⟩+V0i(gi(t))+Vi(g)], | (4.1) |
where Vi:Gs→R,
Vi(g)=12∑j∈NiVij(gi(t),gj(t)) |
By assumption (v), the obstacle avoidance potential functions V0i:G→R depend on a parameter α0∈W∗, so we can extend {them} to Vexti,0:G×W∗→R by making the parameter evolve under the Lie group action with α(0)=α0, and, therefore, we can consider the extended Lagrangian function on Gs×gs×(T∗giG)s×W∗,
Lext(g,u,λ,α)=s∑i=1[Ci(gi(t),ui(t))+⟨λgi,T¯eiLgiui⟩+Vexti,0(gi,αi)+Vi(g)] |
where Lext(g,u,λ,α0)=L(g,u,λ).
By assumptions (ⅰ) to (ⅳ), and by taking advantage of the G-invariance of Ci, Vexti,0 and Vij (and so Vi), we can define the reduced extended Lagrangian ℓ:Gs−1×gs×(g∗)s×W∗→R by
ℓ(g,u,λ,α)=s∑i=1[Ci(ui)+⟨λi,ui⟩+Vexti,0(¯e,αi)+Vi(g)], |
defining g1 to be the identity ˉe1 on G. This is equivalent to consider the Lagrangian ˜Lext(h,u,λ,α)=Lext(ˉe1,h,u,λ,α) with h∈Gs−1. Then ℓ(g,u,λ,α) is obtained by considering a left action in each term of the sum. In fact, if Liext is each term in the sum from 1 to s in the definition of Lext, then
ℓ(g,u,λ,α)=n∑i=1Liext(Lg−1ig,u,T∗giLg−1iλgi,αi) |
under the assumption that g1=ˉe1 and αi=ρ∗gi(α). Note here the slight abuse of notation regarding the positions g. In the definition of the reduced Lagrangian g∈Gs−1, while in that of the Lagrangian Lext, g∈Gs.
Theorem 4.1. For s≥2, an extremal for the OCP (3.4) satisfies the following Euler-Poincaré equations
ddt(∂Ci∂ui+λi)=ad∗ui(∂Ci∂ui+λi)+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)+Θi1s∑k=1T∗¯eLgi(∂Vk∂gi), | (4.2) |
˙αi=ρ′∗ui(αi),αi(0)=ρ∗g0i(α0), | (4.3) |
where JW:T∗W≃W×W∗→g∗ is the momentum map that corresponds to the left action of G on W, and it is defined through the left representation ρ of G on W, and where Θi1=0 if i=1, otherwise Θi1=1.
Proof. Consider the variational equation
δ∫T0Lext(g(t),u(t),λ(t),α)dt=0, |
which holds for variations of g, that vanish at the endpoints, and u. Also, consider the constrained variational equation
δ∫T0ℓ(g(t),u(t),λ(t),α(t))dt=0, | (4.4) |
that holds for variations of ui and αi with δui=˙ηi+aduiηi and δαi=ρ′∗ηi(αi), where ηi is a path of gs that vanishes at the endpoints, i.e. ηi(0)=ηi(T)=0.
The two variational equations are equivalent since the cost functions Ci and the extended potential functions Vexti,0 are G-invariant, i.e. Ci∘Ψg,Vexti,0∘˜Φ=Vexti,0 and ⟨λgi,TˉeiLgiui⟩=⟨T∗giLg−1iλgi,ui⟩=⟨λi,ui⟩. The variations δgi of gi induce and are induced by variations δui=˙ηi+aduiηi with ηi(0)=ηi(T)=0, where ηi=TgiL−1gi(δgi) and δui=TgiLg−1i(˙gi). Variations of αi are given by δαi=ρ′∗ηi(αi). Thus, we have
δ∫T0ℓ(g,u,λ,α)dt=s∑i=1∫T0⟨∂Ci∂ui,δui⟩+⟨λi,δui⟩+⟨∂Vexti,0∂αi,δαi⟩+s∑k=2⟨∂Vi∂gk,δgk⟩dt. | (4.5) |
Using the variations of ui, which are given by δui=˙ηi+aduiηi, applying integration by parts and by the definition of the co-adjoint action the first two terms, yield:
∫T0⟨−ddt(∂Ci∂ui+λi)+ad∗ui(∂Ci∂ui+λi),ηi⟩dt. |
From the variations δαi=ρ′∗ηi(αi), the third term gives
⟨∂Vexti,0∂αi,δαi⟩=⟨∂Vexti,0∂αi,ρ′∗ηi(αi)⟩=⟨αi,ρ′ηi(∂Vexti,0∂αi)⟩=⟨JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi),ηi⟩. |
Taking into account that T(Lgi∘Lg−1i)=TLgi∘TLg−1i is equivalent to the identity map on TGi and ηi=TgiLg−1i(δgi), the fourth term can be written as
s∑k=2⟨∂Vi∂gk,δgk⟩=s∑k=2⟨∂Vi∂gk,(T¯eLgk∘TgkLg−1k)(δgk)⟩=s∑k=2⟨∂Vi∂gk,T¯eLgk(ηk)⟩=s∑k=2⟨T∗¯eLgk(∂Vi∂gk),ηk⟩. |
Therefore, after performing a change of variables between indexes i and k in the fourth term, the above variational equation (4.4) yields
ddt(∂Ci∂ui+λi)=ad∗ui(∂Ci∂ui+λi)+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi). |
for i=1. Otherwise,
ddt(∂Ci∂ui+λi)=ad∗ui(∂Ci∂ui+λi)+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)+s∑k=1T∗¯eLgi(∂Vk∂gi). |
Finally, by taking the time derivative of αi=ρgi(α0), we have ˙αi=ρ′∗ui(αi), together with α(0)=ρ∗gi0(αi0).
