Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Lateral path tracking stays accurate when speed and acceleration change if the control law embeds those signals and is robustified against parameter error.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 06:03 UTC pith:NXINZ36L

load-bearing objection Solid nonlinear AV lateral-control paper: keeps ˙vx in the error model, proves internal-dynamics ISS and ultimate boundedness for two practical robustifiers, and backs it with multi-vertex sims plus a real Bolt run. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02924 v1 pith:NXINZ36L submitted 2026-07-03 cs.RO

Longitudinal-Motion-Aware Lateral Control for Autonomous Vehicles: A Robust Nonlinear Control Framework

Sixu Li , Nitesh Kumar , Reyshwanth Ganeshan , Sivakumar Rathinam , Swaroop Darbha , Yang Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords lateral controlautonomous vehiclesfeedback linearizationLyapunov redesignincremental nonlinear dynamic inversionparametric uncertaintypath trackinginternal dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Most lateral controllers for self-driving cars still treat speed as constant or as a frozen operating point. That breaks down when the car is accelerating or braking, and it also ignores that mass, inertia, and tire stiffness are never known exactly. This paper derives a tracking-error model that keeps the dependence on longitudinal speed and acceleration, then uses feedback linearization so the steering law itself contains those signals and the lateral-error dynamics become a simple linear system. The leftover internal (heading) dynamics are shown to stay stable under mild conditions on acceleration and jerk. Two robust add-ons—Lyapunov redesign and incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion—are proved to keep the lateral error ultimately bounded when parameters are wrong, each with an explicit tuning knob. Simulations and a real Chevrolet Bolt run show tighter, more consistent tracking than a standard feedback-feedforward baseline across speed changes and parameter extremes.

Core claim

If you keep speed and acceleration inside the tracking-error model and apply input-output feedback linearization, the lateral error can be made to obey a linear dynamics that no longer depends on those signals, while the internal heading dynamics remain input-to-state stable under stated conditions on longitudinal motion; either a sliding-mode-inspired Lyapunov redesign or an incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion law then guarantees ultimate boundedness of the lateral error under bounded parametric uncertainty.

What carries the argument

Longitudinal-motion-aware feedback linearization of the relative-degree-2 map from front steering angle to lateral path error, followed by either Lyapunov redesign (with equivalent-control plus high-slope saturation) or incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion that replaces model terms by measured second derivative of lateral error.

Load-bearing premise

The design and all proofs rest on the usual small-heading-error linearization and on dropping higher-order terms and path-radius rate; if heading error is not small, the linearized plant and the guarantees no longer match the true vehicle.

What would settle it

On a path or initial condition that produces large heading error (or rapid curvature change that violates the neglected Ṙ assumption), measure whether the closed-loop lateral error still enters and stays inside the predicted ultimate bound under the same gains and uncertainty ranges used in the paper.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Lateral controllers can keep consistent path error during simultaneous acceleration and braking instead of retuning for each speed band.
  • Practitioners can choose between a model-heavy robust law (Lyapunov redesign) and a sensing-heavy semi-model-free law (INDI) according to available calibration and sensors.
  • Explicit knobs ϵ and τ trade tracking tightness against steering chatter, giving a concrete robustness-smoothness dial.
  • Internal heading dynamics need not be separately stabilized if longitudinal acceleration and jerk stay within the paper’s mild integrability or magnitude limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same longitudinal-motion-aware linearization may transfer to other underactuated ground vehicles whose error maps have relative degree two.
  • INDI’s reliance on measured lateral acceleration makes it a natural fit for platforms already carrying high-rate IMUs, while LR suits fleets with well-characterized mass and tire bounds.
  • If planners already limit jerk for passenger comfort, they may automatically satisfy the internal-dynamics stability conditions without extra lateral-controller constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a longitudinal-motion-aware robust nonlinear lateral controller for autonomous vehicles. It derives a bicycle-based tracking-error model that retains dependence on time-varying longitudinal speed and acceleration, applies input–output feedback linearization so that the external lateral-error dynamics become linear and independent of longitudinal motion, and analyzes the resulting internal dynamics for ISS under stated conditions on acceleration/jerk. Two robust designs—Lyapunov redesign (LR) with a sliding-mode-inspired continuous correction, and incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion (INDI)—are given with ultimate-boundedness proofs and explicit robustness-tuning parameters (ε and τ). Simulations on a dual-track model with four uncertainty vertices, and real-vehicle tests on a Chevrolet Bolt EUV, report lower RMS lateral error than a feedback–feedforward baseline and confirm real-time implementability.

