Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Spatiotemporal Tubes for Temporal Reach-Avoid-Stay Tasks in Unknown Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper claims that sampling the time-and-obstacle space is enough to certify a spatiotemporal tube which, paired with a closed-form backstepping controller, lets an unknown MIMO system reach a target by a deadline while avoiding…

desk verdict Useful construction idea, but the reported certificates fail the paper's own covering condition and the avoid proof needs repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13834 v3 pith:AFXM6VLM submitted 2024-11-21 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Ratnangshu Das , Ahan Basu , Pushpak Jagtap This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY
keywords spatiotemporaltubestemporalreach-avoid-stayscenariooptimizationunknownMIMOnonlinearsystemsclosed-formcontrolfunneltime-varyingunsafesetsLipschitzestimation
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 sets out to show that an unknown, control-affine MIMO system can satisfy a temporal reach-avoid-stay task—start inside a set, hit a target by a deadline, and avoid time-varying unsafe sets—without a dynamics model. The construction fixes time-varying intervals around the desired output and solves a robust optimization program over the time horizon and the unsafe region using only finitely many samples. If those samples cover the region finely enough and the tube boundaries are Lipschitz, the sampled solution certifies the full tube. A closed-form backstepping controller then keeps the trajectory inside the tube, so the task is met under bounded disturbances. The payoff is a controller that needs no online optimization and no model of the dynamics.

What carries the argument

The spatiotemporal tube (STT) is the central object: for each output dimension $i$, a pair of continuously differentiable functions $\gamma_{i,L}(t) < \gamma_{i,U}(t)$ whose product interval contains the output, starts inside $S$, ends inside $T$ at $t_c$, and avoids $U(t)$ at every time. The argument is carried by two devices. First, the robust constraints over the continuum are replaced by a scenario optimization program over $N_t$ samples of $W=[0,t_c]\times U(t)$; condition (5) (an $\epsilon$-cover) together with the Lipschitz constants $L_L,L_U$ of the boundary functions turns satisfaction at samples into satisfaction everywhere, via the margin condition $\eta^*_S + L\epsilon \le 0$. Second, the online device is a funnel/backstepping law: normalized errors $e_k$ and their logarithmic transforms $\varepsilon_k$ give a closed-form input $r_{k+1}=-\kappa_k \varepsilon_k \xi_k$ that forces $x_1$ to track the tube and each higher block to track the previous reference. Because the tube is only a function of time, the whole pipeline avoids state-space gridding.