Note that the above Euler-Poincaré equations (4.2) cannot, in fact, describe the motion properly because there are more unknowns than equations. In particular, observe that equations (4.2) together with (3.1) (or equivalently (3.2)), give rise to only two equations for the three unknown variables ui, λi and gi. However, we provide an additional structure to the Lie algebra, g, that allows one to decouple equations (4.2) into two equations. The next Proposition describes this process.
Proposition 4.2. If the structure of the Lie algebra permits a decomposition g=r⊕s where r=span{e1,…,em} and s=span{em+1,…,en} such that
[s,s]⊆s,[s,r]⊆r,[r,r]⊆s, | (4.6) |
then the Euler-Poincaré equations of motion (4.2) are given by the following equations:
ddt∂Ci∂ui=ad∗uiλi+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)|r+Θi1s∑k=1T∗¯eLgi(∂Vk∂gi)|r,˙λi=ad∗ui∂Ci∂ui+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)|s+Θi1s∑k=1T∗¯eLgi(∂Vk∂gi)|s, | (4.7) |
where ui∈r and the restrictions |r and |s give the projection onto r∗ and s∗, respectively, with respect to the associated splitting of the dual space g∗=r∗⊕s∗.
Remark 4. Note that this is the case for semisimple Lie algebras, they admit a Cartan decomposition, i.e., if g is semisimple, then g=r⊕s such that [r,r]⊆s,[s,r]⊆r,[s,s]⊆s, where the set r={x∈g∣θ(x)=−x} is the −1 eigenspace of the Cartan involution θ, whereas the set s={x∈g∣θ(x)=x} is the +1 eigenspace of the Cartan involution θ. Additionally, the Killing form is proven to be positive definite on r and negative definite on s (see, e.g., [15]). Thus, suitable candidates that satisfy the assumption of Proposition 4.2 are connected semisimple Lie groups. On the other hand, a Cartan decomposition determines a Cartan involution θ (see, e.g., [37]). In particular, the proposed decomposition for the Lie algebra is not restrictive in the sense that the usual manifolds/work-spaces used in applications as SO(n) and SE(n) allow such a decomposition.
Proof. Given g=r⊕s we get g∗=r∗⊕s∗, where r∗=span{e1,…,em} and s∗=span{em+1,…,es}. Thus, from (4.6) we have that ad∗ss∗⊆s∗,ad∗sr∗⊆r∗,ad∗rs∗⊆r∗,ad∗rr∗⊆s∗ and given that ui∈r, ∂Ci∂ui∈r∗ and λi∈s∗ by definition we conclude that ad∗ui∂Ci∂ui∈s∗ and ad∗uiλi∈r∗. Also, JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)∈g∗ and ∑sk=1T∗¯eiLgi(∂Vk∂gi)∈g∗ hence, they have a decomposition into r∗ and s∗. Thus, the equations (4.2) split into the following equations
ddt∂Ci∂ui=ad∗uiλi+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)|r+Θi1s∑k=1T∗¯eLgi(∂Vk∂gi)|r,˙λi=ad∗ui∂Ci∂ui+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)|s+Θi1s∑k=1T∗¯eLgi(∂Vk∂gi)|s, | (4.8) |
Remark 5. For the initial value problem guaranteeing a solution for the previous system of equations, we look for a solution to the equations with the initial condition ui(0)=Tg(0)Lg−1(0)(˙gi(0)) and the kinematic equation ˙gi(t)=T¯eLgi(t)(ui(t)) with g(0)=(g1(0),…,gs(0)).
