Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

State and Input Constrained Adaptive Tracking Control of Uncertain Euler-Lagrange Systems with Robustness and Feasibility Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An adaptive, saturation-based controller can certify state and input constraint satisfaction for uncertain Euler-Lagrange systems, provided an explicit feasibility inequality holds.

desk verdict Promising feasibility condition and a real gap: the unsaturated-case analysis never establishes Vdot<0, so the main state-constraint theorem is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22352 v1 pith:VJPXVQ46 submitted 2025-05-28 eess.SY cs.SY

Poulomee Ghosh , Shubhendu Bhasin This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93C4093C1093D3093C85
keywords adaptivetrackingcontrolEuler-LagrangesystemsbarrierLyapunovfunctioninputsaturationstateconstraintsfeasibilityconditionprojection-basedadaptationroboticmanipulator
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 tries to establish that safety-critical tracking for uncertain Euler-Lagrange systems, such as robotic manipulators, does not require online optimization or exact model knowledge. It proposes an adaptive controller that combines a barrier function for state limits, saturation for actuator limits, and projection-based parameter estimation for disturbance robustness, and it states an explicit feasibility inequality that tells a user when a chosen set of limits can actually be met. If the theorem is right, an engineer can choose position, velocity, and torque bounds, check two inequalities, and run the controller with a guarantee that those bounds hold at every time. The paper also works out how the three bounds trade off against one another, and demonstrates the controller on a two-link manipulator with injected disturbances.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a barrier Lyapunov function defined on the filtered tracking error, $V(r)=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{\kappa_m^2}{\kappa_m^2-\bar{m}\|r\|^2}$, which goes to infinity as $\|r\|$ approaches $\kappa$; keeping $V$ bounded forces $\|r\|<\kappa$, and the relations among $e$, $\dot{e}$, and $r$ then transfer that bound to the position and velocity errors. A saturation block clamps each control component $\tau_i$ to $\frac{\bar{\tau}}{\|u\|}u_i$ when the auxiliary control exceeds the torque limit, and the feasibility condition C1 bounds the resulting saturation error $\Delta\tau=\tau-u$ so that it can be absorbed in the Lyapunov analysis. Projection in the update law keeps $\hat{\theta}$ inside the known ball, which is what makes the disturbance and saturation terms manageable.

