Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Zero-Order Control Barrier Functions for Sampled-Data Systems with State and Input Dependent Safety Constraints

T0 review · 3 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 A continuous safety constraint h is a zero-order control barrier function if every state has an admissible input making h grow by at least $-\gamma(h)+\delta$ over one sampling period; Theorem 1 shows this keeps the closed-loop…

desk verdict The ZOCBF idea is clean and worth pursuing, but the main theorem rests on a feasibility assumption that the paper never checks and that fails on its own double-integrator example. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17079 v2 pith:6HVCHTD3 submitted 2024-11-26 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Xiao Tan , Ersin Das , Aaron D. Ames , Joel W. Burdick This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY MSC 93C5793D3093C10
keywords zero-ordercontrolbarrierfunctionsampled-datasystemssafetyconstraintsstate-inputdependenthigh-relative-degreeforwardinvariancefilterhold
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 proposes a zero-order control barrier function (ZOCBF) for sampled-data systems, where a controller is recomputed at sampling instants and held constant in between. The central idea is to compare the safety constraint's value at two consecutive sampling instants rather than differentiate it, which removes the relative-degree obstruction that forces conventional CBFs into high-order or backstepping constructions. The authors prove that when $h$ satisfies the ZOCBF difference inequality with a robustness buffer $\delta$, any sampled-and-hold controller meeting the condition at each sampling time keeps $h \ge 0$ at every continuous time, and draws initially unsafe trajectories back to the safe set. The formulation also handles safety constraints that depend explicitly on both state and control input, and the authors give three numerical ways to enforce the condition.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-step difference inequality (4), evaluated between the state–input pair at a sampling instant and the predicted pair one sampling period later. Its companion is Lemma 1, which chooses $\delta \ge \bar{h}_x M T$ so that a value at least $\delta$ at the end of a sampling interval forces nonnegativity throughout that interval; this is what converts a discrete-time check into a continuous-time safety guarantee. The relative-degree argument rests on the normal form of a control-affine system: in coordinates where a relative-degree-$\rho$ constraint is the first element of a chain of integrators, the control input enters that element through the $\rho$-th integrator over one sampling step, so $u$ appears in the ZOCBF condition without any differentiation.