Remark 6. Assuming the reduced Lagrangian is hyperregular, we use the Legendre transformation and we can define the reduced Hamiltonian h:Gs−1×(g∗)s×(g∗)s×W∗→R given by
h(g,μ,λ,α)=⟨μ,u⟩−ℓ(g,u,λ,α), |
where μ=∂ℓ∂u=(∂C∂u+λ)∈(g∗)s. Under this assumption, the Euler-Poincare equations (4.2), (4.3) can be written as the Lie-Poisson equations (see, e.g., [22])
˙μi=ad∗uiμi+JW(∂Vexti,0∂αi,αi)+Θi1s∑k=1T∗¯eLgi(∂Uk∂gi), | (4.9) |
˙αi=ρ′∗ui(αi),αi(0)=ρ∗g0i(α0). | (4.10) |
In this section, we study the discrete-time reduction by symmetries for necessary conditions in the collision and obstacle avoidance optimal control problem. The goal is to construct a variational integrator based on the discretization of the augmented cost functional. Such integrator inherits discrete-time symmetries from its continuous counterpart and generates a well-defined (local) flow for reduced necessary conditions characterizing (local) extremal in the optimal control problem.
Given the set T={tk∈R+,tk=kh∣k=0,…,N}, Nh=T, with T fixed (recall that T∈R+ is the end point of the cost functional - see for instance equation (3.4)), a discrete trajectory for the agent i is determined by a set of N+1 points equally spaced in time, g0:Ni={g0i,…,gNi}, where gki≃gi(kh)∈G, and h=T/N is the time step. The path between two adjacent points gki and gk+1i must be given by a curve lying on the Lie group G. To construct such a curve we make use of a retraction map R:g→G.
Definition 5.1. A retraction map R:g→G is an analytic local diffeomorphism assigning a neighborhood O⊂g of 0∈g to a neighborhood of the identity ¯e∈G.
The retraction map (see Figure 1) is used to express small discrete changes in the group configuration through unique Lie algebra elements given by uk=R−1((gk)−1gk+1)/h, where uk∈g (see [38,39] for further details). That is, if uk were regarded as an average velocity between gk and gk+1, then R is an approximation to the integral flow of the dynamics. The difference ξk,k+1:=(gk)−1gk+1∈G, which is an element of a nonlinear space, can now be represented by a vector space element uk. For the derivation of the discrete equations of motion, the right trivialized tangent retraction map will be used. It is the function dR:g×g→g given by
TR(ξ)⋅η=TRR(ξ)dRξ(η), | (5.1) |
where η∈g and R:G→G the right translation on G and TR(ξ)⋅η is the directional derivative of R at ξ in the direction of η (see [38,39] for the derivation of such a map). Here we use the following notation, dRξ:=dR(ξ):g→g. The function dR is linear, but only on one argument.
Remark 7. The natural choice of a retraction map is the exponential map at the identity ¯e of the group G, exp¯e:g→G. Bear in mind that, for a finite-dimensional Lie group, exp¯e is locally a diffeomorphism and gives rise to a natural chart [40]. Then, there exists a neighborhood U of ¯e∈G such that exp−1¯e:U→exp−1¯e(U) is a local C∞−diffeomorphism. For an element g∈G a chart is given by Ψg=exp−1¯e∘Lg−1.
Generally, it is not an easy task to work with the exponential map since the differential of the exponential map involves power series expansions with iterated Lie-brackets. Consequently, it will be more convenient to use a different retraction map. More concretely, the Cayley map, which is usually used in numerical integration with matrix Lie-groups configurations (see [38,39] for further details), will provide to us a proper framework in the application shown in the next Section.
Next, we consider a discrete cost function to construct variational integrators in the same way as in discrete mechanics [41]. In other words, consider the continuous-time Lagrangian L:Gs×gs→R defined by the cost functional (3.4), that is,
L(g,u)=s∑i=1(Ci(gi(t),ui(t))+V0i(gi)+12∑j∈NiVij(gi(t),gj(t))), |
and for a given h>0, we define the discrete Lagrangian Ld:Gs×gs→R as an approximation of the cost functional (3.4) along each discrete segment between gk and gk+1=gkR(huk), that is,
Ld(gk,uk)=hL(κ(gk,uk),ζ(gk,uk))≃∫(k+1)hkhL(g,u)dt, |
where κ and ζ are functions of (gk,uk)∈Gs×gs which approximate the configuration g(t) and the control input u(t), respectively, in that interval. In the following, for simplicity, κ will be the projection onto Gs and ζ will be the projection onto gs. Thus, we consider
Ld(gk,uk)=hs∑i=1(Ci(gki,uki)+V0i(gki)+Vi(gk)). | (5.2) |
We remark that different choices of κ and ζ could result in higher-order numerical methods, such as, using the middle point rule with κ(gk,uk)=gkR(h2uk).
Next, we are going to define the optimal control problem for discrete-time systems and derive a variational integrator for Ld:Gs×gs→R, in a similar fashion as the variational equation presented in Theorem 4.1.