What would settle it

Run the Section V simulation with the disturbance set to its allowed bound $\bar{d}=5$ from $t=0$ while the control remains unsaturated, and record the filtered tracking error $\|r(t)\|$; if it ever reaches $\kappa=E_V-\alpha E_Q=0.04$, the theorem's invariant-set claim fails. A cheaper check is to evaluate the right side of (25) at small $\|r\|$ with $\|d\|=\bar{d}$: a positive value shows the Lyapunov argument alone does not certify invariance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: for the uncertain Euler-Lagrange system (1) with bounded disturbance $\|d(t)\|\le \bar{d}$, unknown parameters drawn from a known ball $\|\theta\|<\bar{\theta}$, and a reference trajectory whose position and velocity stay strictly inside the state bounds, the saturated feedback controller (8)--(9) together with the projection-based update law (20) guarantees that $\|q(t)\|<\bar{Q}$, $\|\dot{q}(t)\|<\bar{V}$, and $\|\tau(t)\|\le \bar{\tau}$ for all $t\ge 0$, and that all closed-loop signals remain bounded. The guarantee is conditional on two explicit user-checkable inequalities: the gain condition $\alpha<E_V/E_Q$ and the feasibility condition $\bar{\tau}>\omega_1+\omega_2\bar{V}-\omega_3\bar{Q}$. The proof routes the state constraints through a filtered tracking error $r=\dot{e}+\alpha e$ and maintains $\|r\|<\kappa=E_V-\alpha E_Q$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on the barrier-function derivative being negative at every time the filtered tracking error is inside its safe interval, but the negative sign is only demonstrated in the saturated-control case; in the unsaturated case the bound in equation (25) allows the derivative to be positive, so the invariant set $\|r\|<\kappa$ is asserted rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 1 is correct, the controller keeps $\|q(t)\|<\bar{Q}$, $\|\dot{q}(t)\|<\bar{V}$, and $\|\tau(t)\|\le \bar{\tau}$ for every $t$, including transients, so the safety guarantee is not merely asymptotic.
  • Condition C1 directly quantifies the trade-off between actuator authority and state limits: tightening the position bound $\bar{Q}$ increases the required torque bound $\bar{\tau}$, while increasing the velocity bound $\bar{V}$ also demands more control authority.
  • The gain condition $\alpha<E_V/E_Q$ gives a design range for the filter gain, preventing either the position error or the velocity error from dominating and violating the allowed envelope.
  • Because no quadratic program or model predictive control optimization is run online, the computational cost per step is comparable to standard adaptive control, which matters for fast or resource-limited systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The feasibility condition can be read as an offline actuator-sizing rule: a user could check whether a candidate torque ceiling is large enough for a given trajectory envelope and known disturbance bound before deployment, although the paper does not develop that certification workflow.
  • A natural test of the theorem is to run the two-link example with the disturbance at its allowed bound $\bar{d}=5$ while the control is unsaturated; watching whether the filtered error $\|r\|$ stays below $\kappa=0.04$ would probe the proof's treatment of the unsaturated case.
  • The saturated-BLF construction may extend to per-coordinate state constraints or to underactuated Lagrangian systems, but each generalization would need its own feasibility condition because the norm-based derivation in C1 depends on the specific vector bound.
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 proposes an adaptive tracking controller for uncertain Euler-Lagrange systems with user-defined state and input constraints. The design combines a barrier Lyapunov function (BLF) for state constraints with a saturated control law for input constraints, and uses a projection-based adaptive update law for parametric uncertainty and bounded disturbances. The main contribution is a claimed verifiable feasibility condition (C1) that guarantees state and input constraint satisfaction and boundedness of all closed-loop signals. The claims are supported by a Lyapunov analysis and a simulation on a two-link robotic manipulator.