Significance. The work addresses a genuine and practically relevant gap: many lateral controllers either freeze longitudinal speed or treat it only as a scheduling/uncertain parameter, which can degrade tracking during acceleration and braking. Embedding vx and ˙vx in the feedback law while keeping external dynamics LTI is a clean design idea. The dual robustification (LR more model-dependent, INDI more sensing-dependent) with distinct trade-offs is useful for practitioners. Strengths include explicit internal-dynamics analysis (Props. 1–2), a continuous LR structure with equivalent control, and an INDI ultimate-boundedness argument that avoids Jacobian linearization and global perturbation bounds (Props. 3–4). Multi-vertex simulations, parameter sweeps on ε/τ, and hardware validation on a Bolt EUV further support the contribution. Within the standard small-heading-error modeling regime, the technical development is solid and of clear interest to the AV control community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B] Section II.B, approximations (i)–(iii): the entire subsequent development—relative degree, feedback linearization (20), internal-dynamics ISS (Props. 1–2), and ultimate boundedness (Props. 3–4)—rests on the small-heading-error linearization sin(θ−θ_R)≈θ−θ_R, cos≈1, neglected ˙R, and discarded higher-order terms. The paper cites prior experimental support [10] but does not quantify the domain of validity (e.g., admissible |˜θ| or curvature rate) under which the closed-loop guarantees remain meaningful for the true plant. A short discussion or numerical check of when these approximations break (large initial offset, aggressive urban turns) would make the central claims more precise without changing the proofs.
  2. [Section VI] Section VI: for safety the speed profile of Fig. 5 is scaled by 7 (max ≈4.28 m/s) and the path is similarly scaled. This is far below the simulation regime (up to 30 m/s) and from the dynamic freeway-style conditions used to motivate the work (Fig. 1, NGSIM). Real-time implementability and low-speed path tracking are demonstrated, but the hardware evidence for “consistent performance across varying speeds and accelerations” under realistic longitudinal transients is limited. The abstract and conclusion should state this limitation explicitly, or the authors should add higher-speed hardware results if available.
  3. [Section V.A] Section V.A / baseline comparison: the only comparator is the constant-speed-designed feedback–feedforward controller of [10], chosen because it was developed for the same Lincoln MKZ. While the comparison cleanly isolates the benefit of embedding longitudinal motion, it does not address how the proposed laws perform relative to existing LTV, gain-scheduled, or other nonlinear lateral controllers that already allow speed variation. One additional modern baseline (even in simulation only) would substantially strengthen the performance claim that is central to the contribution list.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III, Proposition 1] Assumption 2 and Prop. 1: the integrability/magnitude conditions on ˙vx and ¨vx are reasonable but could be cross-referenced more clearly to typical longitudinal planner limits so readers can see they are not restrictive in practice.
  2. [Section IV.B, Remark 9] Remark 9 / INDI sensing: ¨elat is obtained via IMU (˙vy). Brief discussion of filtering, delay, or noise sensitivity would help practitioners; the theory assumes continuity of ¨elat on [−τ,0] but does not address measurement quality.
  3. [Tables II and VI] Table II vs Table VI: default gains differ substantially between simulation (Lincoln MKZ) and real vehicle (Bolt EUV). A short note on retuning procedure and transferability would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Section V] Fig. 6–10: axis labels and units are sometimes hard to read in the manuscript text; ensure high-resolution figures with consistent units (m, m/s, rad) in the final version.
  5. [Abstract / Introduction] Typographical: “A Vs” / “A V” spacing appears inconsistently in the abstract and introduction; unify as “AVs” / “AV”.
  6. [Section IV.A, Remark 6] Eq. (39)–(40): αd and γd bounds are computed from Table I extremes; stating the resulting numerical κ0 explicitly in the text (not only max|αd|=0.846) would make the LR design fully self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: ultimate-boundedness and ISS claims are proved from Lyapunov/ISS lemmas on a stated model; experiments tune gains but do not define the theorems.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing chain is: (i) bicycle + small-heading tracking-error model with retained ˙vx terms (Sec. II); (ii) input–output feedback linearization of elat with relative degree 2 and a global linear diffeomorphism to internal state η (Sec. III, Eqs. 20–25); (iii) LTV unforced internal dynamics analyzed via Ioannou–Sun Lemma 1 and ISS via Khalil Lemma 4.6 (Props. 1–2); (iv) LR and INDI robustifications with explicit Lyapunov ultimate-boundedness proofs (Props. 3–4), without Jacobian linearization or a priori global din bounds. None of these steps defines the claimed result in terms of itself, fits a parameter to data and renames the fit a prediction, or imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors. Self-citations ([6],[7],[9],[10],[16],[19]) supply background models, related AV work, and the FF comparison baseline; they are not used to prove Props. 1–4. Gains (k1,k2,ε,τ) are performance-tuned in simulation/hardware but the theorems hold for any stabilizing k1,k2>0 and characterize the bound as a class-K function of ε or of the INDI sampling τ. The modeling approximations (small heading error, neglected Ṙ) are assumptions, not circular reductions. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the classical bicycle model with linear tire forces, standard small-error kinematic approximations, bounded uncertain parameters with known nominals (for LR), and bounded differentiable longitudinal motion. Free parameters are the usual controller gains and robustness knobs (k1,k2,ε,ρ0,τ) tuned for tracking/smoothness. No new physical entities are postulated; LR and INDI are design constructs, not invented particles or forces.