What would settle it

For a reported case study, evaluate the synthesized tube boundaries on a dense grid over $[0,t_c]$, measure the largest slope, and compute the maximum distance from any point in $[0,t_c]\times U(t)$ to the nearest sample; if the measured Lipschitz constant exceeds $L_L$ or $L_U$, or if any point is farther than $\epsilon$ from every sample, the certified-confidence claim fails. An equally direct test is to simulate the closed loop with a disturbance chosen to drive the output toward the tube boundary and check whether the trajectory exits before $t_c$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that temporal reach-avoid-stay can be reduced to keeping an output inside a time-varying box, and that the box can be certified from finitely many samples. Theorem 3.1 states that if the scenario program (6) is solved with samples forming an $\epsilon$-cover of $W=[0,t_c]\times U(t)$ and $\eta^*_S + L\epsilon \le 0$, where $L$ is built from the Lipschitz constants of the tube boundaries, then the synthesized $\gamma_{i,L}(t)$ and $\gamma_{i,U}(t)$ satisfy the spatiotemporal-tube conditions (Definition 2.5) for every time and every unsafe point. Theorem 4.1 then states that, under the local-Lipschitz and sign-definite controllability assumptions, a closed-form backstepping law keeps the output inside the tube whenever it starts there, so $y(t_c)\in T$ and $y(s)\notin U(s)$ for $s\in[0,t_c]$. The payoff is a division of labor: a one-time offline scenario optimization over time and unsafe samples, then a cheap, model-free online controller.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee depends on the premise that the collected samples truly cover every possible time-unsafe point within the chosen radius, and that the tube boundaries' true steepness is no greater than the numbers reported for their Lipschitz constants; the paper does not verify either with finite-sample bounds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the margin condition (7) holds, the sampled solution already satisfies the full continuous tube conditions, not merely the sampled constraints.
  • Any system meeting Assumptions 1-2 whose output starts strictly inside the certified tube will satisfy the T-RAS task under the closed-form control (10).
  • The online controller requires no optimization and no model of $f_i,g_i$; the only offline cost is solving the scenario program.
  • Time-dependent, disconnected unsafe sets are representable because sampling is over the augmented space $[0,t_c]\times U(t)$.
  • The approach scales to higher-order MIMO pure-feedback systems through the backstepping stages, in contrast to value-function or abstraction-based methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Strengthening the certificate would require replacing the asymptotic Lipschitz estimator with finite-sample confidence bounds; the theorems would then produce a genuinely data-driven confidence level instead of a nominal confidence of one.
  • Since the tube depends only on time, a tube synthesized for one system could be reused as a template for another system with the same relative degree and output dimension, something the paper does not claim.
  • A stress test not run in the case studies is to push the closed-loop trajectory to the boundary with the worst admissible disturbance; the tube's margin then quantifies robustness.
  • Switching from a global polynomial basis to piecewise-polynomial or spline tubes could fit complex obstacle layouts with fewer decision variables; this is a natural follow-up the paper leaves open.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers controller synthesis for unknown MIMO pure-feedback systems subject to bounded disturbances, aiming to satisfy a temporal reach-avoid-stay (T-RAS) specification with time-dependent unsafe sets. The authors formulate the construction of spatiotemporal tubes (STTs) as a robust optimization problem, approximate it by a finite-sample scenario optimization program (SOP), and state a sufficient condition (Theorem 3.1) under which a solution of the SOP yields tubes satisfying the STT conditions. They then propose a closed-form, approximation-free control law (Theorem 4.1) intended to keep the output inside the tubes, and demonstrate the approach on an omnidirectional robot, a 2R manipulator, a magnetic levitation system, and a drone, with comparisons against Hamilton-Jacobi and control-barrier-function methods.