Problem: Consider the discrete-time optimal control problem for collision and obstacle avoidance of left-invariant multi agent control systems, which is given by finding the discrete configurations {gk}Nk=0={(gk1,…,gks)}Nk=0 and discrete control inputs {uk}Nk=0={(uk1,…,uks)}Nk=0 minimizing the discrete cost functional
min(gk,uk)s∑i=1N−1∑k=0h(Ci(gki,uki)+V0i(gki)+Vi(gk)) | (5.3) |
subject to gk+1i=gkiR(huki) (i.e., a first order approximation of equation (3.1)) with given boundary conditions g0 and gN, where h>0 denotes the time step, R:g→G is a retraction map, ui(0) and ui(T) are given, and each cost function Ci:G×g→R, potential functions V0i and Vi satisfy properties (ⅰ) - (ⅶ).
The discrete-time optimal control problem (5.3) can be considered as a discrete constrained variational problem by introducing the Lagrange multipliers μki∈g into the cost functional. Consider the augmented discrete Lagrangian Ld:Gs×Gs×gs×(g∗)s→R given by
Ld(gk,gk+1,uk,μk)=hs∑i=1(Ci(gki,uki)+V0i(gki)+Vi(gk)+⟨μki,1hR−1(ξk,k+1i)−uki⟩) | (5.4) |
where ξk,k+1i=(gki)−1gk+1i∈G, for each i∈N. Note that the last term in the augmented Lagrangian represents a first-order discretization of the kinematic constraint paired with a Lagrange multiplier in analogy with the variational equation presented in Section 4.
Now, extending the potential V0i, we obtain an extended Lagrangian Lext,d:Gs×Gs×gs×(g∗)s×(W∗)s→R given by
Lext,d(gk,gk+1,uk,μk,α)=hs∑i=1(Ci(gki,uki)+V0,exti(gki,αi)+Vi(gk)+⟨μki,1hR−1(ξk,k+1i)−uki⟩), | (5.5) |
which is invariant under the left action of G on Gs×Gs×gs×(g∗)s×(W∗)s given by ˜Φg(h1,h2,u,μ,α)=(gh1,gh2,u,μ,ρ∗g−1(α)) by assumption (ⅵ). In particular, under assumptions (ⅳ)-(ⅵ), the extended discrete Lagrangian Lext,d(⋅,⋅,⋅,⋅,α0)=:Lext,d,α0 is Gα0-invariant under ˜Φg.
The following result (Theorem 5.2) derives a variational integration for reduced optimality conditions for the discrete-time optimal control (5.3) in analogy with the results presented in Section 4. To derive the numerical algorithm, first we need the following result describing variations for elements on the Lie algebra and its relation with variations on the Lie group by using the retraction map, in addition to a property used in the proof of Theorem 5.2. Though it is a well-known result in the literature, we include it here to make the paper self-contained.
Lemma 5.1 (adapted from [38,39]). The following properties hold
(i)
1hδ(R−1(ξk,k+1))=1hdR−1(huk)(−ηk+AdR(huk)ηk+1), |
where ηk=TgkL(gk)−1(δgk)∈g and ξk,k+1=(gk)−1gk+1.
(ii)
(dR−1(−huk))∗μk=Ad∗R(huk)(dR−1(huk))∗μk, |
where μk∈(g∗) and dR−1 is the inverse right trivialized tangent of the retraction map R defined in (5.1).
Theorem 5.2. Under assumptions (i)-(vii), an extremal for the discrete-time optimal control problem (5.3) satisfies the following equations
gk+1i=gkiR(huki), | (5.6) |
(dR−1(huki))∗μki=(dR−1(−huk−1i))∗μk−1i+JW(h∂V0,exti∂ˉαki,ˉαki)+hΘi1s∑l=1T∗¯eLgki(∂Vl∂gki), | (5.7) |
μki=(∂Ci∂uki), | (5.8) |
ˉαk+1i=ρ∗R(huki)(ˉαki),ˉα0i=ρ∗g0i(α0i), | (5.9) |
for k=1,…,N−1; where Θi1=0 if i=1, otherwise Θi1=1.
Proof. Since the cost functions and the potential functions satisfy assumptions (ⅰ) - (ⅶ), as in the continuous-time case, it is possible to induce the reduced augmented discrete Lagrangian ℓext,d:Gs−1×Gs×gs×(g∗)s×(W∗)s→R as
ℓext,d(gk,ξk,k+1,uk,μk,ˉαk)=hs∑i=1(Ci(uki)+V0,exti(ˉαki)+⟨μki,1hR−1(ξk,k+1i)−uki⟩+Vi(gk), |
where ˉαki=ρ∗gki(α0i) for a fixed α0i∈W∗ satisfying α0i=ρ∗g0i(α0i) and, with a slight abuse of notation, Ci(uki)=Ci(¯e,uki) and V0,exti(αki)=V0,exti(¯e,αki). Notice that, also here, gk1 is set to be the identity element, so that we have gk∈Gs−1.