free parameters (4)
  • External gains k1, k2 = sim defaults 0.74/4.81 (LR), 5.66/10.09 (INDI); Bolt 11.52/1.54 (LR), 0.12/4.20 (INDI)
    Chosen so that the linearized external dynamics matrix is Hurwitz; default and vehicle-specific values are hand-tuned (Tables II, VI) for tracking vs. smoothness.
  • LR boundary-layer width ε and ρ0 = sim ε=0.35, ρ0=0.4; Bolt ε=0.25, ρ0=0.50
    Continuous saturation width and extra robustness margin in (45); smaller ε tightens ultimate bound but increases chattering (Remark 8, Fig. 9).
  • INDI sampling lag τ = sim 0.03 s; Bolt 0.01 s
    Delay in incremental update (56)–(57); smaller τ shrinks din and the ultimate bound (Remark 12) but can chatter.
  • FF baseline gains ke, kθ, kθ̇ (real vehicle) = 0.30, 0.15, 0.08
    Retuned on the Bolt for fair comparison (Table VI); not part of the proposed theory but affect experimental claims.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Bicycle model with linear cornering forces Ff=Cf αf, Fr=Cr αr for small slip angles.
    Section II.A, eqs. (4)–(7); standard AV lateral-control premise.
  • domain assumption Small heading error: sin(θ−θ_R)≈θ−θ_R, cos≈1; Ṙ neglected; quadratic/higher state terms discarded.
    Section II.B approximations (i)–(iii); load-bearing for the control-oriented model (14)–(15).
  • domain assumption Parameters z∈{Cf,Cr,m,Iz} are uncertain constants with known bounds and nominals; a,b fixed and known.
    Assumption 1; used for LR uncertainty bounds and INDI semi-model-free claim.
  • domain assumption vx, ˙vx differentiable and bounded with vx,min>0; path radius bounded away from zero so ˙θ_R is bounded.
    Assumption 2; needed for LTV internal dynamics and ISS arguments.
  • domain assumption (A1) (a+b)Cr > am|˙vx,min| so Aη(t) is Hurwitz for all t.
    Proposition 1; Remark 4 argues it is mild for passenger cars.
  • standard math Lemma 1 (Ioannou–Sun Thm 3.4.11) on GES of LTV systems under eigenvalue and ˙A conditions.
    Invoked to prove Prop. 1 for unforced internal dynamics.
  • standard math Khalil Lemma 4.6 / Thm 4.18 for ISS and ultimate boundedness.
    Used in Props. 2–4.
  • ad hoc to paper For INDI: ¨elat and δf continuous on [−τ,0]; ξ stays in a compact ball so din can be made small by small τ.
    Lemma 2 / Prop. 4 hypotheses; semi-global character of the INDI result.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26807 in / 3978 out tokens · 38171 ms · 2026-07-12T06:03:59.108007+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