Significance. If the main theorems were correct, the contribution would be significant for the control-synthesis community: an offline sampling-based tube synthesis with a certified a posteriori guarantee, combined with a closed-form online controller, would scale better than HJ reachability and would not require real-time optimization as CBF-based methods do. The explicit treatment of time-varying unsafe sets is also valuable. However, the central guarantees are not currently established: the proof of Theorem 3.1 has a quantifier gap in the avoid condition, the reported certificates in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 are numerically inconsistent with condition (5), the Lipschitz constants used in condition (7) are only asymptotically estimated rather than certified, and the proof of Theorem 4.1 omits the backstepping tracking-error terms. Because these issues are load-bearing for the paper's claims, the manuscript requires substantial revision before its guarantees can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3.1, Proof 3.2] In the proof of condition (2d), the inequalities y_i - γ_i,L(ci,L,t) ≤ ... ≤ 0 and γ_i,U(ci,U,t) - y_i ≤ ... ≤ 0 are derived for all i and all y_i, using the SOP constraint (6d) as though it guaranteed min{y_i,r - γ_i,L(t_r), γ_i,U(t_r)-y_i,r} ≤ η_i^* for every dimension i. In fact, for each sample r, constraint (6d) only guarantees the existence of an active dimension i for which at least one of the two terms is at most η_i^*. The proof therefore needs an epsilon-net argument that, for each point (t,y) in W, selects the nearest sample w_r and the active dimension/side of that sample, and proves separation along that particular dimension. As written, the proof claims a stronger property than (6d) provides, so Theorem 3.1 is not proven.
  2. [Sections 5.1, 5.2, condition (5) and (7)] The numerical certificates reported for the 2R manipulator are inconsistent. With N_t = 40,500 samples in W = [0,5] × U(t), the projection onto [0,5] forces any covering radius ε to satisfy ε ≥ 5/(2·(40,501)) ≈ 6.17e-5, while the reported η_S^* = -0.0001 and L = 2.623 require ε ≤ 0.0001/2.623 ≈ 3.81e-5 for condition (7). Thus the reported ε = 0.00002 cannot satisfy condition (5), and no choice of ε satisfies both conditions with these numbers; consequently the claimed certified tube for Section 5.2 does not follow from Theorem 3.1. In Section 5.1, the reported ε = 0.0005 is also below the time-projection lower bound 5/(2·2001) ≈ 1.25e-3, although a larger ε could still satisfy (7) there, so that certificate is invalid as reported even if the approach is salvageable. The authors should report sample sizes, covering radii, and optimization values that are mutually consistent with conditions (5) and (7), or provide a separate rigorous verification of the covering condition.
  3. [Appendix A, Lemma 6.1] Condition (7) requires upper bounds on the true Lipschitz constants L_L and L_U of the tube functions, but Algorithm 1 and Lemma 6.1 only guarantee asymptotic convergence of the estimated constants, with no finite-sample confidence bound. Therefore the statement that the SOP solution yields a 'certified confidence of 1' is not supported by the Lipschitz estimation procedure described. Since the tube functions γ_i,L(ci,L,t) and γ_i,U(ci,U,t) are explicit polynomials in t with known coefficients after solving the SOP, exact Lipschitz constants (or rigorous interval upper bounds) can be computed directly from the coefficients and basis functions; the paper should use such exact computations or provide finite-sample high-confidence bounds for the constants in condition (7).
  4. [Theorem 4.1, Proof 4.2] The proof of the controller theorem is incomplete. In Stage 1, after differentiating the Lyapunov function, the proof replaces x2 by r2(x1,t) = -κ1 ξ1 ε1, writing the term g1(x1)x2 as g1(x1)(-κ1 ξ1 ε1); similarly in Stage k it replaces x_{k+1} by -κ_k ξ_k ε_k. But for k < N, x_{k+1} is the state of the next subsystem, not the reference signal r_{k+1}, and the tracking error e_{k+1} is never accounted for. A correct backstepping argument must include the interconnection term g_k(x_k)(x_{k+1} - r_{k+1}) in the Lyapunov analysis and bound it recursively using the prescribed-performance funnel of the following stage. As written, Theorem 4.1 is not proven because the actual closed-loop dynamics differ from the dynamics used in the Lyapunov inequalities.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.4] The drone case study does not report the values of N_t, ε, L_L, L_U, or η_S^* needed to verify conditions (5) and (7), so the certificate cannot be checked from the text.
  2. [Section 6 / Section 5] The conclusion says the approach is demonstrated through three case studies, but Sections 5.1-5.4 contain five distinct examples; please correct the count.
  3. [Algorithm 1] In Step 3, the slope S_{jk}^i is defined as |θ_j^i - θ_k^i| / (t_j - t_k); the denominator should be |t_j - t_k| so that the ratio is nonnegative when t_j < t_k.
  4. [Table 2] The table caption says 'Quantitative Comparison' but the offline computation times for the single- and double-integrator STT rows (13.992 s) do not correspond to any case study reported in Section 5; please clarify the origin of these numbers and the system models used in the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: the sampled-to-tube certificate and the backstepping controller are independent derivations; self-citations and fitted Lipschitz estimates are credibility gaps, not by-construction reductions.