What would settle it

Compute the ZOCBF condition for the double-integrator example with $T=0.1$, $\gamma_c=1$, $\delta=0.01$, $p=0$, $v=101$: the inequality $-0.5T^2 u - T v + (10-p) \ge \delta$ becomes $-0.005u \ge 0.11$, which no $u \in [-10,10]$ satisfies. Observing such an infeasible state in simulation would show the existence assumption in Definition 1 can fail for exactly the systems the method targets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: if a continuous $h$ is a ZOCBF in the sense of Definition 1 and $\delta$ satisfies the bound $\delta \ge \bar{h}_x M T$ from Lemma 1, then every sampled-and-hold controller with $u_k \in U_{\mathrm{zocbf}}(x(t_k), u(t_{k-1}))$ renders the system safe for all times—starting safe, the trajectory never leaves the safe set; starting unsafe, the distance to the safe set tends to zero. The ZOCBF condition $h(\phi(T; x_0, u), u) - h(x_0, u_0) \ge -\gamma(h(x_0, u_0)) + \delta$ uses no derivative of $h$, and the paper shows by a normal-form argument that $u$ always appears in the condition even when $h$ has relative degree greater than one, because $u$ enters the first component of the flow over one sampling period. Three implementations are proposed: local linearization of the dynamics, numerical integration of the flow, and parallel simulation with sampling over the control set; each gives a practical constraint that implies the ZOCBF condition when the approximation error is bounded.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at every state and previous input, including states already outside the safe set, some control input in $U$ satisfies the ZOCBF inequality; the paper gives no feasibility condition ensuring this holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-relative-degree safety constraints can be handled by the same difference condition used for relative-degree-one constraints, with no exponential or high-order CBF construction.
  • State-and-input dependent constraints, such as the ZMP rollover constraint, enter the condition directly through $h(x_{k+1}, u_k)$.
  • The $\delta$ buffer gives inter-sample safety, a guarantee not provided by a discrete-time CBF checked only at sampling instants.
  • The ZOCBF condition can be formulated as a linear, convex quadratic, or general nonlinear constraint on $u$, depending on the implementation and the concavity of $h$.
  • A safety filter of the form (10) can be run online, preserving the nominal controller whenever it is safe and correcting it when it is not.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not characterize when $U_{\mathrm{zocbf}}$ is nonempty; an implementation would need a fallback or a relaxation when the inequality is infeasible at a sampled state.
  • If the existence assumption were restricted to states inside the safe set, forward invariance would remain valid but the convergence-from-unsafe implication would require a separate argument; this is a natural follow-up.
  • The relative-degree analysis suggests that any flow predictor accurate enough to capture the $\rho$-th step of the integrator chain suffices for high-relative-degree constraints, so the order of the numerical integrator is a tuning parameter, not a structural barrier.
  • Lemma 1's bound $\delta \ge \bar{h}_x M T$ gives a quantitative trade-off: faster sampling or flatter $h$ allows a smaller robustness margin, while steep $h$ or slow sampling forces a larger buffer.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a zero-order control barrier function (ZOCBF) framework for sampled-data continuous-time control-affine systems with safety constraints that may depend on both state and input. Definition 1 replaces the usual derivative-based CBF condition with a one-step look-ahead inequality comparing h at consecutive sampling instants, and Lemma 1 provides a robustness margin to guarantee inter-sample safety. Theorem 1 claims forward invariance of the safe set and asymptotic convergence to it, and three numerical implementation approaches are proposed: dynamics linearization, numerical integration, and parallel simulation. Two numerical examples, a double integrator with high-relative-degree position constraints and a differential-drive robot with a ZMP-based rollover constraint, are presented.

