Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Enhancing Feature Tracking Reliability for Visual Navigation using Real-Time Safety Filter

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A QP safety filter can guarantee that a navigating robot never loses too many visual features.

desk verdict Sound CBF-QP extension for feature-count maintenance, but the formal guarantee is for a modeled visibility score, not the true feature count under occlusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01092 v1 pith:RVDGAU4Q submitted 2025-02-03 cs.RO cs.CVcs.SYeess.SY

Dabin Kim , Inkyu Jang , Youngsoo Han , Sunwoo Hwang , H. Jin Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.SYeess.SY
keywords safetyfiltercontrolbarrierfunctionquadraticprogrammingvisualnavigationfeaturetrackingSLAMforwardinvarianceperception-aware
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 claims that reliable feature tracking in visual navigation can be enforced as a hard constraint rather than optimized as a soft objective. The authors construct a quadratic-programming safety filter that, at every control step, takes the desired velocity command and minimally modifies it so that a visibility score derived from currently visible landmarks never falls below a user-specified threshold. The key move is to replace the discontinuous count of visible landmarks with smooth auxiliary variables, which lets standard forward-invariance theory apply. If the claim holds, a robot can keep enough features in view even in texture-poor environments, which should make vision-based localization more robust.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a smoothed visibility constraint built from auxiliary states $\lambda$ (one per landmark) and $\mu$. The indicator condition for a landmark being visible is replaced by the differentiable inequality $h_{3,l}(x) = -\mu_l \lambda_l + (1-\mu_l) \rho(p_l(q)) \geq 0$, which is feasible iff either the landmark is excluded from the count or it is truly visible. These constraints are combined with the score constraint $h_1(x) = \sum_{l \in L} \lambda_l w_l - W \geq 0$ and fed into the QP in (19), whose feasible set is nonempty because the instantaneous stopping input $u=0$ gives $\dot h = 0$. Nagumo's theorem then turns pointwise constraint satisfaction into forward invariance of the admissible state set, which is what converts a per-step optimization into an ongoing guarantee.

What would settle it

Run the safety filter on a robot whose depth estimates carry bounded noise, with a landmark that becomes temporarily occluded before the next re-initialization, and record whether the number of tracked features drops below $W$ while the filter reports $h(x) \geq 0$. A single such violation, reproduced in simulation with noisy landmark positions in (20), would show the invariance claim depends on the deterministic-model assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the set of states with all constraints $h_i(x) \geq 0$ in (18) is forward invariant under the QP safety filter (19), provided the robot can stop instantaneously and observes at least $W$ features at each re-initialization. The auxiliary variables $\lambda$ and $\mu$ relax the otherwise non-differentiable condition "landmark $l$ is visible" into continuously differentiable constraints $h_{3,l}$, so that the relation $W \leq \hat{w}(q,\lambda) \leq w(q)$ holds at all times. Consequently the robot always keeps a number of visible landmarks at or above the required minimum, and the filter output stays close to the reference command. The authors verify the mechanism in simulation and in a real wall-inspection experiment with a stereo visual SLAM front-end, where the filter rotates the camera toward feature-rich regions and prevents the estimation error from spiking in texture-poor areas.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee assumes the robot's model of where each landmark sits relative to the camera is exact and that nothing occludes a landmark between measurements; if depth is noisy or a feature disappears, the visibility constraint no longer describes reality and the promised lower bound can be violated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot using the filter will keep at least the user-specified number of visual features in view at all times, as long as the underlying motion model is accurate.
  • The filter's output deviates from the reference command only as much as necessary, so the task objective remains the priority whenever visibility is not threatened.
  • Because the QP is convex and the constraints grow only linearly with the number of features, the approach can run in real time with current onboard computers.
  • Integrating the filter with a visual SLAM front-end should reduce catastrophic estimation failures caused by feature-poor scenes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the same $\lambda/\mu$ smoothing trick applies to other discontinuous perception metrics, such as co-visible feature counts or rank-based observability criteria, turning them into differentiable safety constraints.
  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is explicit occlusion handling; without it, the invariance guarantee rests on every tracked landmark staying inside the geometric detection region between re-initializations.
  • We also infer that replacing deterministic landmark dynamics (20) with a set-valued depth uncertainty model would require enforcing visibility for all possible landmark positions, a strictly stronger condition than the one proved here.
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 proposes a QP-based safety filter that modifies a reference velocity command to keep a user-specified minimum number of visual features visible during navigation. The key idea is to smooth the non-differentiable visibility-count constraint by introducing auxiliary variables λ and μ, yielding a set of state constraints h1–h5 (plus a collision-avoidance constraint h6). Under the assumptions of a deterministic landmark motion model (the landmark-relative position p is an exact function of q) and the existence of a stopping input, the paper proves forward invariance of the safe set and formulates the filter as a feasibility-guaranteed QP. A numerical simulation with a ground robot demonstrates the relation W ≤ ŵ(q,λ) ≤ w(q), and a hardware experiment with ORB-SLAM2 shows improved feature tracking in a texture-poor environment compared to a baseline controller. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section VI that occlusion can disrupt the invariance condition.