full rationale

Theorem 3.1 derives continuous tube conditions from sampled SOP constraints using an epsilon-cover and Lipschitz bounds; the conclusion (Definition 2.5) is not an input to the SOP, only its sampled counterpart, so there is no self-definitional reduction. The tube coefficients are decision variables, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. Theorem 4.1 is a standard backstepping Lyapunov argument whose premises (strict initial containment, funnel bounds) do not include the T-RAS conclusion. The paper's self-citations to [30-33] set context and are not used to prove the main theorems; Algorithm 1's Lipschitz estimates are sourced from [36,37,55] and, while co-authored and only asymptotically justified, the estimates are inputs to a sufficiency check rather than an equation identifying inputs with outputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited. The low score reflects that the certificate is a posteriori: LL and LU are estimated from the same tube and condition (5) is never verified (indeed the reported 40500-sample / epsilon=2e-5 case cannot epsilon-cover the time axis), making the 'certified confidence of 1' claim numerically unsupported; but this is a correctness/soundness gap, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposed guarantee rests on standard regularity assumptions, a user-chosen tube template, and two premises that are not fully certified: the epsilon-net coverage of the sampled unsafe set and the statistical Lipschitz estimates. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Tube polynomial coefficients c_{i,L}, c_{i,U} = Optimized by Z3; examples in Sec. 5.1 (e.g., [1, 0.2377, 0.0925] for gamma_1L)
    Decision variables of the SOP; the guarantee holds only if a feasible solution with eta*+L epsilon<=0 is found. They are chosen by the solver, not measured independently.
  • Sampling coverage radius epsilon = 0.0005 (Sec. 5.1), 0.00002 (Sec. 5.2)
    User-chosen tolerance in conditions (5) and (7); smaller epsilon makes the sampling requirement harder but the verification condition easier.
  • Lipschitz constants L_L, L_U = e.g., L_L=2.93, L_U=3.17 (Sec. 5.1)
    Estimated from tube data via Algorithm 1; condition (7) treats them as exact, but the algorithm provides only asymptotic, finite-sample estimates without confidence bounds.
  • Controller gains kappa_k and funnel parameters p_k, q_k, mu_k = Not specified numerically
    Chosen by the designer; Theorem 4.1 requires only positivity of kappa and compatibility of initial conditions with the funnels.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: f_i and g_i are unknown and locally Lipschitz
    Section 2.2; gives local existence and compactness arguments in Theorem 4.1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: symmetric part of g_i is uniformly sign definite with known sign
    Section 2.2; guarantees controllability and makes the Lyapunov argument sign-definite.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: tube boundaries are Lipschitz in t with constants L_L and L_U
    Section 3; needed to extend sampled constraints to all t in Theorem 3.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Coverage condition (5): samples form an epsilon-net of W=[0,tc] x U(t)
    Section 3; load-bearing for Theorem 3.1 but not verified constructively in case studies.
  • ad hoc to paper Basis functions are expressive enough and a feasible tube exists
    Remark 3.4 and case studies use second- or third-order polynomials; no completeness guarantee is provided.
  • domain assumption Initial conditions: y(0) inside the STT and x_k(0) within funnel bounds
    Theorem 4.1 assumes y(0) lies strictly inside the STT and internal states satisfy the funnel initial bounds.
  • domain assumption Disturbances w_i are bounded
    Used to bound Phi_k in the Lyapunov proof of Theorem 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatiotemporal Tubes for Temporal Reach-Avoid-Stay Tasks in Unknown Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AFXM6VLM

@misc{pith2026241113834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatiotemporal Tubes for Temporal Reach-Avoid-Stay Tasks in Unknown Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AFXM6VLM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13834}
}
read the original abstract