Significance. If the theoretical gaps identified below are addressed, the paper makes a useful contribution: the ZOCBF condition avoids differentiation and relative-degree analysis, handles state- and input-dependent constraints in a unified way, and the three implementation strategies with the provided open-source code are practical assets. The inter-sample safety guarantee is a genuine improvement over purely discrete-time CBF conditions. However, the current formulation has load-bearing feasibility and proof issues that prevent the main theorem from being applied as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Definition 1, Eq. (4)] The assumption that for every (x0,u0) in R^n × U there exists u in U satisfying (4) is not characterized or verified, and it fails for the paper's own double-integrator example. For h1(x)=10-p, T=0.1, γc=1, δ=0.01, U=[-10,10], at the boundary state (p,v)=(10,1) (which lies in the safe set C), the ZOCBF inequality reduces to -0.005u - 0.1 >= 0.01, i.e., u <= -22, which is outside U. Thus the forward-invariance claim of Theorem 1 does not apply to the demonstrated setting. The convergence implication (6) is even more demanding because it requires feasibility for arbitrarily negative h(x0,u0), which cannot hold under bounded inputs. The paper should either restrict the ZOCBF definition to a feasible subset of C and prove invariance over that subset, or provide a checkable feasibility condition for (4).
  2. [Section III, Lemma 1] The proof of Lemma 1 assumes bounds ∥∂h/∂x∥≤ h̄x and ∥f(x)+g(x)u∥≤ M for all (x,u) in C, but the integration along the trajectory segment from t to T requires these bounds to hold at every point φ(τ; x, u) for τ in [t, T]. The trajectory may leave C during that interval, and the lemma's conclusion is exactly what would guarantee that it stays in C. This is circular as written. The assumption should be stated on a set that contains the relevant reachable tube (or globally), or the proof should be restructured so that the bounds are applied on a forward-invariant neighborhood of C.
  3. [Section III, Theorem 1, second implication (6)] The convergence proof claims that if h(x(tk), u(tk-1)) < 0, then the ZOCBF condition gives an increase of at least δ each step, so h becomes positive in finite time. This reasoning requires the existence of u in U satisfying (4) for arbitrarily negative h values. For the double-integrator constraint h1=10-p with bounded U, as p becomes large the required one-step increase cannot be achieved, so the convergence claim is not supported. The theorem should either add assumptions that guarantee feasibility for all states outside C, or remove/weaken the convergence implication.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Theorem 1 proof] The backward-time extension with a hypothetical v is unnecessary and leaves the initialization of u(tk-1) at t=0 unspecified for the online controller (10). Please define how the previous input is chosen at the first sampling instant and state the resulting condition on the initial pair (x0, u−1).
  2. [Section III, Theorem 1 proof, second paragraph] In the line '≥ −γ(h(x(tk)), u(tk−1)) + δ', the parentheses are misplaced; it should be '−γ(h(x(tk), u(tk−1))) + δ'.
  3. [Section V, Figure 1 caption] The caption refers to a 'collision avoidance example,' but the simulation is a double-integrator position-constraint example; please adjust the wording.
  4. [Section IV.D, Eq. (20)] The bound m(T,u) with a fourth-order Runge-Kutta method is stated to be K c0 T^5, but no justification or reference is provided; please add a derivation or citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ZOCBF safety theorem is a direct sufficiency proof from a postulated one-step condition, and self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the mathematical sense. Definition 1 postulates a one-step inequality h(phi(T;x0,u),u) - h(x0,u0) >= -gamma(h(x0,u0)) + delta; Lemma 1 converts a terminal lower bound delta into an inter-sample lower bound 0 using boundedness of the constraint derivative and dynamics; Theorem 1 then applies Definition 1 recursively at sampling instants and Lemma 1 between them. This is a standard sufficient-condition proof: the conclusion (safety and convergence) is not used to define the ZOCBF, and the ZOCBF condition is not fitted to any measured quantity or to the trajectories it is claimed to predict. The self-citations ([10] Tan et al. and [30] Das et al.) appear only as background on high-order CBFs and as the source of the ZMP rollover constraint; neither is used to justify the ZOCBF theorem itself. The strong universal feasibility assumption in Definition 1, namely that an input u exists for every (x0,u0) including states with h<0, is indeed unverified and can fail for the paper's own double-integrator example, but that is an assumption/feasibility gap rather than circularity: the proof does not reduce to the desired conclusion, it simply relies on a hypothesis. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no existing result is merely renamed. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of a ZOCBF input at every state-input pair and on boundedness estimates in Lemma 1 that are used along trajectories that may leave C. The examples pick delta and gamma_c by hand and do not verify these premises, so the ledger weighs the theoretical guarantee toward assumption-heavy.

free parameters (2)
  • delta (robustness margin) = 0.01 in simulations
    Defined in (4); Lemma 1 requires delta >= hbar_x M T, but the examples do not verify this bound.
  • gamma_c (extended class K gain) = 1 in Fig. 1
    Used in gamma(s)=gamma_c s in the ZOCBF condition; it is a tunable design parameter in the examples.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper For every (x0,u0) in R^n x U there exists u in U satisfying the ZOCBF inequality (4)
    Definition 1; used in Theorem 1's recursive proof and in the finite-step convergence argument.
  • ad hoc to paper The bounds on partial h/partial x and f+gu used in Lemma 1 apply along the entire inter-sample trajectory, not only on C
    Lemma 1 proof integrates the bound over [t,T] without showing the trajectory remains in C.
  • standard math The system admits a local normal form with relative degree rho and r(x) != 0 when h has relative degree rho
    Section III after Theorem 1; from Khalil Theorem 13.1 for the high-relative-degree argument.
  • domain assumption The one-step flow phi(T;x,u) can be predicted or simulated with bounded error m(T,u)
    The ZOCBF condition is defined through the exact flow; Approaches 1-3 approximate it and Section IV.D bounds the error.
  • domain assumption The rollover vehicle model maintains ground contact, does not slip, and has terrain-dependent roll and pitch angles
    Section V.B, equations (22) and (23).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-Order Control Barrier Functions for Sampled-Data Systems with State and Input Dependent Safety Constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HVCHTD3

