Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Adaptive Control Barrier Functions with Vanishing Conservativeness Under Persistency of Excitation

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An adaptive control-barrier constraint that estimates unknown model parameters online is shown to converge to the ideal safety constraint under persistency of excitation, preserving safety throughout.

desk verdict Sound safety construction with a nonincreasing error margin, but the headline vanishing-conservativeness theorem is false as stated: eventual full-rank Ω_k does not imply θ_k→θ*, and a uniform PE bound is needed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12899 v1 pith:BFARXPA2 submitted 2024-11-19 eess.SY cs.SY

Ricardo Gutierrez , Jesse B. Hoagg This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93C4093C1093D30
keywords controlbarrierfunctionsadaptiverecursiveleastsquaresparameterestimationpersistencyofexcitationstateconstraintssafety-criticalvanishingconservativeness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper shows how to enforce state constraints (safety) in control systems with unknown parameters without paying a permanent conservativeness penalty. It couples a sampled-data recursive-least-squares parameter estimator with a computable, nonincreasing upper bound on the estimation error, and feeds both into a control-barrier-function constraint. The central claim is that whenever the sampled regression data are persistently exciting—the relevant matrix $\Omega_k$ is full rank for all large sampling instants—the parameter estimate converges to the true value, the error bound shrinks to zero, and the adaptive CBF constraint converges to the ideal constraint that a designer would write if the parameters were known. Safety is preserved at every time during this learning process. Two numerical examples, an inverted pendulum and a nonholonomic mobile robot, demonstrate that the adaptive constraint improves tracking relative to using a fixed conservative bound.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the computable error-bound recursion $\nu_{k+1} = \min\{\sigma_k\lambda_{\max}(P_k)\nu_k, \sqrt{\nu_k^2+\tau_k}\}$, combined with the identity $\tau_k=\Delta V_k$ (Lemma 1). Here $\Omega_k=\sum_{i=k-k_n}^{k}\Phi_i^T\Phi_i$ is a sliding-window information matrix built from sampled regressors, $P_k=(\sigma_k I_p+\Omega_k)^{-1}$, and $\tau_k$ is defined purely from measured data and the current estimate. The identity turns an unmeasurable Lyapunov-like decrease into a measurable quantity, and the min operation keeps $\nu_k$ nonincreasing while always dominating the true error norm. The CBF constraint (27) uses $\theta(t)$ and $\nu(t)$ linearly, so whenever $\nu(t)$ bounds the error, $\psi$ is a lower bound of the ideal $\psi^*$ (Proposition 4). Under full rank of $\Omega_k$, both the parameter error and $\nu_k$ are driven to zero, so $\psi\to\psi^*$.

What would settle it

Take the least-squares recursion (7)–(11) with a regressor sequence $\Phi_k$ that is full rank for every $k$ but whose information matrix $\Omega_k$ has smallest eigenvalue tending to zero while $\sigma_k$ is held fixed, so that $\sigma_k\lambda_{\max}(P_k)\to 1$; if $\|\theta_k-\theta^*\|$ and $\nu_k$ do not converge to zero, then the convergence claims in Propositions 2(c) and 3(d) are false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a persistency-of-excitation condition, the adaptive CBF constraint $\psi(x,\theta(t),\nu(t),\hat u,\hat\delta)$ converges pointwise to the ideal constraint $\psi^*(x,\hat u,\hat\delta)$ that would be used with the true parameter vector $\theta^*$, and this happens while the state remains inside the safe set for all time. The key is that the one-step decrease of the Lyapunov-like function for the regularized finite-horizon least-squares estimator is exactly computable from measured data: the quantity $\tau_k$ defined in (19) equals $\Delta V_k$, even though $\theta^*$ is unknown. This identity yields a nonincreasing bound $\nu_k$ on the parameter-error norm and, under the full-rank condition on $\Omega_k$, forces both $\|\theta_k-\theta^*\|$ and $\nu_k$ to zero. Consequently the CBF constraint begins conservative and asymptotically sheds its conservativeness, while the same estimate simultaneously improves the desired control law.