As in the proof for Theorem 4.1, the technical part is to show that an extremal of the reduced variational equation
δN−1∑k=0ℓext,d(gk,ξk,k+1,uk,μk,ˉαk)=0 | (5.10) |
satisfies equations (5.6)-(5.8) for all variations of R−1(ξk,k+1) (induced by variations of gk vanishing at the endpoints), uk and ˉαk of the form ρ′∗ηk(ˉαk), where ηk∈gs vanishes at the endpoints. Then, similarly as in the proof for Theorem 4.1, it follows that an extremal for the optimal control problem (5.3) satisfies the variational equation
δN−1∑k=0Ld(gk,gk+1,uk,μk)=0, |
for all variations of gk (vanishing at the endpoints), R−1(ξk,k+1) (induced by variations of gk) and uk.
Note that
0=δN−1∑k=0ℓext,d(gk,ξk,k+1,uk,μk,ˉαk)=N−1∑k=0s∑i=1h[⟨∂Ci∂uki−μki,δuki⟩+⟨∂V0,exti∂ˉαk,δˉαk⟩+s∑l=2⟨∂Vi∂gkl,δgkl⟩+⟨μki,1hdR−1huki(−ηki+AdR(huki)ηk+1i)⟩] |
where we used Lemma 5.1 to obtain the last term. Since variations δuki are arbitrary, we obtain μki=∂Ci∂uki. As for the second term, we have that
⟨∂V0,exti∂ˉαk,δˉαk⟩=⟨∂V0,exti∂ˉαk,ρ′∗ηki(ˉαk)⟩=⟨JW(∂V0,exti∂ˉαk,ˉαk),ηki⟩. |
As we have show along the proof for Theorem 4.1, we have that
s∑l=2⟨∂Vi∂gkl,δgkl⟩=s∑l=2⟨T∗¯eLgkl(∂Vi∂gkl),ηkl⟩. |
and the indexes might be interchanged. The last term to obtain equation (5.7) may be dealt with, using integration by parts in discrete-time, which is just rearranging the indexes, together with the second statement in Lemma 5.1 and the fact that η0i=ηNi=0. Therefore,
N−1∑k=0s∑i=1⟨μki,dR−1huki(−ηki+AdR(huki)ηk+1i)⟩=N−1∑k=1s∑i=1⟨(dR−1(−huk−1i))∗μk−1i−(dR−1(huki))∗μki,ηki⟩ |
and the equations (5.6)-(5.8) follow.
Remark 8. Equations (5.6)-(5.8) are as a discrete approximation of the Lie-Poisson equations for the Hamiltonian version of the optimal control problem considered in [22]. The equation μki=(∂Ci∂uki) represents the discrete time version of the reduced Legendre transformation and the equation gk+1i=gkiR(huki) is the analogous of the reconstruction equation in the discrete time counterpart. These three equations are used to compute uki,μki and gk+1i given uk−1i, μk−1i, gk−1i and gki from k=1 to k=N−1.
To compute the discrete-time reduced necessary condition for the optimal control problem (5.3) we must enforce boundary conditions given by the continuous-time quantities. More precisely, we must set
(dR−1(hu0i))∗μ0i=∂Ci∂ui(ui(0))+hΘi1s∑l=2T∗¯eLg0i(∂Vl∂g0i)+hJW(∂V0,exti∂ˉα0,ˉα0),∂Ci∂ui(ui(T))=(dR−1(−huN−1i))∗μN−1i, | (5.11) |
relating the momenta at the initial and final times, and use to transform boundary values between the continuous and discrete representation. They follow from the principle that any variation with free boundary points of the action (5.10) along a solution of equations (5.6)-(5.9) equals the change in momentum ⟨∂Ci∂ui(ui(T)),gNiδgNi⟩−⟨∂Ci∂ui(ui(0)),g0iδg0i⟩ (see [39] for a discussion in the single agent case). Therefore, we must enforce
δN−1∑k=0ℓext,d(gk,ξk,k+1,uk,μk,ˉαk)=⟨∂Ci∂ui(ui(T)),gNiδgNi⟩−⟨∂Ci∂ui(ui(0)),g0iδg0i⟩ |
where the variation is taken along a family of solutions of the discrete equations (5.6)-(5.9) whose boundary values are not fixed. By taking the variations of the discrete action, we eventually get a vanishing term corresponding to the fact that this family of sequences satisfies the discrete equations together with boundary terms multiplying η0i and ηNi, and simplifying, to the above equations.