Significance. If the formal guarantee held on the real system, this would be a valuable contribution: it provides a perception-aware safety filter with a clean CBF-QP formulation, a feasibility argument under stated assumptions, and a real-time implementation compatible with visual SLAM. The auxiliary-variable smoothing of the discontinuous visibility count is elegant and the numerical results support the idealized invariance claim. The authors also deserve credit for clearly listing the stopping-input assumption and for acknowledging occlusion as a limitation. However, as discussed in the major comments, the central guarantee is conditional on an exactness assumption that the real pipeline does not satisfy, so the paper's advertised claim that the filter 'ensures' a minimum information score is not fully supported by the theory. The experimental results are illustrative but do not validate the formal invariance property under realistic sensing errors.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-C, §IV-D] The forward-invariance proof of the safety filter (19) relies on h3,l(x) = -μl λl + (1-μl)ρ(pl(q)), where pl(q) is assumed to be an exact, known function of the robot configuration q. In the real pipeline, however, p is not part of the augmented state x = (q, λ, μ); instead it is obtained by forward-integrating the ODE (20) from discrete observations. Consequently, h3,l is not a function of the QP state, and the filter cannot distinguish a truly visible landmark from one whose ODE-predicted position is inside the field of view but is actually occluded, outside the depth range, or lost by the feature tracker. In such cases the certificate h(·) ≥ 0 can hold while the true tracked-feature count w(q) falls below W. Section VI concedes that occlusion 'can abruptly reduce observed landmarks and disrupt the invariance condition.' Because the abstract claims the filter 'ensures the information score ... remains above a user-specified threshold,' this is a load-bearing gap between the formal result and the advertised guarantee. The authors should either extend the state to include the landmark predictions and model their uncertainty, or explicitly scope the guarantee to the case of exact deterministic landmark dynamics and revise the abstract accordingly.
  2. [§IV-D] The re-initialization argument assumes that at every observation time ti the robot satisfies w(q(ti)) ≥ W and c(q(ti)) ≥ 0. The proof that the jump preserves nonnegativity of h1 uses the true visibility score w(qi) to conclude h1(x+_i) = w(qi) - W ≥ 0. In the real system, the filter only knows the sampled set L_i and the ODE-predicted p values; it does not know the true w(qi) if some features have been lost or occluded. Thus the guarantee is conditional on an external condition that the filter itself does not enforce. The assumption is stated, but its role in the central claim should be made more prominent, and the paper should discuss what happens when the condition fails, for example by providing a detection-and-recovery mechanism or a graceful-degradation analysis.
  3. [§V-B] The real-time implementation passes at most Nmax = 50 sampled features to the safety filter. Therefore the formal guarantee applies only to the score computed over this sampled subset, not to the full set of features tracked by ORB-SLAM2. The abstract's phrase 'the information score from the currently visible features' is ambiguous and could be read as a guarantee on the total feature count used for pose estimation. The paper should clearly specify that the threshold W applies to the sampled subset, and ideally the experimental evaluation should also report the feature count over the full set to substantiate the claim that reliable estimation is maintained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§V-C] The text contains a typo: 'shart drop' should be 'sharp drop'.
  2. [§III] The condition '∂xhi(x) ̸= 0if hi(x) = 0' is missing a space and would be cleaner as '∂xhi(x) ≠ 0 if hi(x) = 0'.
  3. [§IV-D] In the re-initialization paragraph, the expression 'µl(t0) = 1l /∈Li (l) = 0' should use the time index ti (i.e., µl(ti) = 0) for consistency with the surrounding notation.
  4. [§IV-B] The equivalence of (14) and (16) is stated with the proof omitted. Since this equivalence is load-bearing for the formulation, adding a short proof or an appendix would improve verifiability, even though the claim is correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the QP filter's guarantee follows algebraically from its constraints, with only a minor self-citation to the authors' prior auxiliary-state construction.