The paper considers the controller synthesis problem for general MIMO systems with unknown dynamics, aiming to fulfill the temporal reach-avoid-stay task, where the unsafe regions are time-dependent, and the target must be reached within a specified time frame. The primary aim of the paper is to construct the spatiotemporal tube (STT) using a sampling-based approach and thereby devise a closed-form approximation-free control strategy to ensure that system trajectory reaches the target set while avoiding time-dependent unsafe sets. The proposed scheme utilizes a novel method involving STTs to provide controllers that guarantee both system safety and reachability. In our sampling-based framework, we translate the requirements of STTs into a Robust optimization program (ROP). To address the infeasibility of ROP caused by infinite constraints, we utilize the sampling-based Scenario optimization program (SOP). Subsequently, we solve the SOP to generate the tube and closed-form controller for an unknown system, ensuring the temporal reach-avoid-stay specification. Finally, the effectiveness of the proposed approach is demonstrated through three case studies: an omnidirectional robot, a SCARA manipulator, and a magnetic levitation system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Time complexity Stage 1: Given γ1,i,L(ci,L, t) and γ1,i,U (ci,U , t), i ∈ [1; n], define the normalized error e1(x1, t), the transformed error ε1(x1, t) and the diagonal matrix ξ1(x1, t) as e1(x1, t) = [e1,1(x1,1, t), . . . , e1,n(x1,n, t)]⊤ = (γ1,d(t))−1 (2x1 − γ1,s(t)), (8a) ε1(x1, t) = ln  1 + e1,1(x1,1, t) 1 − e1,1(x1,1, t)  , . . . , ln  1 + e1,n(x1,n, t) 1 − e1,n(x1,n, t)  ⊤ , (8b) ξ1(x1, t) = 4(γ1,d(t))−1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) (b) Trajectory of omnidirectional robot navigating 2D environments (top) and respective STTs (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of magnetic levitation system using the control law in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectory of drone with static and dynamic obstacles in a 3D environment (left) and respective STTs (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of STT with CBF and HJB across different systems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Prescribed-time reach-avoid-stay specifications for unknown systems: A spatiotemporal tubes approach.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 8:946–951, 2024

    Ratnangshu Das and Pushpak Jagtap. Prescribed-time reach-avoid-stay specifications for unknown systems: A spatiotemporal tubes approach.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 8:946–951, 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    Control of nonlinear systems with reach-avoid-stay specifications: A Lyapunov-barrier approach with an application to the Moore-Greizer model

    Yiming Meng, Yinan Li, and Jun Liu. Control of nonlinear systems with reach-avoid-stay specifications: A Lyapunov-barrier approach with an application to the Moore-Greizer model. InAmerican Control Conference, pages 2284–2291, 2021

    2021

  3. [2]

    A fully automated framework for control of linear systems from temporal logic specifications.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 53(1):287–297, 2008

    Marius Kloetzer and Calin Belta. A fully automated framework for control of linear systems from temporal logic specifications.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 53(1):287–297, 2008. 15 APREPRINT- SEPTEMBER15, 2025

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    Controller synthesis against omega-regular specifications: A funnel-based control approach.International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 2024

    Pushpak Jagtap and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Controller synthesis against omega-regular specifications: A funnel-based control approach.International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Tabuada.Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems: A Symbolic Approach

    P. Tabuada.Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems: A Symbolic Approach. Springer Science and Business Media, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [5]

    Robustly complete synthesis of memoryless controllers for nonlinear systems with reach-and-stay specifications.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(3):1199–1206, 2021

    Yinan Li and Jun Liu. Robustly complete synthesis of memoryless controllers for nonlinear systems with reach-and-stay specifications.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(3):1199–1206, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Controller synthesis for local and global specifications in multi-agent systems

    David Smith Sundarsingh, Jay Bhagiya, Jeel Chatrola, Adnane Saoud, and Pushpak Jagtap. Controller synthesis for local and global specifications in multi-agent systems. InThe 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Zavlanos

    Yiannis Kantaros and Michael M. Zavlanos. Sampling-based optimal control synthesis for multirobot systems under global temporal tasks.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 64(5):1916–1931, 2019

    work page 1916

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Ames, Samuel Coogan, Magnus Egerstedt, Gennaro Notomista, Koushil Sreenath, and Paulo Tabuada

    Aaron D. Ames, Samuel Coogan, Magnus Egerstedt, Gennaro Notomista, Koushil Sreenath, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier functions: Theory and applications. In2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), pages 3420–3431, 2019

    2019

  2. [9]

    Formal synthesis of stochastic systems via control barrier certificates.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(7):3097–3110, 2020

