High Order Tuners for Adaptive Safety of Robotic Systems

Max H. Cohen; Mohammad Mirtaba

arxiv: 2604.14308 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

High Order Tuners for Adaptive Safety of Robotic Systems

Mohammad Mirtaba , Max H. Cohen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords adaptive safetycontrol barrier functionshigh-order tunersrobotic systemsset invarianceparametric uncertaintiesadaptive controlforward invariance

0 comments

The pith

High-order tuners decouple adaptation gain conditions from initial conditions required for set invariance in adaptive safety of robotic systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that high-order tuners, a class of adaptation laws applying different gains across differentiation orders, relax the conservative requirements in combining control barrier functions with adaptive control. Traditionally, safety guarantees demand either very large adaptation gains or tightly restricted initial states, both of which limit practical use. By separating these constraints, the approach allows modest gains while still ensuring the system stays inside a safe set. The linear-in-the-parameters structure common to robotic dynamics makes the extension straightforward and effective. Simulations confirm that safety holds under broader operating conditions than standard tuners permit.

Core claim

High-order tuners decouple adaptation gain conditions from those placed on the initial conditions of the system required for set invariance. This decoupling arises because the tuners leverage distinct adaptation gains at different orders of differentiation, and the results extend directly to robotic systems because their linear-in-the-parameters structure aligns naturally with the adaptive control laws that preserve forward invariance of the safe set when paired with control barrier functions.

What carries the argument

High-order tuners, higher-order adaptation laws that apply different gains at successive differentiation orders, which separate gain tuning from initial-state restrictions while preserving set invariance under control barrier functions.

If this is right

Safety can be certified with smaller adaptation gains than those demanded by first-order methods.
A wider set of initial states satisfies the invariance conditions without changing the controller structure.
Robotic systems become more amenable to adaptive safety because their linear parameter dependence fits the required regressor form.
Performance trade-offs between speed of adaptation and safety margins are reduced.
The same framework applies to other nonlinear systems that admit a similar parametric structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Real-time implementation on robots may become easier when gains no longer need to be pushed high to meet safety margins.
The decoupling could be tested on physical hardware with varying payloads to see whether the predicted invariance holds under sensor noise.
Similar high-order structures might relax safety constraints in other adaptive control settings such as aircraft or autonomous vehicles.
If the linear-in-parameters assumption is relaxed, the same tuner idea might still apply after suitable approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The high-order tuner dynamics must combine with control barrier functions in a way that keeps the safe set forward invariant, and the robotic system must have a linear-in-the-parameters representation.

What would settle it

A closed-loop simulation or hardware test of a robotic manipulator in which the safe set is violated under the high-order tuner despite satisfying the paper's stated gain and initial-condition bounds, or in which the decoupling between gain and initial conditions fails to appear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14308 by Max H. Cohen, Mohammad Mirtaba.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Adaptive safety of robotic system: (a) angle of the fir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The combination of control barrier functions (CBFs) and adaptive control -- a framework referred to as adaptive safety -- has proven to be a powerful paradigm for safety-critical control of nonlinear systems with parametric uncertainties. Yet the theoretical conditions for forward invariance within this framework are often quite conservative, and may require using large adaptation gains to achieve acceptable performance, an approach that is traditionally discouraged in adaptive control. This paper mitigates these issues via high-order tuners, a recent class of higher-order adaptation laws that leverages different adaptation gains at different orders of differentiation. We illustrate that these high-order tuners decouple adaptation gain conditions from those placed on the initial conditions of the system required for set invariance. We extend these results to robotic systems whose linear-in-the-parameters structure proves particularly useful for adaptive control. The efficacy of our results are illustrated via simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

High-order tuners relax the gain-versus-initial-state trade-off in adaptive CBF safety for robots, but only if the proofs keep the barrier derivative clean of hidden initial-condition terms.