full rationale

The central claim is a forward-invariance theorem for the set defined by (18), enforced through the QP (19). This derivation is self-contained: h1 through h5 are constructed from the logical equivalence (16) between lambda_l > 0 implies rho(p_l(q)) >= 0 and the smooth constraint -mu_l lambda_l + (1 - mu_l) rho(p_l(q)) >= 0. If the QP keeps all h(.) nonnegative, then W <= hat w(q, lambda) <= w(q) follows by algebra from (11), (13), and (16); the simulation statement in Section IV-C is the solver satisfying those constraints, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. No parameter is fitted to the reported success, and the hardware experiment is an external benchmark against ORB-SLAM2. The only notable self-citation is [27], 'following the idea of [27]' for the auxiliary variable lambda; this is a method credit for a smoothing construction and is not used to forbid alternatives or to supply the core theorem without proof. The omitted proof of (16) is an exposition gap, not circularity. Section VI explicitly concedes that occlusion 'can abruptly reduce observed landmarks and disrupt the invariance condition'; this is a scope limitation that weakens the real-world guarantee but does not make the derivation circular. Overall score 2 reflects one minor self-citation, with the central claim retaining independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the stopping-input assumption, exact deterministic landmark propagation, and the ability to re-initialize with a sufficient visible set. The auxiliary variables are algorithmic rather than physical entities. The free parameters are tuning choices, not fitted to experimental data.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha_i = 1 (all constraints in simulation)
    Class-kappa gain in the CBF-QP (19); chosen by hand, controls convergence speed of constraints, not fitted to data.
  • W = 4.5
    Minimum feature score threshold in the running example; user-specified parameter, not estimated from data.
  • k_lambda, k_mu = 0.001
    Regularization weights on virtual inputs in the QP cost (19); chosen small to ensure unique solution without distorting the reference.
  • Nmax = 50
    Maximum number of features passed to the QP in the real-time implementation (Section V-B); selected to meet real-time constraints, weakens the formal guarantee to the sampled subset.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Nagumo's theorem: forward invariance of C is equivalent to h_i dot >= 0 on the boundary (Section III, Eq. (2))
    Used to convert the visibility maintenance objective into a set of inequality constraints in the QP.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous stopping input exists: for every reachable state there is u in U with f(x)+g(x)u=0; in the kinematic model u=0 and zero virtual inputs satisfy this
    Critical for the claim that QP (3)/(19) is always feasible when h>=0; stated in Section III.
  • domain assumption Landmarks are fixed in the world frame and their relative positions follow the deterministic ODE (20) without uncertainty or occlusion
    The h3,l constraints use this model to predict visibility; Eq. (20) in Section IV-C and the future-work paragraph in Section VI acknowledge occlusion is unhandled.
  • domain assumption At every observation time t_i the robot sees a sufficient set of features and can identify them: w(q(t_i)) >= W and L_i is correctly known
    Re-initialization of lambda and mu in Section IV-D requires this for h(x+)>=0; the filter cannot recover if the robot already has too few features.
invented entities (2)
  • Auxiliary score variables lambda_l
    purpose: Relax the non-differentiable sum-of-visible-landmarks score into a differentiable upper bound (11)-(13)
    Mathematical construction, no direct physical meaning.
  • Auxiliary mixing variables mu_l
    purpose: Encode the disjunctive visibility condition (14) as a smooth half-space condition (16)
    Algebraic device imported from the authors' [27], not independently observable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Feature Tracking Reliability for Visual Navigation using Real-Time Safety Filter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVDGAU4Q