@misc{pith2026241117079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-Order Control Barrier Functions for Sampled-Data Systems with State and Input Dependent Safety Constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HVCHTD3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17079}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a novel zero-order control barrier function (ZOCBF) for sampled-data systems to ensure system safety. Our formulation generalizes conventional control barrier functions and straightforwardly handles safety constraints with high-relative degrees or those that explicitly depend on both system states and inputs. The proposed ZOCBF condition does not require any differentiation operation. Instead, it involves computing the difference of the ZOCBF values at two consecutive sampling instants. We propose three numerical approaches to enforce the ZOCBF condition, tailored to different problem settings and available computational resources. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through a collision avoidance example and a rollover prevention example on uneven terrains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17079 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical simulation of the double integrator system (21) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation of a differential drive vehicle model (22) navigating on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Control inputs with the proposed ZOCBF-based safety filter and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Safe Gradient Flow for Bilevel Optimization

    math.OC 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A safety-filtered gradient flow that enforces the lower-level optimality condition solves bilevel problems in a single loop, with a relaxed variant that avoids matrix inversions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    Discrete control barrier functions for safety-critical control of discrete systems with application to bipedal robot navigation

    A. Agrawal and K. Sreenath, “Discrete control barrier functions for safety-critical control of discrete systems with application to bipedal robot navigation.” in Robotics: Science and Systems , vol. 13. Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017, pp. 1–10

    2017

  2. [1]

    Stability control of autonomous ground vehicles using control-dependent barrier functions,

    Y . Huang, S. Z. Yong, and Y . Chen, “Stability control of autonomous ground vehicles using control-dependent barrier functions,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 699–710, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    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. Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control,

    A. D. Ames, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control,” in IEEE Conf. on Dec. and Cont. , New York, 2014, pp. 6271–6278

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to bipedal robotic walking,

    S.-C. Hsu, X. Xu, and A. D. Ames, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to bipedal robotic walking,” in American Control Conference, 2015, pp. 4542–4548

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Safe autonomous docking maneuvers for a floating platform based on input sharing control barrier functions,

    A. Saradagi, A. Banerjee, S. Satpute, and G. Nikolakopoulos, “Safe autonomous docking maneuvers for a floating platform based on input sharing control barrier functions,” in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 3746–3753

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Distributed barrier function-enabled human-in-the-loop control for multi-robot systems,

    V . N. Fernandez-Ayala, X. Tan, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Distributed barrier function-enabled human-in-the-loop control for multi-robot systems,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation , 2023, pp. 7706–7712

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Data-driven safety filters: Hamilton-Jacobi reacha- bility, control barrier functions, and predictive methods for uncertain systems,

    K. P. W. et al., “Data-driven safety filters: Hamilton-Jacobi reacha- bility, control barrier functions, and predictive methods for uncertain systems,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 137–177, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    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 2016 American Control Conference (ACC) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 322–328

    2016

  2. [9]

    Control barrier functions for systems with high relative degree,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “Control barrier functions for systems with high relative degree,” in 2019 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 27–34

    2019

  3. [10]

    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. Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 3021–3028, 2021

    2021

  4. [11]

    Safe backstep- ping with control barrier functions,

    A. J. Taylor, P. Ong, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safe backstep- ping with control barrier functions,” in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 5775–5782

    2022

  5. [12]

    Integral control barrier functions for dynamically defined control laws,

    A. D. Ames, G. Notomista, Y . Wardi, and M. Egerstedt, “Integral control barrier functions for dynamically defined control laws,” IEEE Control Syst. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 887–892, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Guaranteed vehicle safety control using control-dependent barrier functions,

    Y . Huang, S. Z. Yong, and Y . Chen, “Guaranteed vehicle safety control using control-dependent barrier functions,” in 2019 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 983–988

    2019

  7. [14]

    Self-triggered control for safety critical systems using control barrier functions,