As autonomous vehicles (AVs) operate in increasingly dynamic traffic conditions, lateral control must be performed while longitudinal speed and acceleration vary. Yet many existing lateral controllers rely on constant-speed or operating-point-based assumptions, which can degrade performance during transient longitudinal maneuvers. Moreover, most methods assume precisely known vehicle parameters, despite real-world parametric uncertainties. To address these limitations, this paper presents a longitudinal-motion-aware robust nonlinear lateral control framework for AVs. It first derives a tracking error model that depends on varying longitudinal speed and acceleration. Using this model, feedback linearization is employed to obtain a linear input-output relation for lateral error tracking while embedding longitudinal motion into the control law. The resulting internal dynamics are then analyzed to ensure overall system stability. To address parameter uncertainty, two robust control designs with distinct implementation trade-offs are proposed: (i) a Lyapunov redesign (LR) approach inspired by sliding mode control, and (ii) an incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion (INDI) method. Both are rigorously analyzed and proven to ensure ultimate boundedness, with key robustness-tuning parameters explicitly identified. Simulations demonstrate enhanced tracking accuracy, consistent performance across varying speeds and accelerations, and robustness to model uncertainties, while also examining the effects of the robustness-related parameters. Real-vehicle tests further confirm real-time implementation and practical path-tracking performance on actual hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02924 by Nitesh Kumar, Reyshwanth Ganeshan, Sivakumar Rathinam, Sixu Li, Swaroop Darbha, Yang Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Recorded vehicle trajectories on the I-80 freeway [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representation of heading and position errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Test track, reference path, and curvature profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of the nominal test. Top to bottom: (a) lateral error, (b) lateral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Speed and acceleration profile of the vehicle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of controllers in robustness test Case 1. Top to bottom: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of different ϵ for LR in Case 1. Top to bottom: (a) lateral error, (b) lateral error rate, (c) steering angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ∥ξ∥2 RMS radar chart: controller comparison in vertex cases Table IV and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ∥ξ∥2 RMS radar chart: effect of different ϵ and τ in vertex cases Overall, both parameters exhibit a performance–smoothness trade-off: smaller values improve robustness and tracking accuracy, but may also lead to less smooth steering responses. VI. REAL-VEHICLE IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION While the broader robustness study is performed in simu￾lation, where speeds, parameter uncertainties, and controlle… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Vehicle platform and test site TABLE V PARAMETERS OF THE CHEVROLET BOLT EUV Parameter Symbol Unit Nominal Min (relative) Max (relative) Mass m kg 1805 1 1.3 Moment of Inertia Iz kg·m2 2720 1 1.3 Front Cornering Stiffness Cf N/rad 237230 0.2 1.8 Rear Cornering Stiffness Cr N/rad 250009 0.2 1.8 C.G. to front axle a m 1.055 – – C.G. to rear axle b m 1.583 – – The experiment is conducted at TAMU’s RELLIS camp… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Real-vehicle experiment results. Top to bottom: (a) lateral error, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Swaroop, String stability of interconnected systems: An application to platooning in automated highway systems

    D. Swaroop, String stability of interconnected systems: An application to platooning in automated highway systems . University of California, Berkeley, 1994

    1994

  2. [2]

    Peng, Vehicle lateral control for highway automation

    H. Peng, Vehicle lateral control for highway automation . University of California, Berkeley, 1992

    1992

  3. [3]

    Demonstration of integrated longitudinal and lateral control for the operation of au- tomated vehicles in platoons,

    R. Rajamani, H.-S. Tan, B. K. Law, and W.-B. Zhang, “Demonstration of integrated longitudinal and lateral control for the operation of au- tomated vehicles in platoons,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 695–708, 2000

