Analyzing Uncertainty in the Spatial Representation of the Kinematic Bicycle Model

Trajectory optimization for autonomous vehicles usually relies on the kinematic bicycle model because of its computational simplicity. However, when the planned trajectory is executed under the true vehicle dynamics, which include lateral slip, tire stiffness and yaw-lateral coupling, safety constraints can be violated owing to the model mismatch. In this paper, we make three theoretical contributions. First, we derive a characteristic speed $v_c=\sqrt{C_αL/M}$ which separates two different mismatch regimes: below $v_c$ the dynamic bicycle initially oversteers inward (safe); above $v_c$ it understeers outward (safety-critical). Second, we prove that the peak outward deviation $\varepsilon^*$ follows a $T^2$ horizon scaling whose coefficient transitions between a transient bound $\frac{1}{2}(v^2-v_c^2)κ$ and a steady-state bound. Third, we obtain a simulation-free analytical coefficient $a_2^{\mathrm{anal}}=\frac{1}{2}(1-v_c^2/v_{\max}^2)T^2$ that is computable from vehicle parameters and the planning horizon alone. Putting these together, we propose Mismatch-Aware Adaptive Constraint Tightening (MACT), $ε(v,κ)=a_2 v^2|κ|$, which replaces a fixed worst-case margin by a state-dependent one that is large at high speed/curvature but nearly zero on gentle paths. Eight numerical experiments confirm the scaling laws. MACT reaches 100% safety with 84% less wasted margin than a fixed-margin baseline on the 2-DOF vehicle, extends to a nonlinear leaning bicycle, and in a closed-loop direct-shooting MPC comparison it cuts the applied margin by 34% compared with tube MPC while keeping the same safety.

Offline models for autonomous robots often fail under time-varying dynamics outside their training distribution. Koopman operator theory offers a linear representation of nonlinear dynamics via lifting, but its transition to real-time recursive estimation may suffer numerical vulnerabilities: covariance windup under low excitation when using exponential forgetting, and vanishing gain without forgetting. This paper introduces a Covariance-Regulated Recursive Koopman Learning (CR-RKL) framework with two complementary strategies--error dead-zone gating and constant-trace normalization--each independently capable of preventing covariance explosion and parameter freezing, with the latter additionally preserving the geometric structure of uncertainty. Validated on a non-holonomic differential-drive robot with wheel slip and Stribeck friction and on a 26-gram butterfly-inspired flapping-wing micro aerial vehicle, CR-RKL achieves numerically stable and accurate online modeling, and when embedded in model predictive control, it maintains reliable tracking performance under uncertain, time-varying dynamics.

When we evaluate the performance of our odometry, it is common practice to score the estimated track against a ground truth. Unfortunately, scoring uses point metrics, such as the root mean square error, that ignore the covariance matrix which estimators like filters and smoothers already report. Using the covariance matters for two reasons. First, the covariance encodes the estimator's uncertainty, so it tells us whether the estimator trusts its own output. An overconfident estimator will not report itself lost. Second, the covariance weights the error in each direction of the estimate. Without the covariance, an estimator is unduly penalized for a high error in an uncertain direction. Instead of point metrics, we should use strictly proper scoring rules. These rules score the estimate together with its reported uncertainty. Strictly proper scoring rules recover the point metrics when no covariance is reported, and they diagnose covariance inconsistency when covariance is reported. Using a one-sided pairwise test, we show that two estimators can expose overconfidence in at least one of them without a ground truth. Strictly proper scoring rules and our pairwise test are available in our open-source framework smfeval. As a case study, we use smfeval to assess the uncertainty quality of the translational component of ground-based LiDAR-inertial odometry. Across four filters we find overconfidence - the worst case reports centimeter certainty with kilometer error. Knowing the filters are overconfident, we investigate the mechanism. The investigation traces overconfidence to filters crediting LiDAR measurements with more new information than they carry.