@misc{pith2026250201092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Feature Tracking Reliability for Visual Navigation using Real-Time Safety Filter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVDGAU4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01092}
}
read the original abstract

Vision sensors are extensively used for localizing a robot's pose, particularly in environments where global localization tools such as GPS or motion capture systems are unavailable. In many visual navigation systems, localization is achieved by detecting and tracking visual features or landmarks, which provide information about the sensor's relative pose. For reliable feature tracking and accurate pose estimation, it is crucial to maintain visibility of a sufficient number of features. This requirement can sometimes conflict with the robot's overall task objective. In this paper, we approach it as a constrained control problem. By leveraging the invariance properties of visibility constraints within the robot's kinematic model, we propose a real-time safety filter based on quadratic programming. This filter takes a reference velocity command as input and produces a modified velocity that minimally deviates from the reference while ensuring the information score from the currently visible features remains above a user-specified threshold. Numerical simulations demonstrate that the proposed safety filter preserves the invariance condition and ensures the visibility of more features than the required minimum. We also validated its real-world performance by integrating it into a visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm, where it maintained high estimation quality in challenging environments, outperforming a simple tracking controller.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The result of experiments with (a) the proposed safety filter and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The robot configuration and the onboard camera’s field of view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation result for the running example. (left) The resulting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The diagram illustrated for the control structure for vision-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the result of the visual SLAM algorithm in between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

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. SCREP: Scene Coordinate Regression and Evidential Learning-based Perception-Aware Trajectory Generation

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Steering a drone's camera toward scene regions the SCR network labels as low entropy improves visual localization accuracy in GPS-denied indoor flight.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [27]

    Invariance guarantees using continuously parametrized control barrier functions,

    I. Jang and H. J. Kim, “Invariance guarantees using continuously parametrized control barrier functions,” in 2023 The 23rd International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS) . ICROS, 2023, pp. 70–75

    2023

  2. [1]

    Orb-slam2: An open-source slam system for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras,

    R. Mur-Artal and J. D. Tardós, “Orb-slam2: An open-source slam system for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras,” IEEE transactions on robotics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1255–1262, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, 2018

    2018

  4. [3]

    Planning in the continuous domain: A generalized belief space approach for autonomous naviga- tion in unknown environments,

    V . Indelman, L. Carlone, and F. Dellaert, “Planning in the continuous domain: A generalized belief space approach for autonomous naviga- tion in unknown environments,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 849–882, 2015

    2015

  5. [4]

    Lqg-mp: Optimized path planning for robots with motion uncertainty and imperfect state information,

    J. Van Den Berg, P. Abbeel, and K. Goldberg, “Lqg-mp: Optimized path planning for robots with motion uncertainty and imperfect state information,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 895–913, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Visibility- constrained control of multirotor via reference governor,

    D. Kim, M. Pezzutto, L. Schenato, and H. J. Kim, “Visibility- constrained control of multirotor via reference governor,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5714–5721

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Simultaneous localization and map- building using active vision,

    A. J. Davison and D. W. Murray, “Simultaneous localization and map- building using active vision,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 865–880, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [7]

    Rapidly-exploring random belief trees for motion planning under uncertainty,

    A. Bry and N. Roy, “Rapidly-exploring random belief trees for motion planning under uncertainty,” in 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation . IEEE, 2011, pp. 723–730

    work page 2011

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Motion-and uncertainty-aware path planning for micro aerial vehi- cles,

    M. W. Achtelik, S. Lynen, S. Weiss, M. Chli, and R. Siegwart, “Motion-and uncertainty-aware path planning for micro aerial vehi- cles,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 676–698, 2014

    2014

  2. [9]