    2000

  4. [4]

    Buehler, K

    M. Buehler, K. Iagnemma, and S. Singh, The DARPA urban challenge: autonomous vehicles in city traffic. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009, vol. 56

    2009

  5. [5]

    Rajamani, Vehicle dynamics and control

    R. Rajamani, Vehicle dynamics and control . Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  6. [6]

    Lateral string stability for vehi- cle platoons: Formulation, definition, and analysis,

    S. Li, S. Darbha, and Y . Zhou, “Lateral string stability for vehi- cle platoons: Formulation, definition, and analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.01731, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Nonlinear oscillatory response of automated vehicle car-following: Theoretical analysis with traffic state and control input limits,

    S. Li and Y . Zhou, “Nonlinear oscillatory response of automated vehicle car-following: Theoretical analysis with traffic state and control input limits,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 201, p. 103315, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Dissipation of stop-and-go waves via control of autonomous vehicles: Field experiments,

    R. E. Stern, S. Cui, M. L. Delle Monache, R. Bhadani, M. Bunting, M. Churchill, N. Hamilton, R. Haulcy, H. Pohlmann, F. Wu, et al. , “Dissipation of stop-and-go waves via control of autonomous vehicles: Field experiments,” Transportation research part C: emerging technolo- gies, vol. 89, pp. 205–221, 2018

    2018

  9. [9]

    Sequencing-enabled hierarchical cooperative cav on-ramp merging control with enhanced stability and feasibility,

    S. Li, Y . Zhou, X. Ye, J. Jiang, and M. Wang, “Sequencing-enabled hierarchical cooperative cav on-ramp merging control with enhanced stability and feasibility,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Lateral control of an autonomous and connected following vehicle with limited preview information,

    M. Liu, K. Chour, S. Rathinam, and S. Darbha, “Lateral control of an autonomous and connected following vehicle with limited preview information,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 406–418, 2020

    2020

  11. [11]

    Uniform finite time safe path tracking control for obstacle avoidance of autonomous vehicle via barrier function approach,

    J. Han, J. Zhang, C. He, C. Lv, H. Wei, J. Zhang, and S. Zhao, “Uniform finite time safe path tracking control for obstacle avoidance of autonomous vehicle via barrier function approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 9512–9523, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Velocity-dependent robust control for improving vehicle lateral dynamics,

    H. Du, N. Zhang, and F. Naghdy, “Velocity-dependent robust control for improving vehicle lateral dynamics,” Transportation research part C: emerging technologies , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 454–468, 2011

    2011

  13. [13]

    Adaptive fixed-time path tracking control for autonomous vehicles subject to full state constraints and unknown tire cornering stiffness,

    T. Zhang, H. Wang, H. Zhao, and W. Che, “Adaptive fixed-time path tracking control for autonomous vehicles subject to full state constraints and unknown tire cornering stiffness,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Design and comparison of robust nonlinear controllers for the lateral dynamics of intelligent vehicles,

    G. Tagne, R. Talj, and A. Charara, “Design and comparison of robust nonlinear controllers for the lateral dynamics of intelligent vehicles,” IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems , vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 796–809, 2015

    2015

  15. [15]

    Physically analyzable ai-based non- linear platoon dynamics modeling during traffic oscillation: A koopman approach,

    K. Tian, H. Shi, Y . Zhou, and S. Li, “Physically analyzable ai-based non- linear platoon dynamics modeling during traffic oscillation: A koopman approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Robust lateral control of a convoy of autonomous & connected vehicles with limited preview,

    M. Liu, N. Somisetty, S. Rathinam, and S. Darbha, “Robust lateral control of a convoy of autonomous & connected vehicles with limited preview,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.03587 , 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Vehicle lateral dynamics control through afs/dyc and robust gain-scheduling approach,

    H. Zhang and J. Wang, “Vehicle lateral dynamics control through afs/dyc and robust gain-scheduling approach,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 489–494, 2015

    2015

  18. [18]

    Gain-scheduling lpv synthesis H∞ robust lateral motion control for path following of autonomous vehicle via coordination of steering and braking,