read the letter

The paper takes recent high-order tuner adaptation laws and applies them to adaptive safety with control barrier functions on robotic systems. The central claim is that these tuners let you pick adaptation gains without also tightening the initial-condition bounds needed for forward invariance of the safe set. That directly targets a known practical headache in the field: large gains improve tracking but are usually avoided, while small gains force conservative starting states to keep the barrier condition satisfied under uncertainty. The extension to linear-in-the-parameters Euler-Lagrange dynamics is a natural fit, since robots already use that structure in standard adaptive controllers. Simulations are used to show the approach in action, which is useful for seeing whether performance improves without the usual compromises. The work is honest about building on prior tuner results rather than inventing a new framework from scratch. The linear-in-parameters property is leveraged cleanly to handle the parametric uncertainty in the barrier Lie derivative. That part looks solid on the surface. The soft spot is the strength of the invariance guarantee. The abstract says the tuners “illustrate” the decoupling, which leaves open whether a general theorem holds for arbitrary initial states inside the safe set or whether extra conditions on the higher-order filter states sneak back in. If the closed-loop barrier condition retains residual terms that scale with initial state or require retuning the tuner parameters, the claimed separation weakens. The stress-test note about cross terms in the composite derivative is worth checking in the proofs; if those terms are absent or bounded independently of gain, the result holds up. Otherwise the benefit is narrower than stated. This paper is for researchers already working on safe adaptive control of physical robots who want to reduce conservatism in CBF-based methods. A reader who needs concrete examples of relaxed conditions will find the simulations helpful. The math and citation pattern look standard and reproducible enough to warrant a serious referee, even if the proofs need tightening.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an adaptive safety framework for nonlinear systems and robotic systems using high-order tuners combined with control barrier functions. It claims to show that high-order tuners decouple adaptation gain conditions from initial condition constraints needed for forward invariance of the safe set. The linear-in-the-parameters structure of robotic dynamics is leveraged for the extension, and results are demonstrated via simulations.

Significance. This contribution is significant because it potentially allows practitioners to use larger adaptation gains for better performance in safety-critical robotic control without needing to tune initial conditions restrictively. The decoupling result addresses a known conservatism in adaptive CBF methods. The robotic extension is well-motivated and the simulations support practical applicability.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract uses 'illustrate' for the decoupling result; if a general theorem is proven in the main text, consider referencing the specific theorem number to clarify the strength of the claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your positive recommendation of minor revision. We appreciate your recognition of the potential impact of high-order tuners in relaxing conservative conditions in adaptive safety frameworks for robotic systems. As the report does not include any major comments, we do not have specific responses to provide at this time. We will carefully consider any minor revisions suggested and update the manuscript accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an illustration that high-order tuners decouple adaptation gains from initial-condition requirements for set invariance, extended to robotic systems via their linear-in-the-parameters structure. No load-bearing step in the abstract or described results reduces a prediction or invariance condition to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or unverified self-citation chain. The high-order tuners are referenced as a recent external class of adaptation laws, and the robotic extension uses a standard property of Euler-Lagrange dynamics rather than redefining the result in terms of its own outputs. The derivation remains self-contained against the stated assumptions without the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the mathematical properties of high-order tuners preserving set invariance when combined with CBFs, plus the linear-in-the-parameters structure of robotic dynamics. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Robotic system dynamics admit a linear-in-the-parameters representation suitable for adaptive control.
Explicitly stated in the abstract as the structure that makes the extension useful.
domain assumption High-order tuners can be designed to satisfy the conditions for forward invariance of the safe set.
The decoupling result is presented as following from this property of the tuners.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5436 in / 1280 out tokens · 41948 ms · 2026-05-10T12:20:57.508391+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,

A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P . Tabuada, “Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

On the adaptive control of robo t manipu- lators,

J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li, “On the adaptive control of robo t manipu- lators,” International Journal of Robotics Research , 1987

work page 1987
[3]

J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control . Pearson, 1991

work page 1991
[4]

Krsti´ c, I

M. Krsti´ c, I. Kanellakopoulus, and P . Kokotovi´ c, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design . Wiley, 1995

work page 1995
[5]

Adaptive safety with control barrier functions,

A. J. Taylor and A. D. Ames, “Adaptive safety with control barrier functions,” in Proc. Amer . Control Conf., pp. 1399–1405, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,

B. T. Lopez, J. J. Slotine, and J. P . How, “Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1031–1036, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

L1 adaptive control barrier f unctions for nonlinear underactuated systems,

Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “L1 adaptive control barrier f unctions for nonlinear underactuated systems,” in 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 721–728, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Ad aptive safety with multiple barrier functions using integral concurrent learning,