Significance. If the main theorem were correct, the result would be a useful optimization-free alternative to MPC and CBF methods for constrained Euler-Lagrange systems, with the advantage of a verifiable feasibility condition. The paper includes a simulation comparison with a classical robust adaptive controller, showing constraint satisfaction with the proposed method. However, the proof of Theorem 1 has serious gaps that undermine the central claim, and the feasibility condition derivation contains an algebraic error. The core theoretical contribution is therefore not established in the present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Theorem 1 proof, Case 1 (after Eq. (25))] In the unsaturated case, Eq. (25) with Delta_tau = 0 gives Vdot <= (||r||/(kappa_m^2 - mbar||r||^2)) (dbar - lambda_min(K1)||r||). This upper bound is positive for all ||r|| < dbar/lambda_min(K1). The feasibility condition C1 does not imply lambda_min(K1)*kappa > dbar; indeed, with the simulation parameters dbar=5, lambda_min(K1)=1, kappa=0.04, the bound is positive on the entire set Omega_r. Therefore Lemma 1's hypothesis (18), which requires Vdot < 0 on the whole set Omega_r, is not verified, and the conclusion ||r(t)|| < kappa, and hence the state constraints (40)-(41), are unsupported.
  2. [Section III, Theorem 1 proof, Cases 1 and 2 (Eqs. (29)-(31))] Inequality (29) is derived under the saturation condition ||u|| > taubar (Case 2). In Case 1, Delta_tau = 0, so (29) is not applicable. The proof substitutes (29) into (25) without regard to which case is active, and then concludes Vdot < 0 in (31). This mixing of the two cases invalidates the derivation of the negative-definiteness bound and the subsequent invariant-set argument.
  3. [Section III, Theorem 1 proof, Eqs. (32)-(34)] The algebraic step from (32) to (33) is incorrect. Substituting the definitions of Psi, xi, and kappa = EV - alpha EQ into (32) yields the lower bound taubar > theta_bar(alpha^2 EQ + alpha EQ + Vd + alpha3 + 2) + dbar + (EV - alpha EQ)(theta_bar(alpha + 2) + lambda_max(K1) - lambda_min(K1)), not the expression in (33), which has theta_bar(2alpha + 3) instead of theta_bar(alpha + 2). Moreover, the right-hand side of (34) is larger than the right-hand side of (33), so the claimed implication (33) => (34) has the wrong direction. While C1 may be a sufficient condition if proved directly, the derivation as written does not establish it.
  4. [Section III, Theorem 1 proof, Eqs. (35)-(36)] The claim that Vdot(0) < 0 and 'repeating the argument' yields Vdot(t) < 0 for all t is not justified. At t=0 the controller may be unsaturated, and the admissible initial condition ||r(0)|| < kappa permits ||r(0)|| < dbar/lambda_min(K1). For an adversarial disturbance d = dbar r/||r|| and theta_hat(0) = theta, the exact expression (24) gives Vdot(0) > 0 when ||r(0)|| < dbar/lambda_min(K1). Thus (36) is false under the stated assumptions, and the proof of the invariant set fails.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 setup] The set Omega'_r is defined as a subset of R, but it should be R^n; the norm ||r|| is n-dimensional. This is likely a typo but should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 1] The caption for Fig. 1 is missing; it currently reads only 'Caption'.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (34)] The constants delta and omega3 are described as positive, but delta is never defined anywhere in the paper.
  4. [Section V, simulation parameters] The simulation states that the control input satisfies ||tau(t)|| < 30, while the input constraint in Section II is ||tau(t)|| <= taubar. Consistency in the inequality direction would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the only self-citation is motivational, and the identified Case 1 weakness is a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The controller (8)-(9) is an explicit saturated design rather than a fitted quantity; the adaptive law (20) is a projection-based update with standard properties; and the feasibility condition C1 is obtained algebraically from the Lyapunov derivative and the stated bounds (Eqs. (28)-(34)), not from the theorem's conclusion. Lemma 1 is taken from the external reference [13], and the sole self-citation [29] is used only to motivate the problem and is not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or prior result of the authors is invoked to force the controller structure. The state-constraint conclusion is an invariant-set argument: Assumption 2 fixes initial conditions inside the safe set and the proof attempts to establish Vdot < 0 on Omega_r, so the conclusion is not identical to the hypothesis. The genuine weakness, which should be treated as a correctness/stability-analysis risk rather than circularity, is that in Case 1 (||u(t)|| <= tau_bar) inequality (25) gives Vdot <= (||r||/(kappa_m^2 - mbar||r||^2))(dbar - lambda_min(K1)||r||), which is positive for small ||r|| when the disturbance bound exceeds the linear damping; the manuscript's assertion after (34) that 'repeating the above argument' yields Vdot(t) < 0 for all t is not justified by Lemma 1, whose hypothesis (18) requires Vdot < 0 on the whole set Omega_r, not merely near its boundary. This is a gap in the proof of Theorem 1, but it is not a case of the paper assuming what it claims to prove, nor of renaming a fitted prediction as a derivation. Accordingly, the circularity score is 1: minor self-citation, no circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameter fitting to data occurs in this paper; alpha, K1, and Gamma are user-specified design gains listed for completeness. The central claim rests on standard EL properties, three assumptions on the reference and initial conditions, and an external BLF lemma from Tee et al. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • filter gain alpha = 0.5 in simulation
    User-selected under the gain condition alpha < EV/EQ; it defines kappa = EV - alpha EQ and appears in the feasibility condition C1. It is a design choice, not fitted to data.
  • control gain matrix K1 = diag(1.5, 1) in simulation
    User-selected controller gain; enters C1 through lambdamax and lambdamin. It is a design choice, not fitted to data.
  • adaptation gain Gamma = 10*I in simulation
    User-selected adaptation gain; used in the update law and not central to the feasibility condition.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Properties 1-3: M is symmetric positive definite with known bounds, Mdot - 2Vm is skew-symmetric, and the dynamics are linearly parameterizable.
    Invoked in equations (2)-(4) and throughout the Lyapunov analysis, including the definition of the BLF in (19).
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: The reference trajectory and its derivatives are bounded with Qd < Qbar and Vd < Vbar.
    Used to convert state constraints into constraint bounds EQ and EV on the tracking errors in Section II.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: Initial errors satisfy ||e(0)|| <= EQ - kappa/alpha and ||r(0)|| < kappa.
    Needed for the BLF to be finite initially and for the bounds on e and edot used later in the proof; stated in Section III.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: The unknown parameter vector satisfies ||theta|| < thetabar with known thetabar.
    Used for the projection update law and for the bound on ||u|| in equation (27).
  • standard math Lemma 1 from Tee et al. [13]: If Vdot < 0 along the trajectory and V1 grows at the boundary, then r stays in the safe set.
    External BLF invariance lemma imported from [13]; the present proof fails to verify its condition in the unsaturated case.
  • domain assumption A known upper bound mbar on the inertia matrix is available from Property 1.
    Used to define the BLF in equation (19) as V1(r) = 1/2 log(kappa_m^2 / (kappa_m^2 - mbar||r||^2)).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of State and Input Constrained Adaptive Tracking Control of Uncertain Euler-Lagrange Systems with Robustness and Feasibility Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJPXVQ46