Remark 9. If we choose the midpoint rule to discretize the potential Vi, then we would obtain the following boundary conditions
(dR−1(hu0i))∗μ0i=∂Ci∂ui(ui(0))+h2Θi1s∑l=1T∗¯eLg0i(∂Vl∂g0i)+hJW(∂V0,exti∂ˉα0,ˉα0),∂Ci∂ui(ui(T))=(dR−1(−huN−1i))∗μN−1i+h2Θi1s∑l=1T∗¯eLgNi(∂Vl∂gNi).⋄ |
The boundary condition gs(T) for agent s is enforced by the relation
R−1((gNs)−1gs(T))=0. | (5.12) |
Recalling that R(0)=¯e, this last expression just means that . Moreover, by computing recursively the equation for , using that and , it is possible to translate the final configuration in terms of , such that there is no need to optimize over any of the configurations . In that sense, (5.7) for , together with
(5.13) |
form a set of -equations (since ) where unknowns are for , denoting the entire sequence of controls for each agent .
The numerical algorithm to compute the reduced optimality conditions is summarized in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Reduced conditions for optimality |
1: Data: Lie group , its Lie algebra , cost functions , artificial potential functions , , final time , of steps . 2: inputs: , , , , , for all and . 3: for do 4: Fix and 5: solve (5.6) and (5.9) for . 6: outputs: , 7: for do 8: for do 9: solve (5.6)-(5.9) subject to (5.11). 10: outputs: , , . 11: Compute , , subjected to (5.13). |
Note also that the exact form of equations (5.6)-(5.8) depends on the choice of . This choice will also effect the computational efficiency of the optimization framework in the case, the above equalities are imposed as constraints. For instance, in Section 6, we will employ the Cayley transform on the Lie group as a choice of to write in a compact form the numerical integrator [38], [17], but another natural choice would be to employ the exponential map, as we explained in Section 5.1.
In this case study, we apply the proposed reduction by symmetry strategy to an optimal control for autonomous surface vehicles (ASVs). The configuration space whose elements determine the motion of each ASV is . An element is given by , where represents the center of mass of a planar rigid body describing the ASV and represents the angular orientation of the ASV. The control inputs, for each ASV, are given by , where denotes the speed of the center of mass for the ASV and denotes the angular velocity of the ASV.
The kinematic equations for the multi-agent system are:
(6.1) |
Using the notation of Example 1, the Lie algebra is identified with through the isomorphism The elements of the basis of the Lie algebra are ,
which satisfy . Thus, the kinematic equations (6.1) take the form and give rise to a left-invariant control system on . The inner product on is given by for and hence, the norm is given by for any . The dual Lie algebra of is defined through the dual pairing, , where and , hence, the elements of the basis of are .
Consider the cost function and the artificial potential function given by , where and is the radius of the disk each agent occupies as defined at the end of Section Ⅲ. Consider a spherical obstacle with unit radius and without loss of generality let it be centered at the origin. Hence, consider the obstacle avoidance potential function , , where .
Note that the obstacle avoidance potential functions are not -invariant but -invariant, so they break the symmetry. Using the norm of and for , and are equivalently given by and .
Let , so we define the extended potential functions by , which are -invariant under the action of given by (3.6), i.e. for any . Since, we have , and equations (4.2) and (4.3) yield
together with and .
Note also that , and thus,
where and .
Therefore, by applying Proposition 4.2 for and , Euler-Lagrange equations for the OCP (3.4) are
with
For the discrete-time setting, one would choose
where and . Also, in the discrete-time setting, the extended potential function can be constructed in exactly the same way as in the above example, and is given by
where . We do not give all the details again and leave it up to reader to verify that the assumptions (ⅰ) - (ⅶ) from (3.3) are satisfied. The discrete-time equations are
where
For numerical purposes, we first choose a suitable retraction map, like the Cayley map or the exponential map, and then compute the quantities and . As an example, if we choose the Cayley map as the retraction map, (see [38] and [17] for instance) then we have
where
and . Note that for , the matrix representation for is given by
We studied the reduction by symmetry for optimality conditions of extremal in an OCP for collision and obstacle avoidance of left-invariant multi-agent control system on Lie groups, by exploiting the physical symmetries of the agents and obstacles. Reduced optimality conditions are obtained using techniques from variational calculus and Lagrangian mechanics on Lie groups, in the continuous-time and discrete-time settings. We applied the results to an OCP for multiple unmanned surface vehicles. The method proposed in this work allows the construction of position and velocity estimators, by discretizing the variational equation given in Theorem 4.1 - instead of discretizing the equations of motion - and by deriving variational integrators - see Theorem 5.2. The reduction of sufficient conditions for optimality will be also studied by using the notion of conjugate points, as in [42], in future work, as well as the reduction by symmetry of the variational obstacle avoidance problems [43] on semidirect products of Lie groups endowed with a bi-invariant metric on a Riemannian manifold.
L. Colombo is very grateful to A. Bloch, R. Gupta and T. Ohsawa for many useful comments and stimulating discussions during the last years on the topic of this paper, which is inspired by our common previous work.
The authors acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, under grants PID2019-106715GB-C21, MTM2016-76702-P.