A. Isaly, O. S. Patil, R. G. Sanfelice, and W. E. Dixon, “Ad aptive safety with multiple barrier functions using integral concurrent learning,” in Proc. Amer . Control Conf., pp. 3719–3724, 2021

work page 2021
[9]

M. H. Cohen and C. Belta, Adaptive and Learning-based Control of Safety-Critical Systems . Springer Nature, 2023

work page 2023
[10]

Adaptive model pred ictive control for constrained nonlinear systems,

V . Adetola, D. DeHaan, and M. Guay, “Adaptive model pred ictive control for constrained nonlinear systems,” Systems & Control Letters , vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 320–326, 2009

work page 2009
[11]

Dual adaptiv e model predictive control,

T. A. N. Heirung, B. E. Ydstie, and B. Foss, “Dual adaptiv e model predictive control,” Automatica, vol. 80, pp. 340–348, 2017

work page 2017
[12]

Learni ng-based parameter-adaptive reference governors,

A. Chakrabarty, K. Berntorp, and S. Di Cairano, “Learni ng-based parameter-adaptive reference governors,” in 2020 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 956–961, 2020

work page 2020
[13]

A class of high order tuners for adaptive syste ms,

J. E. Gaudio, A. M. Annaswamy, M. A. Bolender, E. Lavrets ky, and T. E. Gibson, “A class of high order tuners for adaptive syste ms,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 391–396, 2021

work page 2021
[14]

Integral concurrent learning-based accelerated gradient adaptive control of uncertain euler-lagrange systems,

D. M. Le, O. S. Patil, P . M. Amy, and W. E. Dixon, “Integral concurrent learning-based accelerated gradient adaptive control of uncertain euler-lagrange systems,” in Proc. Amer . Control Conf., 2022

work page 2022
[15]

Concurrent learning in high-ord er tuners for parameter identiﬁcation,

J. H. Le and A. R. Teel, “Concurrent learning in high-ord er tuners for parameter identiﬁcation,” in Proc. Conf. Decis. Control , 2022

work page 2022
[16]

A method of solving a convex programming p roblem with convergence rate o (1/k 2),

Y . Nesterov, “A method of solving a convex programming p roblem with convergence rate o (1/k 2),” Proc. USSR Acad. Sci. , 1983

work page 1983
[17]

A differential equatio n for modeling nesterov’s accelerated gradient method: Theory and insigh ts,

W. Su, S. Boyd, and E. J. Candes, “A differential equatio n for modeling nesterov’s accelerated gradient method: Theory and insigh ts,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 17, no. 153, 2016

work page 2016
[18]

A variation al per- spective on accelerated methods in optimization,

A. Wibisono, A. C. Wilson, and M. I. Jordan, “A variation al per- spective on accelerated methods in optimization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 113, no. 47, 2016

work page 2016
[19]

Robust adaptive control barrier functions for input-afﬁne system s: Application to uncertain manipulator safety constraints,

D. Zeng, Y . Jiang, Y . Wang, H. Zhang, and Y . Feng, “Robust adaptive control barrier functions for input-afﬁne system s: Application to uncertain manipulator safety constraints,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 8, pp. 279–284, 2024

work page 2024
[20]

State-constrained online adap- tive control for robotic manipulators,

R. Dey, A. Sahoo, and V . Narayanan, “State-constrained online adap- tive control for robotic manipulators,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 9, pp. 2855–2860, 2025

work page 2025
[21]

Model-free safety-critical control for roboti c systems,

T. G. Molnar, R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, W. Ubellack er, and A. D. Ames, “Model-free safety-critical control for roboti c systems,” IEEE Robot. Aut. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 944–951, 2022

work page 2022
[22]

Safety-critic al control for autonomous systems: Control barrier functions via redu ced order models,

M. H. Cohen, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safety-critic al control for autonomous systems: Control barrier functions via redu ced order models,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 57, p. 100947, 2024

work page 2024
[23]

Characterizing saf ety: Minimal control barrier functions from scalar comparison s ystems,

R. Konda, A. D. Ames, and S. Coogan, “Characterizing saf ety: Minimal control barrier functions from scalar comparison s ystems,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 523–528, 2021

work page 2021
[24]