    G. Yang, C. Belta, and R. Tron, “Self-triggered control for safety critical systems using control barrier functions,” in American control conf., 2019, pp. 4454–4459

    2019

  8. [15]

    Control barrier functions for mechanical systems: Theory and application to robotic grasping,

    W. S. Cortez, D. Oetomo, C. Manzie, and P. Choong, “Control barrier functions for mechanical systems: Theory and application to robotic grasping,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 530–545, 2019

    2019

  9. [16]

    Control barrier functions for sampled-data systems with input delays,

    A. Singletary, Y . Chen, and A. D. Ames, “Control barrier functions for sampled-data systems with input delays,” in IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, 2020, pp. 804–809

    2020

  10. [17]

    Control barrier functions in sampled-data systems,

    J. Breeden, K. Garg, and D. Panagou, “Control barrier functions in sampled-data systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 367– 372, 2021

    2021

  11. [18]

    Corridor mpc: Towards optimal and safe trajectory tracking,

    P. Roque, W. S. Cortez, L. Lindemann, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Corridor mpc: Towards optimal and safe trajectory tracking,” in American Control Conf. , 2022, pp. 2025–2032

    2022

  12. [20]

    Safety of sampled-data systems with control barrier functions via approximate discrete time models,

    A. J. Taylor, V . D. Dorobantu, R. K. Cosner, Y . Yue, and A. D. Ames, “Safety of sampled-data systems with control barrier functions via approximate discrete time models,” in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 7127–7134

    2022

  13. [21]

    Discrete-time control barrier function: High-order case and adaptive case,

    Y . Xiong, D.-H. Zhai, M. Tavakoli, and Y . Xia, “Discrete-time control barrier function: High-order case and adaptive case,” IEEE Transac- tions on Cybernetics , vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 3231–3239, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Forces acting on a biped robot. Center of pressure-zero moment point,

    P. Sardain and G. Bessonnet, “Forces acting on a biped robot. Center of pressure-zero moment point,” IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, and Cybernet.-A: Systems and Humans , vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 630–637, 2004

    2004

  15. [23]

    H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall, c2002., 2002

    2002

  16. [24]

    E. F. Camacho and C. B. Alba, Model predictive control . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems . IEEE, 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  18. [26]

    Isaac Gym: High performance GPU-based physics simulation for robot learning,

    V . Makoviychuk, L. Wawrzyniak, Y . Guo, M. Lu, K. Storey, M. Mack- lin, D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, A. Allshire, A. Handa et al., “Isaac Gym: High performance GPU-based physics simulation for robot learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10470 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Brax–a differentiable physics engine for large scale rigid body simulation,

    C. D. Freeman, E. Frey, A. Raichuk, S. Girgin, I. Mordatch, and O. Bachem, “Brax–a differentiable physics engine for large scale rigid body simulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13281 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational physics , vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Guarantees on robot system performance using stochastic simulation rollouts,

    J. A. Vincent, A. O. Feldman, and M. Schwager, “Guarantees on robot system performance using stochastic simulation rollouts,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Rollover prevention for mobile robots with control barrier functions: Differentiator-based adaptation and projection-to-state safety,

    E. Das ¸, A. D. Ames, and J. W. Burdick, “Rollover prevention for mobile robots with control barrier functions: Differentiator-based adaptation and projection-to-state safety,” IEEE Control Systems Let- ters, vol. 8, pp. 1727–1732, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Integrated path planning for unmanned differential steering vehicles in off-road environment with 3D terrains and obstacles,

    J. Hu, Y . Hu, C. Lu, J. Gong, and H. Chen, “Integrated path planning for unmanned differential steering vehicles in off-road environment with 3D terrains and obstacles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 5562–5572, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Feedback motion prediction for safe unicycle robot navigation,

    A. ˙Is ¸leyen, N. van de Wouw, and ¨O. Arslan, “Feedback motion prediction for safe unicycle robot navigation,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2023, pp. 10 511–10 518

    2023

Pith tools

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