    Pushpak Jagtap, Sadegh Soudjani, and Majid Zamani. Formal synthesis of stochastic systems via control barrier certificates.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(7):3097–3110, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Ames, Xiangru Xu, Jessy W

    Aaron D. Ames, Xiangru Xu, Jessy W. Grizzle, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(8):3861–3876, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Pappas, and Majid Zamani

    Pushpak Jagtap, George J. Pappas, and Majid Zamani. Control barrier functions for unknown nonlinear systems using Gaussian processes. In2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 3699–3704, 2020

    2020

  5. [12]

    Collision cone control barrier functions: Experimental validation on UGVs for kinematic obstacle avoidance

    Bhavya Giri Goswami, Manan Tayal, Karthik Rajgopal, Pushpak Jagtap, and Shishir Kolathaya. Collision cone control barrier functions: Experimental validation on UGVs for kinematic obstacle avoidance. InAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks.IEEE control systems letters, 3(1):96–101, 2018

    Lars Lindemann and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks.IEEE control systems letters, 3(1):96–101, 2018

    2018

  7. [14]

    Smooth converse Lyapunov-barrier theorems for asymptotic stability with safety constraints and reach-avoid-stay specifications.Automatica, 144:110478, 2022

    Yiming Meng, Yinan Li, Maxwell Fitzsimmons, and Jun Liu. Smooth converse Lyapunov-barrier theorems for asymptotic stability with safety constraints and reach-avoid-stay specifications.Automatica, 144:110478, 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    Hamilton–Jacobi formulation for reach–avoid differential games.IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 56(8):1849–1861, 2011

    Kostas Margellos and John Lygeros. Hamilton–Jacobi formulation for reach–avoid differential games.IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 56(8):1849–1861, 2011

    2011

  9. [16]

    Nonlinear optimal control: Alternatives to Hamilton-Jacobi equation

    Yun Huang and Wei-Min Lu. Nonlinear optimal control: Alternatives to Hamilton-Jacobi equation. InProceedings of 35th IEEE conference on decision and control, volume 4, pages 3942–3947. IEEE, 1996

    1996

  10. [17]

    Hamilton-Jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances

    Somil Bansal, Mo Chen, Sylvia Herbert, and Claire J Tomlin. Hamilton-Jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances. In2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2242–2253. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  11. [18]

    Reach-avoid problems with time-varying dynamics, targets and constraints

    Jaime F Fisac, Mo Chen, Claire J Tomlin, and S Shankar Sastry. Reach-avoid problems with time-varying dynamics, targets and constraints. InProceedings of the 18th international conference on hybrid systems: computation and control, pages 11–20, 2015

    2015

  12. [19]

    Data-driven safety filters: Hamilton-jacobi reachability, control barrier functions, and predictive methods for uncertain systems.IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 43(5):137–177, 2023

    Kim P Wabersich, Andrew J Taylor, Jason J Choi, Koushil Sreenath, Claire J Tomlin, Aaron D Ames, and Melanie N Zeilinger. Data-driven safety filters: Hamilton-jacobi reachability, control barrier functions, and predictive methods for uncertain systems.IEEE Control Systems Maga...

    2023

  13. [20]

    Bechlioulis and George A

    Charalampos P. Bechlioulis and George A. Rovithakis. Robust adaptive control of feedback linearizable MIMO nonlinear systems with prescribed performance.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 53(9):2090–2099, 2008

    2008

  14. [21]

    Prescribed performance control approaches, applications and challenges: A comprehensive survey

    Xiangwei Bu. Prescribed performance control approaches, applications and challenges: A comprehensive survey. Asian Journal of Control, 25(1):241–261, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Approximation-free prescribed performance control with prescribed input constraints.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7:1261–1266, 2023

    Pankaj K Mishra and Pushpak Jagtap. Approximation-free prescribed performance control with prescribed input constraints.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7:1261–1266, 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    Dimarogonas