@misc{pith2026250522352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: State and Input Constrained Adaptive Tracking Control of Uncertain Euler-Lagrange Systems with Robustness and Feasibility Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJPXVQ46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22352}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes an adaptive tracking controller for uncertain Euler-Lagrange (E-L) systems with user-defined state and input constraints in presence of bounded external disturbances. A barrier Lyapunov function (BLF) is employed for state constraint satisfaction, integrated with a saturated controller that ensures the control input remains within pre-specified bounds. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first result on tracking control of state and input-constrained uncertain E-L systems that provides verifiable conditions for the existence of a feasible control policy. The efficacy of the proposed controller in terms of constraint satisfaction and tracking performance is demonstrated through simulation on a robotic manipulator system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22352 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Feasibility regions for Case 1 Case 2: Trade-off between τ¯ and V¯ for fixed Q¯ 2.1. No hard constraints on τ¯ and V¯: For any given set of {τ, ¯ V}¯ , feasibility can be verified using C1. As shown in Fig. (3a), {τ, ¯ V}¯ = {2, 2} is infeasible; however, {τ, ¯ V}¯ = {6, 4} is feasible. 2.2. Hard constraint on the τ¯ or/and V¯: Given a (V¯), the minimum required τ¯ can be determined using C1 and vice versa. Fig. 2b … view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the relationship and the associated trade-off between the position, velocity, and input constraints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Feasibility region for Case 3 For a fixed velocity constraint, increasing the position con￾straint enables more flexible state regulation, reducing the required control input. Conversely, for a fixed position con￾straint, increasing the velocity constraint demands a higher control authority to ensure tracking to a desired reference trajectory. Similarly, when the input constraint is fixed, en￾suring feasibility unde… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: illustrates the feasibility region with Q¯ = 2.5, V¯ = 1 and τ¯ = 30 satisfying C1. Since Q¯ d = 2 and V¯ d = 0.707, the minimum feasible position and velocity constraints are Q¯min > 2 and V¯min > 0.707, respectively. Within the feasibility region, any combination of …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectory tracking errors between the actual and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tracking performance of the actual position to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Tracking performance of the actual velocity to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adaptive robust control of a class of uncertain nonlinear systems with unknown sinusoidal disturbances,

    X. Liu, H. Su, B. Yao, and J. Chu, “Adaptive robust control of a class of uncertain nonlinear systems with unknown sinusoidal disturbances,” in 2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 2594– 2599, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Adaptive–robust control of eu- ler–lagrange systems with linearly parametrizable uncertainty bound,