Load-bearing premise

The advertised vanishing of conservativeness depends on the parameter estimate actually converging to the true value, which the paper derives from strict decrease of a Lyapunov-like function under a full-rank condition on the sampled regression data; if strict decrease does not by itself force convergence, the central feature fails even though the safety guarantee survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Safety is guaranteed for all time under the closed-form control $u^*$, regardless of whether the excitation condition holds.
  • Under the full-rank condition on $\Omega_k$ for all large $k$, the parameter estimate converges to $\theta^*$ and the error bound $\nu_k$ tends to zero.
  • The enforced constraint converges to the ideal known-parameter constraint, so in the long run the adaptive filter behaves as if the model uncertainty were absent.
  • Because the error bound is nonincreasing, the desired control law $u_d(x,\theta(t))$ improves monotonically even before parameter convergence is complete.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same $\tau_k=\Delta V_k$ identity should transfer to any recursive-least-squares estimator whose regressors are sampled integrals of known functions, giving a ready-made nonincreasing error certificate for other adaptive safety filters; the paper does not develop this generality.
  • A quantitative excitation condition—a uniform lower bound on the smallest eigenvalue of $\Omega_k$—would let one state convergence rates for $\nu_k$ and hence a finite-time bound on the conservativeness gap; the paper only asserts asymptotic vanishing.
  • Since the safety constraint is valid for any $\nu(t)$ that dominates the estimation error, one could replace the least-squares bound with any tighter set-membership or interval bound and keep the same $\psi$ construction, potentially reducing conservativeness faster than the RLS bound does.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sampled-data adaptive control-barrier-function (CBF) scheme for nonlinear systems with linearly parameterized uncertainty. A recursive-least-squares estimator with a sliding window and regularization produces a parameter estimate theta_k and a computable nonincreasing upper bound nu_k on the parameter estimation error. These are interpolated continuously in time and used inside a higher-order CBF constraint, together with a slack variable and a closed-form optimal control law, to guarantee constraint satisfaction and to make the constraint no more conservative over time. The paper further claims that, under a persistency-of-excitation condition, theta_k converges to theta*, nu_k converges to zero, and the adaptive CBF constraint converges to the ideal constraint that would be used if theta* were known. Two numerical examples, a pendulum and a nonholonomic robot, illustrate the approach.

Significance. If the convergence claims were established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it gives a closed-form adaptive CBF construction, a computable nonincreasing error bound, and a systematic way to reduce conservativeness while maintaining safety. The safety part of the argument, in particular the fact that psi is a lower bound on the ideal CBF when nu bounds the estimation error (Proposition 4(a)-(b)), is sound and is a genuine strength. However, the central asymptotic claims about vanishing conservativeness are not proven under the assumptions stated in the manuscript. The current 'full rank' assumption is not persistency of excitation, and the proofs of parameter convergence and nu_k -> 0 contain a load-bearing gap. The significance of the paper therefore depends on a correction of the excitation assumption and the convergence proofs.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section IV, Proposition 3(d)] The proof of Proposition 2(c) is invalid: strict decrease of the Lyapunov-like function V_k does not imply V_k -> 0 when the contraction ratio tends to 1. From equation (16), tilde_theta_{k+1} = sigma_k P_k tilde_theta_k, so the contraction factor is sigma_k lambda_max(P_k) = sigma_k / (sigma_k + lambda_min(Omega_k)). The assumption that Omega_k is full rank for all k >= k_i only gives lambda_min(Omega_k) > 0 pointwise; if lambda_min(Omega_k) decays to zero sufficiently fast, the product of contraction factors has a positive limit. Concretely, take p = 1, k_n = 0, sigma_k = 1, and Phi_k = 2^{-k}; then Omega_k = 2^{-2k} is full rank for every k, yet tilde_theta_{k+1} = (1 + 2^{-2k})^{-1} tilde_theta_k, so tilde_theta_k converges to tilde_theta_0 * prod_{j=0}^infty (1 + 2^{-2j})^{-1} > 0 rather than to zero. Thus theta_k does not converge to theta* under the stated assumption, and Proposition 4(c), which relies on this result for the advertised vanishing-conservativeness property, is unsupported. A uniform lower bound such as lambda_min(Omega_k) >= epsilon > 0 for all large k is needed to obtain a uniform contraction factor less than 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "2 two numerical examples" should be corrected to "two numerical examples."
  2. [Section III] The word "Lipshchitz" should be "Lipschitz."
  3. [Section V heading] The heading "SAFE AND OPTIMAL CONTROL" is misspelled in the manuscript as "safe an optimal control."
  4. [Section V, Theorems 1 and 2] The proofs of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 are omitted. If the authors rely on standard CBF arguments and on [24], they should state the precise theorem numbers and provide a short proof sketch that accounts for the sampled-data construction of theta and nu; otherwise the central safety result is not self-contained.
  5. [Section VI and VII] The examples do not report any measure such as lambda_min(Omega_k) along the trajectories, so the reader cannot check whether the excitation condition that would support the convergence claims is actually satisfied in the simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adaptive CBF bound is computed from measured regression residuals, not fitted to safety outcomes.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The parameter error recursion (16) and Lemma 1's identity τ_k = ΔV_k are obtained algebraically from y_k = Φ_k θ* (Proposition 1), which follows from integrating the system dynamics; they do not assume the desired safety or convergence conclusions. The bound ν_{k+1} is constructed from the computable Lyapunov difference τ_k and a contraction factor σ_k λ_max(P_k), and Proposition 3(a) verifies inductively that it majorizes ‖θ_k − θ*‖; it is not fitted to observed safety violations. The CBF constraint ψ in (27) is a conservative lower bound for the ideal constraint ψ* whenever the uncertainty bound holds (Proposition 4(a)), which is a direct inequality, not a definitional equivalence. The vanishing-conservativeness claim depends on θ_k→θ* and ν_k→0 under full-rank Ω_k; this is a convergence theorem whose proof is mathematically questionable (strict decrease alone does not imply convergence), but that is a correctness gap, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., [24] for a closed-form QP solution and [32] for the recursive RLS form) are used for standard or supporting results; neither smuggles in the paper's central vanishing-conservativeness conclusion. Thus no step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no new physical entities; the estimator and error bound are algorithmic quantities. The listed tuning parameters are design choices, not parameters fitted to the safety outcome, but they affect the strength of the PE and convergence claims.