    X. Cao, T. Xu, Y . Tian, and X. Ji, “Gain-scheduling lpv synthesis H∞ robust lateral motion control for path following of autonomous vehicle via coordination of steering and braking,” Vehicle System Dynamics , vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 968–991, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Robust lateral control of an autonomous vehicle,

    S. Darbha, N. Kumar, and P. Ioannou, “Robust lateral control of an autonomous vehicle,” Authorea Preprints, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Lateral control of an autonomous vehicle,

    J. Jiang and A. Astolfi, “Lateral control of an autonomous vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 228–237, 2018

    2018

  21. [21]

    Nonlinear systems,

    H. Khalil, “Nonlinear systems,” 3rd edition, 2002

    2002

  22. [22]

    Safety-critical control with nonaffine control inputs via a relaxed control barrier function for an autonomous vehicle,

    J. Seo, J. Lee, E. Baek, R. Horowitz, and J. Choi, “Safety-critical control with nonaffine control inputs via a relaxed control barrier function for an autonomous vehicle,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1944–1951, 2022

    1944

  23. [23]

    Robust nonlinear control using barrier lyapunov function under lateral offset error constraint for lateral control of autonomous vehicles,

    Y . Hwang, C. M. Kang, and W. Kim, “Robust nonlinear control using barrier lyapunov function under lateral offset error constraint for lateral control of autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1565–1571, 2020

    2020

  24. [24]

    Lateral control of front-wheel-steering rubber-tire vehicles,

    H. Peng and M. Tomizuka, “Lateral control of front-wheel-steering rubber-tire vehicles,” 1990

    1990

  25. [25]

    L1 adaptive control of vehicle lateral dynamics,

    M. M. Shirazi and A. B. Rad, “ L1 adaptive control of vehicle lateral dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 92–101, 2017

    2017

  26. [26]

    P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust adaptive control. PTR Prentice-Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1996, vol. 1

    1996

  27. [27]

    Optimal trajectories for time-critical street scenarios using discretized terminal manifolds,

    M. Werling, S. Kammel, J. Ziegler, and L. Gr ¨oll, “Optimal trajectories for time-critical street scenarios using discretized terminal manifolds,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 346– 359, 2012

    2012

  28. [28]

    Passive fault-tolerant control via sliding-mode-based lyapunov redesign,

    M. A. Estrada, L. Fridman, and J. A. Moreno, “Passive fault-tolerant control via sliding-mode-based lyapunov redesign,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    Continuous state feedback guaranteeing uniform ultimate boundedness for uncertain dynamic systems,

    M. Corless and G. Leitmann, “Continuous state feedback guaranteeing uniform ultimate boundedness for uncertain dynamic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1139–1144, 1981

    1981

  30. [30]

    Stability analysis for incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion control,

    X. Wang, E.-J. Van Kampen, Q. Chu, and P. Lu, “Stability analysis for incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion control,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1116–1129, 2019

    2019

  31. [31]

    Accurate tracking of aggressive quadrotor tra- jectories using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion and differential flatness,

    E. Tal and S. Karaman, “Accurate tracking of aggressive quadrotor tra- jectories using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion and differential flatness,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1203–1218, 2020

    2020

  32. [32]

    Incremental nonlinear fault-tolerant control of a quadrotor with complete loss of two opposing rotors,

    S. Sun, X. Wang, Q. Chu, and C. de Visser, “Incremental nonlinear fault-tolerant control of a quadrotor with complete loss of two opposing rotors,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 116–130, 2020

    2020

  33. [33]

    A comparative study of nonlinear mpc and differential-flatness-based control for quadrotor agile flight,

    S. Sun, A. Romero, P. Foehn, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza, “A comparative study of nonlinear mpc and differential-flatness-based control for quadrotor agile flight,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3357–3373, 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    opendbc gm vehicle parameter definitions,

    comma.ai, “opendbc gm vehicle parameter definitions,” https://raw.githubusercontent.com/commaai/opendbc/master/opendbc/ car/gm/values.py, 2025, accessed: 2026-04-29

    2025