Struggling to get good performance when constraints are active

[baggepinnen]

Hi there :wave:

I'm exploring using TinyMPC to generate MPC controllers from Julia the JuliaControl ecosystem, and have setup a small little example with 5 state variables, 1 input and a prediction horizon of 10 (a double mass-spring-damper). It seems no matter how I tune rho, I get poor performance whenever any constraint is active. Below is an example run, where the execution time of the optimization is plotted as a function of the iteration index on the right. Most runs of this tiny problem take several hundreds of ms, and this is on a desktop PC. OSQP is close to 100x faster on this example, converging to the same estimate of rho as the best tuning I could find for TinyMPC.

I had a look at the example problems that were included in the TinyMPC repository, the pendulum-on-cart and quadrotor problems. Both of those examples have constrains set such that they are never active during the simulation, is this right? If so, why linear MPC over standard LQR in such an example?

I pushed my little interface to a branch here https://github.com/JuliaControl/RobustAndOptimalControl.jl/blob/e74066e2c0205385d829e79061847c23a521339a/src/mpc.jl but I also include my Pluto notebook together with a rendered HTML file of the notebook below if you want to have a look. I changed the convergence tolerance and the maximum number of iterations in codegen.cpp such that the calculation of Kinf and Pinf would converge to something accurate.

TinyMPC_benchmark.zip

Do you have any example where you benchmark TinyMPC where constraints are active? Active constraints would be the only motivation I can see to use linear-quadratic MPC over LQR. Hopefully I have missed something in my little evaluation, but I have stared at the problem for a while now without any luck :sweat_smile:

[peterkrull]

I am also wondering about this. The original paper says

TinyMPC ran [on the Crazyflie] at 500 Hz with a horizon length of N = 15 for the figure-eight tracking task and the attitude-recovery task.

and

TinyMPC converged at all steps within a maximum of 7 iterations and under the allotted 2 ms solve time defined by the 500 Hz control frequency

Which sounds crazy good! But like you, I also find that whenever constraints are active it takes way more iterations to converge, especially when the prediction horizon is short enough for some constraints to "come as a surprise" and thus never be fully satisfied. And if it runs at 500 Hz on a micro controller, a simulation should be nearly instant on a modern desktop.

But also for the obstacle avoidance task,

For the obstacle-avoidance task { ... }. Additionally, we reduced the MPC frequency to 100 Hz and increased N to 20.

the constraints are likely going to be active a lot more of the time, requiring the lower frequency.

My current go-to is to just have a very low number of max iterations, and a longer prediction horizon. Of course this may not be viable with some problems.

[plancherb1]

Some high level thoughts for both of you (since I haven't had to the time to run @baggepinnen code yet but wanted to try to be somewhat responsive):

1. The switching nature of the constraints and activity of them are VERY problem dependent. Ideally, you'd be able to tune your cost function a bit as well to avoid a lot of switching or active constraints. (The secret behind most good robotics demos is a lot of hyperparameter tuning - whether MPC or RL or anything else).
2. That said, do also be careful to tune the rho parameter. It is very important for fast convergence. If you get that tuned correctly, even with a number of active constraints it should converge decently quickly. Although it does seem like @baggepinnen did try that a bit with no luck (that's usually my trick).
3. Our 500 Hz controller ran, if I recall correctly, with a relatively coarse convergence tolerance (which is common for MPC), and so one other issue you may be having is that running to very accurate convergence can be much slower. I would suggest early exists on convergence in general and expect ADMM to do a better job reaching a more accurate solution as it adds in a number of extra bells and whistles for good convergence which we strip out for speed.
4. I've challenged my students to try to build some more examples and so hopefully we can get more of that out by the end of the semester and/or find some time to look at yours in particular!

[baggepinnen]

The secret behind most good robotics demos is a lot of hyperparameter tuning - whether MPC or RL or anything else

This is not how I view linear-quadratic MPC. The tuning is performed with control-oriented objectives, and the QP solver is a robust and mature technology that solves the problem I have specified. If we were talking about nonlinear MPC or extremely large problems I'd be willing to make some concessions, but solving (in this case very small) QPs efficiently should ideally not demand any tweaking with the problem specification.

Our 500 Hz controller ran, if I recall correctly, with a relatively coarse convergence tolerance (which is common for MPC), and so one other issue you may be having is that running to very accurate convergence can be much slower. I would suggest early exists on convergence in general and expect ADMM to do a better job reaching a more accurate solution as it adds in a number of extra bells and whistles for good convergence which we strip out for speed.

I have tried running with relaxed tolerance, but the constraint violations would become so large that the result was meaningless.

[F14V]

I had the exact same problem running it on a development board, I thought I was doing something wrong. When the constraints were restrictive enough to be usable, the algorithm didn't converge in the maximum iterations anymore.