    Fei Chen and Dimos V . Dimarogonas. Funnel-based cooperative control of leader-follower multi-agent systems under signal temporal logic specifications. InEuropean Control Conference, pages 906–911, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Bechlioulis, and Dimos V

    Farhad Mehdifar, Charalampos P. Bechlioulis, and Dimos V . Dimarogonas. Funnel control under hard and soft output constraints. InIEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control, pages 4473–4478, 2022. 16 APREPRINT- SEPTEMBER15, 2025

    2022

  18. [25]

    Verginis, and Dimos V

    Lars Lindemann, Christos K. Verginis, and Dimos V . Dimarogonas. Prescribed performance control for signal temporal logic specifications. InIEEE 56th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 2997–3002, 2017

    2017

  19. [26]

    Funnel control for fully actuated systems under a fragment of signal temporal logic specifications.Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 39:100973, 2021

    Lars Lindemann and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Funnel control for fully actuated systems under a fragment of signal temporal logic specifications.Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 39:100973, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Path-following through control funnel functions

    Hadi Ravanbakhsh, Sina Aghli, Christoffer Heckman, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. Path-following through control funnel functions. InIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 401–408, 2018

    2018

  21. [28]

    Verginis, Dimos V

    Christos K. Verginis, Dimos V . Dimarogonas, and Lydia E. Kavraki. KDF: Kinodynamic motion planning via geometric sampling-based algorithms and funnel control.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(2):978–997, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    Verginis, Dimos V

    Dženan Lapandi ´c, Christos K. Verginis, Dimos V . Dimarogonas, and Bo Wahlberg. Kinodynamic motion planning via funnel control for underactuated unmanned surface vehicles.IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 32(6):2114–2125, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Control barrier functions for prescribed-time reach-avoid- stay tasks using spatiotemporal tubes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08106, 2025

    Ratnangshu Das, Pranav Bakshi, and Pushpak Jagtap. Control barrier functions for prescribed-time reach-avoid- stay tasks using spatiotemporal tubes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08106, 2025. Accepted to the European Control Conference (ECC) 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Spatiotemporal tubes based controller synthesis against omega-regular specifications for unknown systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08337, 2025

    Ratnangshu Das, Aiman Aatif Bayezeed, and Pushpak Jagtap. Spatiotemporal tubes based controller synthesis against omega-regular specifications for unknown systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08337, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Negotiation framework for safe multi-agent planning via spatiotemporal tubes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10245, 2025

    Mohd Faruqui, Ratnangshu Das, Pushpak Jagtap, et al. Negotiation framework for safe multi-agent planning via spatiotemporal tubes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10245, 2025. Accepted to the European Control Conference (ECC) 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Funnel-based control for reach-avoid-stay specifications

    Ratnangshu Das and Pushpak Jagtap. Funnel-based control for reach-avoid-stay specifications. In2024 Tenth Indian Control Conference (ICC), pages 54–59. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Formulas for data-driven control: Stabilization, optimality, and robustness

    Claudio De Persis and Pietro Tesi. Formulas for data-driven control: Stabilization, optimality, and robustness. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 65(3):909–924, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Data-driven synthesis of safety controllers via multiple control barrier certificates.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7:2497–2502, 2023

    Ameneh Nejati and Majid Zamani. Data-driven synthesis of safety controllers via multiple control barrier certificates.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7:2497–2502, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Formal verification of unknown discrete- and continuous-time systems: A data-driven approach.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68(5):3011–3024, 2023

    Ameneh Nejati, Abolfazl Lavaei, Pushpak Jagtap, Sadegh Soudjani, and Majid Zamani. Formal verification of unknown discrete- and continuous-time systems: A data-driven approach.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68(5):3011–3024, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Haojian Xu and P.A. Ioannou. Robust adaptive control for a class of MIMO nonlinear systems with guaranteed error bounds.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48(5):728–742, 2003

    2003

  31. [39]