free parameters (6)
  • σ_k = 0.1 (pendulum), 0.001 (robot)
    Regularization weight in the least-squares cost (8); chosen by hand. It ensures P_k is invertible and appears in the contraction factor σλ_max(P) that drives convergence rate.
  • k_n = 30 (pendulum), 10 (robot)
    Sliding-window horizon in the least-squares cost (9); chosen by hand. Affects whether Ω_k is full rank and the strength of the excitation condition.
  • β = 200 (pendulum), 20 (robot)
    Penalty weight on the slack variable in the QP cost (30); chosen by hand. Sets the trade-off between control intervention and slack use.
  • η = 2 in both examples
    Steepness parameter of the interpolation function ξ in (24); chosen by hand. Affects how quickly θ and ν transition between samples.
  • CBF gains α0, α1 = 200 (pendulum), 5 and 2 (robot)
    Extended class-K gains in the high-order CBF construction (3); chosen by hand. They shape the safe-set dynamics and the closed-loop response.
  • sampling interval t_{k+1}-t_k = 0.25 s (pendulum), 0.1 s (robot)
    Sampling period for the RLS estimator; chosen by hand. Affects the regressor discretization and whether Ω_k accumulates enough information for PE.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: for i=0,...,d-2, L_g L_f^i ψ0(x)=0 and L_ϕ L_f^i ψ0(x)=0 for all x.
    Defines the relative degree of the safety function with respect to both control and unknown parameters; necessary for the high-order CBF construction in (3)-(5).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: L_g L_f^{d-1} ψ0(x) ≠ 0 for all x on the boundary of C_{d-1}.
    Ensures the CBF constraint is controllable at the boundary so the closed-form QP solution (31)-(35) is well defined.
  • domain assumption The uncertainty set Θ is bounded and known, and f, g, φ are locally Lipschitz.
    Used to compute the initial error bound ν0 in (20) and to guarantee boundedness and existence properties of the estimator.
  • standard math All derivatives appearing in the Lie-derivative recursions exist and are continuous.
    Stated in Section II; regularity condition for the barrier construction.
  • standard math The function ξ in (24) exists with the stated smoothness and switching properties.
    Used to interpolate θ and ν between sampling instants; an explicit example is provided.
  • domain assumption Ω_k is full rank for all k≥k_i (interpreted in the paper as persistency of excitation).
    This is the assumption behind the vanishing conservativeness claim. As written it is too weak; a uniform PE lower bound is required.
  • domain assumption ψ'_{d−1} is locally Lipschitz.
    Assumed in Theorem 2 for the closed-loop solution properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Control Barrier Functions with Vanishing Conservativeness Under Persistency of Excitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFARXPA2

@misc{pith2026241112899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Control Barrier Functions with Vanishing Conservativeness Under Persistency of Excitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFARXPA2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12899}
}
read the original abstract