    Beyond point clouds: Fisher infor- mation field for active visual localization,

    Z. Zhang and D. Scaramuzza, “Beyond point clouds: Fisher infor- mation field for active visual localization,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 5986–5992

    2019

  3. [10]

    Observability- aware trajectory optimization for self-calibration with application to uavs,

    K. Hausman, J. Preiss, G. S. Sukhatme, and S. Weiss, “Observability- aware trajectory optimization for self-calibration with application to uavs,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1770– 1777, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Pampc: Perception- aware model predictive control for quadrotors,

    D. Falanga, P. Foehn, P. Lu, and D. Scaramuzza, “Pampc: Perception- aware model predictive control for quadrotors,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

    2018

  5. [12]

    Topology-guided path planning for reliable visual navigation of mavs,

    D. Kim, G. C. Kim, Y . Jang, and H. J. Kim, “Topology-guided path planning for reliable visual navigation of mavs,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 3117–3124

    2021

  6. [13]

    Apace: Agile and perception-aware trajectory generation for quadrotor flights,

    X. Chen, Y . Zhang, B. Zhou, and S. Shen, “Apace: Agile and perception-aware trajectory generation for quadrotor flights,” 2024 ICRA, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Measurement-robust control barrier func- tions: 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 func- tions: Certainty in safety with uncertainty in state,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE,...

    2021

  8. [15]

    Safe and robust observer-controller synthesis using control barrier functions,

    D. R. Agrawal and D. Panagou, “Safe and robust observer-controller synthesis using control barrier functions,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 127–132, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    Safe control using vision- based control barrier function (v-cbf),

    H. Abdi, G. Raja, and R. Ghabcheloo, “Safe control using vision- based control barrier function (v-cbf),” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 782–788

    2023

  10. [17]

    Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control,

    W. Xiao, T.-H. Wang, R. Hasani, M. Chahine, A. Amini, X. Li, and D. Rus, “Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 2289–2307, 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Point cloud-based control barrier function regression for safe and efficient vision-based control,

    M. De Sa, P. Kotaru, and K. Sreenath, “Point cloud-based control barrier function regression for safe and efficient vision-based control,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 366–372

    2024

  12. [19]

    Enforcing safety for vision-based controllers via control barrier functions and neural radiance fields,

    M. Tong, C. Dawson, and C. Fan, “Enforcing safety for vision-based controllers via control barrier functions and neural radiance fields,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 511–10 517

    2023

  13. [20]

    Toward visibil- ity guaranteed visual servoing control of quadrotor uavs,

    D. Zheng, H. Wang, J. Wang, X. Zhang, and W. Chen, “Toward visibil- ity guaranteed visual servoing control of quadrotor uavs,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1087–1095, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    Diffocclusion: Differentiable optimization based control barrier functions for occlusion-free visual servoing,

    S. Wei, B. Dai, R. Khorrambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khor- rami, “Diffocclusion: Differentiable optimization based control barrier functions for occlusion-free visual servoing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  15. [22]

    Blanchini and S

    F. Blanchini and S. Miani, Set-theoretic methods in control. Springer, 2008

    2008

  16. [23]

    Data-driven safety filters: Hamilton-jacobi reachability, control barrier functions, and predictive methods for uncertain systems,

    K. P. Wabersich, A. J. Taylor, J. J. Choi, K. Sreenath, C. J. Tom- lin, A. D. Ames, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Data-driven safety filters: Hamilton-jacobi reachability, control barrier functions, and predictive methods for uncertain systems,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 43...

    2023

  17. [24]

    The safety filter: A unified view of safety-critical control in autonomous systems,

    K.-C. Hsu, H. Hu, and J. F. Fisac, “The safety filter: A unified view of safety-critical control in autonomous systems,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 7, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

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

    2016

  19. [26]

    Removing leaking corners to reduce dimensionality in hamilton-jacobi reachability,

    D. Lee, M. Chen, and C. J. Tomlin, “Removing leaking corners to reduce dimensionality in hamilton-jacobi reachability,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019, pp. 9320–9326

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.