    Direct adaptive controller for nonaffine nonlinear systems using self-structuring neural networks.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 16(2):414–422, 2005

    Jang-Hyun Park, Sung-Hoe Huh, Seong-Hwan Kim, Sam-Jun Seo, and Gwi-Tae Park. Direct adaptive controller for nonaffine nonlinear systems using self-structuring neural networks.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 16(2):414–422, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Adaptive neural-network control of mimo nonaffine nonlinear systems with asymmetric time-varying state constraints.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(4):2042–2054, 2021

    Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Narendra Kumar Dhar, and Nishchal Kumar Verma. Adaptive neural-network control of mimo nonaffine nonlinear systems with asymmetric time-varying state constraints.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51(4):2042–2054, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Bechlioulis and George A

    Charalampos P. Bechlioulis and George A. Rovithakis. A low-complexity global approximation-free control scheme with prescribed performance for unknown pure feedback systems.Automatica, 50(4):1217–1226, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    E. D. Sontag.Mathematical Control Theory: Deterministic Finite Dimensional Systems, volume 6. Springer Science and Business Media, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Z3: An efficient SMT solver

    Leonardo de Moura and Nikolaj Bjørner. Z3: An efficient SMT solver. InTools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pages 337–340, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2008

  36. [44]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(7):846–894, 2011

    Sertac Karaman and Emilio Frazzoli. Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(7):846–894, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Dynamic obstacles avoidance using nonlinear model predictive control

    Mukhtar Sani, Bogdan Robu, and Ahmad Hably. Dynamic obstacles avoidance using nonlinear model predictive control. InIECON 2021 - 47th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IES), Toronto (virtual), Canada, October 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    García, David M

    Carlos E. García, David M. Prett, and Manfred Morari. Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey. Automatica, 25(3):335–348, 1989. 17 APREPRINT- SEPTEMBER15, 2025

    1989

  39. [47]

    CRC press, 1998

    FW Lewis, Suresh Jagannathan, and Aydin Yesildirak.Neural network control of robot manipulators and non-linear systems. CRC press, 1998

    1998

  40. [48]

    Rungger and M

    M. Rungger and M. Zamani. SCOTS: A tool for the synthesis of symbolic controllers. Inthe 19th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pages 99–104, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Spong, S

    M.W. Spong, S. Hutchinson, and M. Vidyasagar.Robot Modeling and Control. Wiley select coursepack. Wiley, 2005

    2005

  42. [50]

    Towards backstepping design for incremental stability

    Majid Zamani and Paulo Tabuada. Towards backstepping design for incremental stability. In49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2426–2431, 2010

    2010

  43. [51]

    Zhenhua Pan, Chengxi Zhang, Yuanqing Xia, Hao Xiong, and Xiaodong Shao. An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-UA V systems.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 69(3):1129–1133, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Review of autonomous path planning algorithms for mobile robots.Drones, 7(3):211, 2023

    Hongwei Qin, Shiliang Shao, Ting Wang, Xiaotian Yu, Yi Jiang, and Zonghan Cao. Review of autonomous path planning algorithms for mobile robots.Drones, 7(3):211, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    helperOC: MATLAB library for optimal control and reachability analysis

    ChoiJangho. helperOC: MATLAB library for optimal control and reachability analysis. https://github.com/ HJReachability/helperOC, 2024. Accessed: 2025-04-29

    2024

  46. [54]

    A toolbox of level set methods.UBC Department of Computer Science Technical Report TR-2007-11, 1:6, 2007

    Ian M Mitchell et al. A toolbox of level set methods.UBC Department of Computer Science Technical Report TR-2007-11, 1:6, 2007

    2007

  47. [55]

    Wood and B

    Graham R. Wood and B. P. Zhang. Estimation of the Lipschitz constant of a function.Journal of Global Optimization, 8:91–103, 1996. Appendix A. Computation of Lipschitz constantsL L andL U Employing the results of [55], we propose the Algorithm 1 to estimate the Lipschitz const...

    1996

Pith tools

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