Character izing smooth safety ﬁlters via the implicit function theorem,

M. H. Cohen, P . Ong, G. Bahati, and A. D. Ames, “Character izing smooth safety ﬁlters via the implicit function theorem,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 7, pp. 3890–3895, 2023

work page 2023
[25]

Input-to-state safety wit h control barrier functions,

S. Kolathaya and A. D. Ames, “Input-to-state safety wit h control barrier functions,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 3, no. 1, 2019

work page 2019
[26]

Integral c oncurrent learning: Adaptive control with parameter convergence usi ng ﬁnite excitation,

A. Parikh, R. Kamalapurkar, and W. E. Dixon, “Integral c oncurrent learning: Adaptive control with parameter convergence usi ng ﬁnite excitation,” International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1775–1787, 2019

work page 2019
[27]

Constructive s afety- critical control: Synthesizing control barrier functions for partially feedback linearizable systems,

M. H. Cohen, R. K. Cosner, and A. D. Ames, “Constructive s afety- critical control: Synthesizing control barrier functions for partially feedback linearizable systems,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , 2024

work page 2024
[28]

H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems . Prentice Hall, 3 ed., 2002

work page 2002
[29]

Safe ba ckstep- ping with control barrier functions,

A. J. Taylor, P . Ong, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safe ba ckstep- ping with control barrier functions,” in Proc. Conf. Decis. Control , 2022

work page 2022
[30]

Composing control barrier f unctions for complex safety speciﬁcations,

T. G. Molnar and A. D. Ames, “Composing control barrier f unctions for complex safety speciﬁcations,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , 2023

work page 2023

[1] [1]

Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,

A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P . Tabuada, “Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [2]

On the adaptive control of robo t manipu- lators,

J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li, “On the adaptive control of robo t manipu- lators,” International Journal of Robotics Research , 1987

work page 1987

[3] [3]

J. J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control . Pearson, 1991

work page 1991

[4] [4]

Krsti´ c, I

M. Krsti´ c, I. Kanellakopoulus, and P . Kokotovi´ c, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design . Wiley, 1995

work page 1995

[5] [5]

Adaptive safety with control barrier functions,

A. J. Taylor and A. D. Ames, “Adaptive safety with control barrier functions,” in Proc. Amer . Control Conf., pp. 1399–1405, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,

B. T. Lopez, J. J. Slotine, and J. P . How, “Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1031–1036, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

L1 adaptive control barrier f unctions for nonlinear underactuated systems,

Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “L1 adaptive control barrier f unctions for nonlinear underactuated systems,” in 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 721–728, 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Ad aptive safety with multiple barrier functions using integral concurrent learning,

A. Isaly, O. S. Patil, R. G. Sanfelice, and W. E. Dixon, “Ad aptive safety with multiple barrier functions using integral concurrent learning,” in Proc. Amer . Control Conf., pp. 3719–3724, 2021

work page 2021

[9] [9]

M. H. Cohen and C. Belta, Adaptive and Learning-based Control of Safety-Critical Systems . Springer Nature, 2023

work page 2023

[10] [10]

Adaptive model pred ictive control for constrained nonlinear systems,

V . Adetola, D. DeHaan, and M. Guay, “Adaptive model pred ictive control for constrained nonlinear systems,” Systems & Control Letters , vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 320–326, 2009

work page 2009

[11] [11]

Dual adaptiv e model predictive control,

T. A. N. Heirung, B. E. Ydstie, and B. Foss, “Dual adaptiv e model predictive control,” Automatica, vol. 80, pp. 340–348, 2017

work page 2017

[12] [12]

Learni ng-based parameter-adaptive reference governors,

A. Chakrabarty, K. Berntorp, and S. Di Cairano, “Learni ng-based parameter-adaptive reference governors,” in 2020 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 956–961, 2020

work page 2020

[13] [13]

A class of high order tuners for adaptive syste ms,

J. E. Gaudio, A. M. Annaswamy, M. A. Bolender, E. Lavrets ky, and T. E. Gibson, “A class of high order tuners for adaptive syste ms,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 391–396, 2021

work page 2021

[14] [14]

Integral concurrent learning-based accelerated gradient adaptive control of uncertain euler-lagrange systems,

D. M. Le, O. S. Patil, P . M. Amy, and W. E. Dixon, “Integral concurrent learning-based accelerated gradient adaptive control of uncertain euler-lagrange systems,” in Proc. Amer . Control Conf., 2022

work page 2022

[15] [15]