This article presents a closed-form adaptive controlbarrier-function (CBF) approach for satisfying state constraints in systems with parametric uncertainty. This approach uses a sampled-data recursive-least-squares algorithm to estimate the unknown model parameters and construct a nonincreasing upper bound on the norm of the estimation error. Together, this estimate and upper bound are used to construct a CBF-based constraint that has nonincreasing conservativeness. Furthermore, if a persistency of excitation condition is satisfied, then the CBFbased constraint has vanishing conservativeness in the sense that the CBF-based constraint converges to the ideal constraint corresponding to the case where the uncertainty is known. In addition, the approach incorporates a monotonically improving estimate of the unknown model parameters thus, this estimate can be effectively incorporated into a desired control law. We demonstrate constraint satisfaction and performance using 2 two numerical examples, namely, a nonlinear pendulum and a nonholonomic robot.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12899 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows (24) for η ∈ {1, 2, 5}. △ -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. γ, γ˙ and u for Cases 1, 2 and 3. Note that γd, γ˙d and ud are shown with dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. θ for Cases 1, 2 and 3. Note that θ∗ is shown using dashed line. 0 10 20 30 0 2 4 6 Case 1 0 10 20 30 Case 2 0 10 20 30 Case 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ν for Cases 1, 2 and 3. Note that ||˜θk|| is shown with dashed line. Let θ∗ be in the set Θ = n ˆθ ∈ R 4 | e T 1 ˆθ ∈ [0, 5], eT 2 ˆθ ∈ [0, 5], e T 3 ˆθ ∈ [0, 5], eT 4 ˆθ ∈ [0, 1]o . We implement (7)–(11), (18), (19), (21), (25), and (26), where tk+1 −tk = 0.1 s, kn = …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the states for all 3 cases. Note that only for Case 1, qx, qy, v and ω are driven to qdx, qdy, vd and ωd. However, in Cases 2 and 3 there is an offset in steady-state between the states and the desired trajectories. -1 1 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 0 1 2 -3 0 3 -3 0 3…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ur and ul for Cases 1, 2 and 3. Note that udr and udl are shown with dashed lines. 0 2 4 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 0 3 6 0 10 20 30 0 5 10 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase-Portrait of 3 closed-loop trajectories for Cases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: θ(t) for Cases 1, 2 and 3. Note that θ∗ is shown with dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ν for Cases 1, 2 and 3. Note that ||˜θk|| is shown with dashed lines. REFERENCES [1] U. Borrmann, L. Wang, A. D. Ames, and M. Egerstedt, “Control barrier certificates for safe swarm behavior,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 27, pp. 68–73, 2015. [2] Z. S. Lippay and J…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Control barrier certificates for safe swarm behavior,

    U. Borrmann, L. Wang, A. D. Ames, and M. Egerstedt, “Control barrier certificates for safe swarm behavior,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 27, pp. 68–73, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Formation control with time-varying formations, bounded controls, and local collision avoidance,

    Z. S. Lippay and J. B. Hoagg, “Formation control with time-varying formations, bounded controls, and local collision avoidance,” IEEE Trans. on Contr . Sys. Tech., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 261–276, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Formation control for autonomous fixed-wing air vehicles with strict speed constraints,

    C. Heintz, S. C. Bailey, and J. B. Hoagg, “Formation control for autonomous fixed-wing air vehicles with strict speed constraints,” Autonomous Robots , vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1299–1323, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Safety-critical control for dynamical bipedal walking with precise footstep placement,

    Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical control for dynamical bipedal walking with precise footstep placement,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 27, pp. 147–154, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Borrelli, A

    F. Borrelli, A. Bemporad, and M. Morari, Predictive control for linear and hybrid systems . Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Model predictive control based on linear programming˜ the explicit solution,

    A. Bemporad, F. Borrelli, M. Morari, et al. , “Model predictive control based on linear programming˜ the explicit solution,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1974–1985, 2002

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    An algorithm for multi-parametric quadratic programming and explicit mpc solutions,

    P. Tøndel, T. A. Johansen, and A. Bemporad, “An algorithm for multi-parametric quadratic programming and explicit mpc solutions,” Automatica, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 489–497, 2003

    2003

  8. [8]

    Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,

    J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,” in Proc. Amer . Contr . Conf., pp. 3882–3889, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    A framework for worst-case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates,

    S. Prajna, A. Jadbabaie, and G. J. Pappas, “A framework for worst-case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1415–1428, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    Constructive safety using control barrier functions,

    P. Wieland and F. Allg ¨ower, “Constructive safety using control barrier functions,” IF AC Proceedings V olumes, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 462–467, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,

    Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,” in Proc. Amer . Contr . Conf., pp. 322–328, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Adaptive fixed-time control for mimo nonlinear systems with asymmetric output constraints using universal barrier functions,