We the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
A. M. Bloch, D. E. Chang, N. E. Leonard, J. E. Marsden, Controlled Lagrangians and the stabilization of mechanical systems. Ⅱ. Potential shaping, IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 46 (2001), 1556–1571. https://doi.org/10.1109/9.956051 doi: 10.1109/9.956051
![]() |
[2] |
S. Bonnabel, P. M. Silvere, P. Rouchon, Symmetry-preserving observers. IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 53 (2008), 2514–2526. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.2006929 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2008.2006929
![]() |
[3] | C. Contreras, T. Ohsawa, Controlled Lagrangians and stabilization of Euler–Poincaré mechanical systems with broken symmetry Ⅱ: potential shaping, Math. Control. Signal., 2021. |
[4] |
A. Echeverría-Enríquez, J. Marín-Solano, M. C. Munoz-Lecanda, N. Román-Roy, Geometric Reduction in optimal control theory with symmetries, Rep. Math. Phys., 52 (2003), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4877(03)90006-1 doi: 10.1016/S0034-4877(03)90006-1
![]() |
[5] | A. S. R. Ferreira, C. Meissen, M. Arcak, A. Packard, Symmetry reduction for performance certification of interconnected systems, IEEE. T. Control. Netw., 5 (2017), 525–535. |
[6] |
J. W. Grizzle, S. I. Marcus, The structure of nonlinear control systems possessing symmetries, IEEE. Trans. Auto. Control., 30 (1985), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1985.1103927 doi: 10.1109/TAC.1985.1103927
![]() |
[7] |
A. Khosravian, J. Trumpf, R. Mahony, T. Hamel, State estimation for invariant systems on lie groups with delayed output measurements, Automatica, 68 (2016), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2016.01.024 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.01.024
![]() |
[8] |
C. Lageman, J. Trumpf, R. Mahony, Gradient-like observers for invariant dynamics on a Lie group, IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 55 (2010), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2009.2034937 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2009.2034937
![]() |
[9] |
M. de León, J. Cortés, D. Martín de Diego, S. Martínez, General symmetries in optimal control, Rep. Math. Phys., 53 (2004), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4877(04)90004-3 doi: 10.1016/S0034-4877(04)90004-3
![]() |
[10] |
R. Mahony, T. Hamel, J. M. Pflimlin, Non-linear complementary filters on the special orthogonal group, IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 53 (2008), 1203–1218. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.923738 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2008.923738
![]() |
[11] |
A. J. van der Schaft, Symmetries and conservation laws for hamiltonian systems with inputs and outputs: A generalization of Noether's theorem, Sys. Contr. Lett., 1 (1981), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6911(81)80046-1 doi: 10.1016/S0167-6911(81)80046-1
![]() |
[12] |
A. Saccon, J. Hauser, A. P. Aguiar, Optimal control on Lie groups: The projection operator approach, IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 58 (2013), 2230–2245. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2013.2258817 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2013.2258817
![]() |
[13] |
A. Sarlette, S. Bonnabel, R. Sepulchre, Coordinated motion design on lie groups, IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 55 (2010), 1047–1058. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2010.2042003 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2010.2042003
![]() |
[14] | V. Jurdjevic, Geometric control theory, Cambridge University, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511530036 |
[15] | A. M. Bloch, Nonholonomic mechanics and control, Springer-Verlag New York, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3017-3 |
[16] | L. Colombo, D. V. Dimarogonas, Symmetry Reduction in Optimal Control of Multiagent Systems on Lie Groups, in IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 65 (2020), 4973–4980. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2020.3004795 |
[17] |
W. S. Koon, J. E. Marsden, Optimal control for holonomic and nonholonomic mechanical systems with symmetry and Lagrangian reduction, Siam. J. Control. Optim., 35 (1997), 901–929. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0363012995290367 doi: 10.1137/S0363012995290367
![]() |
[18] | P. S. Krishnaprasad, Optimal Control and Poisson Reduction, Technical Report T.R. 93–87, Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1993. |
[19] |
T. Ohsawa, Symmetry reduction of optimal control systems and principal connections, Siam. J. Control. Optim., 51 (2012), 96–120. https://doi.org/10.1137/110835219 doi: 10.1137/110835219
![]() |
[20] | T. Ohsawa, Poisson Reduction of Optimal Control Systems, 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2011.6161027 |
[21] |
N. Leonard, P. Krishnaprasad, Motion control of drift-free, left-invariant systems on lie groups, IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 40 (1995), 1539–1554. https://doi.org/10.1109/9.412625 doi: 10.1109/9.412625