Concurrent learning in high-ord er tuners for parameter identiﬁcation,

J. H. Le and A. R. Teel, “Concurrent learning in high-ord er tuners for parameter identiﬁcation,” in Proc. Conf. Decis. Control , 2022

work page 2022

[16] [16]

A method of solving a convex programming p roblem with convergence rate o (1/k 2),

Y . Nesterov, “A method of solving a convex programming p roblem with convergence rate o (1/k 2),” Proc. USSR Acad. Sci. , 1983

work page 1983

[17] [17]

A differential equatio n for modeling nesterov’s accelerated gradient method: Theory and insigh ts,

W. Su, S. Boyd, and E. J. Candes, “A differential equatio n for modeling nesterov’s accelerated gradient method: Theory and insigh ts,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 17, no. 153, 2016

work page 2016

[18] [18]

A variation al per- spective on accelerated methods in optimization,

A. Wibisono, A. C. Wilson, and M. I. Jordan, “A variation al per- spective on accelerated methods in optimization,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 113, no. 47, 2016

work page 2016

[19] [19]

Robust adaptive control barrier functions for input-afﬁne system s: Application to uncertain manipulator safety constraints,

D. Zeng, Y . Jiang, Y . Wang, H. Zhang, and Y . Feng, “Robust adaptive control barrier functions for input-afﬁne system s: Application to uncertain manipulator safety constraints,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 8, pp. 279–284, 2024

work page 2024

[20] [20]

State-constrained online adap- tive control for robotic manipulators,

R. Dey, A. Sahoo, and V . Narayanan, “State-constrained online adap- tive control for robotic manipulators,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 9, pp. 2855–2860, 2025

work page 2025

[21] [21]

Model-free safety-critical control for roboti c systems,

T. G. Molnar, R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, W. Ubellack er, and A. D. Ames, “Model-free safety-critical control for roboti c systems,” IEEE Robot. Aut. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 944–951, 2022

work page 2022

[22] [22]

Safety-critic al control for autonomous systems: Control barrier functions via redu ced order models,

M. H. Cohen, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safety-critic al control for autonomous systems: Control barrier functions via redu ced order models,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 57, p. 100947, 2024

work page 2024

[23] [23]

Characterizing saf ety: Minimal control barrier functions from scalar comparison s ystems,

R. Konda, A. D. Ames, and S. Coogan, “Characterizing saf ety: Minimal control barrier functions from scalar comparison s ystems,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 523–528, 2021

work page 2021

[24] [24]

Character izing smooth safety ﬁlters via the implicit function theorem,

M. H. Cohen, P . Ong, G. Bahati, and A. D. Ames, “Character izing smooth safety ﬁlters via the implicit function theorem,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 7, pp. 3890–3895, 2023

work page 2023

[25] [25]

Input-to-state safety wit h control barrier functions,

S. Kolathaya and A. D. Ames, “Input-to-state safety wit h control barrier functions,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , vol. 3, no. 1, 2019

work page 2019

[26] [26]

Integral c oncurrent learning: Adaptive control with parameter convergence usi ng ﬁnite excitation,

A. Parikh, R. Kamalapurkar, and W. E. Dixon, “Integral c oncurrent learning: Adaptive control with parameter convergence usi ng ﬁnite excitation,” International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 1775–1787, 2019

work page 2019

[27] [27]

Constructive s afety- critical control: Synthesizing control barrier functions for partially feedback linearizable systems,

M. H. Cohen, R. K. Cosner, and A. D. Ames, “Constructive s afety- critical control: Synthesizing control barrier functions for partially feedback linearizable systems,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , 2024

work page 2024

[28] [28]

H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems . Prentice Hall, 3 ed., 2002

work page 2002

[29] [29]

Safe ba ckstep- ping with control barrier functions,

A. J. Taylor, P . Ong, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safe ba ckstep- ping with control barrier functions,” in Proc. Conf. Decis. Control , 2022

work page 2022

[30] [30]

Composing control barrier f unctions for complex safety speciﬁcations,

T. G. Molnar and A. D. Ames, “Composing control barrier f unctions for complex safety speciﬁcations,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Lett. , 2023

work page 2023