    X. Jin, “Adaptive fixed-time control for mimo nonlinear systems with asymmetric output constraints using universal barrier functions,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 3046–3053, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    High-order control barrier functions,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “High-order control barrier functions,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3655–3662, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    High-order barrier functions: Robustness, safety, and performance-critical control,

    X. Tan, W. S. Cortez, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “High-order barrier functions: Robustness, safety, and performance-critical control,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 3021–3028, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Event-triggered control for safety-critical systems with unknown dynamics,

    W. Xiao, C. Belta, and C. G. Cassandras, “Event-triggered control for safety-critical systems with unknown dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 4143–4158, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Robust control barrier functions under high relative degree and input constraints for satellite trajectories,

    J. Breeden and D. Panagou, “Robust control barrier functions under high relative degree and input constraints for satellite trajectories,” Automatica, vol. 155, p. 111109, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Multi-uav safe collaborative transporta- tion based on adaptive control barrier function,

    Z. Wang, T. Hu, and L. Long, “Multi-uav safe collaborative transporta- tion based on adaptive control barrier function,” IEEE Trans. Sys., Man, and Cyb.: Systems , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Constrained moving path fol- lowing control for uav with robust control barrier function,

    Z. Zheng, J. Li, Z. Guan, and Z. Zuo, “Constrained moving path fol- lowing control for uav with robust control barrier function,” IEEE/CAA Automatica Sinica , vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1557–1570, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

    A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in 2019 18th Proc. Euro. Contr . Conf. , pp. 3420–3431, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Measurement-robust control barrier functions: Certainty in safety with uncertainty in state,

    R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, A. J. Taylor, T. G. Molnar, K. L. Bouman, and A. D. Ames, “Measurement-robust control barrier functions: Certainty in safety with uncertainty in state,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Int. Robots Sys. , pp. 6286–6291, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Soft-minimum and soft-maximum barrier functions for safety with actuation constraints,

    P. Rabiee and J. B. Hoagg, “Soft-minimum and soft-maximum barrier functions for safety with actuation constraints,” Automatica, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A closed-form control for safety under input constraints using a composition of control barrier functions,

    P. Rabiee and J. B. Hoagg, “A closed-form control for safety under input constraints using a composition of control barrier functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16874 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Time-varying soft-maximum barrier functions for safety in unmapped and dynamic environments,

    A. Safari and J. B. Hoagg, “Time-varying soft-maximum barrier functions for safety in unmapped and dynamic environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01458, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Robust control barrier functions for constrained sta- bilization of nonlinear systems,

    M. Jankovic, “Robust control barrier functions for constrained sta- bilization of nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 96, pp. 359–367, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Robust control barrier functions for nonlinear control systems with uncertainty: A duality-based approach,

    M. H. Cohen, C. Belta, and R. Tron, “Robust control barrier functions for nonlinear control systems with uncertainty: A duality-based approach,” in Proc. Conf. Dec. Contr ., pp. 174–179, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Adaptive safety with control barrier functions,

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

    2020

  20. [28]

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

    B. T. Lopez, J.-J. E. Slotine, and J. P. How, “Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Letts. , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1031–1036, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    L 1 adaptive control barrier functions for nonlinear underactuated systems,

    Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “L 1 adaptive control barrier functions for nonlinear underactuated systems,” in Proc. Amer . Contr . Conf., pp. 721–728, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    High order robust adaptive control barrier functions and exponentially stabilizing adaptive control lyapunov functions,

    M. H. Cohen and C. Belta, “High order robust adaptive control barrier functions and exponentially stabilizing adaptive control lyapunov functions,” in Proc. Amer . Contr . Conf., pp. 2233–2238, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Robust adaptive control barrier functions for input-affine systems: 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 systems: Application to uncertain manipulator safety constraints,” IEEE Contr . Syst. Letts. , 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    On the stability and convergence of a sliding-window variable-regularization recursive-least-squares algorithm,

    A. A. Ali, J. B. Hoagg, M. Mossberg, and D. S. Bernstein, “On the stability and convergence of a sliding-window variable-regularization recursive-least-squares algorithm,” Int. J. of Adap. Contr . Sig. Process. , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 715–735, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    On compatibility and region of attraction for safe, stabilizing control laws,

    W. S. Cortez and D. V . Dimarogonas, “On compatibility and region of attraction for safe, stabilizing control laws,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr ., vol. 67, no. 9, pp. 4924–4931, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Non-holonomic differential drive mobile robot control & design: Critical dynamics and coupling constraints,

    I. Anvari, “Non-holonomic differential drive mobile robot control & design: Critical dynamics and coupling constraints,” tech. rep., Arizona State University, 2013

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.