![]() |
[22] | E. Stratoglou, L. Colombo, T. Ohsawa, Optimal Control with Broken Symmetry of Multi-Agent Systems on Lie Groups. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2204.06050, 2022. |
[23] | C. Vasile, M. Schwager, C. Belta, SE(N) invariance in networked systems, In 2015 European Control Conference, 186–191, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECC.2015.7330544 |
[24] |
E. Justh, P. Krishnaprasad, Optimality, reduction and collective motion, Proc. R. Soc. A., 471 (2015), 20140606. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2014.0606 doi: 10.1098/rspa.2014.0606
![]() |
[25] |
C. Vasile, M. Schwager, C. Belta, Translational and rotational invariance in networked dynamical systems, IEEE. T. Control. Netw., 5 (2017), 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2017.2648499 doi: 10.1109/TCNS.2017.2648499
![]() |
[26] |
A. M. Bloch, L. J. Colombo, R. Gupta, T. Ohsawa, Optimal control problems with symmetry breaking cost functions, Siam. J. Appl. Algebr. G., 1 (2017), 626–646. https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1091654 doi: 10.1137/16M1091654
![]() |
[27] |
C. Contreras, T. Ohsawa, Stabilization of Mechanical Systems on Semidirect Product Lie Groups with Broken Symmetry via Controlled Lagrangians, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 54 (2021), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.11.063 doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.11.063
![]() |
[28] |
F. Gay-Balmaz, T. S. Ratiu, Clebsch optimal control formulation in mechanics, J. Geom. Mech., 3 (2011), 41–79. https://doi.org/10.3934/jgm.2011.3.41 doi: 10.3934/jgm.2011.3.41
![]() |
[29] |
F. Gay-Balmaz, Cesare Tronci, Reduction theory for symmetry breaking with applications to nematic systems, Physica. D., 239 (2010), 1929–1947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2010.07.002 doi: 10.1016/j.physd.2010.07.002
![]() |
[30] |
D. Holm, J. E. Marsden, T. S. Ratiu, The Euler-Poincaré equations and semidirect products with application to continuum theories, Adv. Math., 137 (1998), 1–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/aima.1998.1721 doi: 10.1006/aima.1998.1721
![]() |
[31] | J. E. Marsden, T. S. Ratiu, A. Weinstein, Reduction and Hamiltonian structures on duals of semidirect product Lie algebras, Cont. Math. AMS., 28 (1984), 55–100. |
[32] |
J. Marsden, T. Ratiu, A. Weinstein, Semidirect products and reduction in mechanics, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 281 (1984), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-1984-0719663-1 doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1984-0719663-1
![]() |
[33] | D. Holm, T. Schmah, C. Stoica, Geometric mechanics and symmetry, Oxford University Press, 2009. |
[34] | J. Marsden, T. Ratiu, Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry, Springer-Verlag, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21792-5 |
[35] | D. Holm, Geometric Mechanics, Part Ⅱ, Imperial College Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1142/p549 |
[36] | R. Olfati-Saber, R. M. Murray, Distributed cooperative control of multiple vehicle formations using structural potential functions, IFAC world congress, 15 (2002), 242–248. |
[37] | A. W. Knapp, Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction, Birkhauser Boston, Boston, 2002. |
[38] |
N. Bou-Rabee, J. E. Marsden, Hamilton–Pontryagin integrators on Lie groups part I: Introduction and structure-preserving properties, Found. Comput. Math., 9 (2009), 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208-008-9030-4 doi: 10.1007/s10208-008-9030-4
![]() |
[39] |
M. Kobilarov, J. Marsden, Discrete geometric optimal control on Lie groups, IEEE. T. Robot., 27 (2011), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2011.2139130 doi: 10.1109/TRO.2011.2139130
![]() |
[40] |
J. Marsden, S. Pekarsky, S. Shkoller, Discrete Euler-Poincaré and lie-poisson equations, Nonlinearity, 12 (1999), 1647. https://doi.org/10.1088/0951-7715/12/6/314 doi: 10.1088/0951-7715/12/6/314
![]() |
[41] |
J. Marsden, M. West, Discrete Mechanics and variational integrators, Acta, Numerica, , 10 (2001), 357–514. https://doi.org/10.1017/S096249290100006X doi: 10.1017/S096249290100006X
![]() |
[42] |
A. Borum, T. Bretl, Reduction of sufficient conditions for optimal control problems with subgroup symmetry, IEEE. T. Automat. Contr., 62 (2017), 3209–3224. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016.2628638 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2016.2628638
![]() |
[43] |
J. Goodman, L. Colombo, Collision Avoidance of Multiagent Systems on Riemannian Manifolds, Siam. J. Control. Optim., 60 (2022), 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1411056 doi: 10.1137/21M1411056
![]() |
1. | Margarida Camarinha, A natural 4th-order generalization of the geodesic problem, 2024, 32, 2688-1594, 3396, 10.3934/era.2024157 | |
2. | Alexandre Anahory, Leonardo J. Colombo, Manuel de Leon, Juan Carlos Marrero, David Martín de Diego, Edith Padrón, Reduction by Symmetries of Contact Mechanical Systems on Lie Groups, 2024, 8, 2470-6566, 821, 10.1137/23M1616935 |