    S. Roy, S. B. Roy, and I. N. Kar, “Adaptive–robust control of eu- ler–lagrange systems with linearly parametrizable uncertainty bound,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1842–1850, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Tube model reference adaptive control,

    B. Mirkin and P.-O. Gutman, “Tube model reference adaptive control,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1012–1018, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

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

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

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    Robustness of con- trol barrier functions for safety critical control,

    X. Xu, P. Tabuada, J. W. Grizzle, and A. D. Ames, “Robustness of con- trol barrier functions for safety critical control,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 27, pp. 54–61, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    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 Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 6271–6278, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    A unified framework for the numerical solution of optimal control problems using pseudospectral methods,

    D. Garg, M. Patterson, W. W. Hager, A. V . Rao, D. A. Benson, and G. T. Huntington, “A unified framework for the numerical solution of optimal control problems using pseudospectral methods,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1843–1851, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Robust time-optimal control of constrained linear systems,

    D. Q. Mayne and W. Schroeder, “Robust time-optimal control of constrained linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 2103– 2118, 1997

    1997

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Set invariance in control,

    F. Blanchini, “Set invariance in control,” Automatica, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1747–1767, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Blanchini and S

    F. Blanchini and S. Miani, Set-theoretic methods in control , vol. 78. Springer, 2008

    2008

  3. [11]

    Nonlinear control of constrained linear systems via predictive reference management,

    A. Bemporad, A. Casavola, and E. Mosca, “Nonlinear control of constrained linear systems via predictive reference management,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 340–349, 1997

    1997

  4. [12]

    Discrete-time reference governors and the nonlinear control of systems with state and control constraints,

    E. G. Gilbert, I. Kolmanovsky, and K. T. Tan, “Discrete-time reference governors and the nonlinear control of systems with state and control constraints,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 487–504, 1995

    1995

  5. [13]

    Barrier lyapunov functions for the control of output-constrained nonlinear systems,

    K. P. Tee, S. S. Ge, and E. H. Tay, “Barrier lyapunov functions for the control of output-constrained nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 918–927, 2009

    2009

  6. [14]

    Barrier lyapunov functions-based adaptive control for a class of nonlinear pure-feedback systems with full state constraints,

    Y .-J. Liu and S. Tong, “Barrier lyapunov functions-based adaptive control for a class of nonlinear pure-feedback systems with full state constraints,” Automatica, vol. 64, pp. 70–75, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Prescribed performance control of uncertain euler–lagrange systems subject to full-state constraints,

    K. Zhao, Y . Song, T. Ma, and L. He, “Prescribed performance control of uncertain euler–lagrange systems subject to full-state constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 3478–3489, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Adding integrations, saturated controls, and stabilization for feedforward systems,

    F. Mazenc and L. Praly, “Adding integrations, saturated controls, and stabilization for feedforward systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1559–1578, 1996

    1996

  9. [17]

    A. H. Glattfelder and W. Schaufelberger, Control systems with input and output constraints , vol. 1. Springer, 2003

    2003

  10. [18]

    Global asymptotic nonlinear pid control with a new generalized saturation function,

    G. Niu and C. Qu, “Global asymptotic nonlinear pid control with a new generalized saturation function,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 210513– 210531, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Stability of robot manipulators under saturated pid compensation,

    J. Alvarez-Ramirez, V . Santibanez, and R. Campa, “Stability of robot manipulators under saturated pid compensation,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1333–1341, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Global asymptotic saturated pid control for robot manipulators,

    Y . Su, P. C. M ¨uller, and C. Zheng, “Global asymptotic saturated pid control for robot manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1280–1288, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Adaptive control in the presence of input constraints,

    S. P. Karason and A. M. Annaswamy, “Adaptive control in the presence of input constraints,” in American Control Conference, pp. 1370–1374, 1993

    1993

  14. [22]

    Stable adaptation in the presence of input constraints,

    E. Lavretsky and N. Hovakimyan, “Stable adaptation in the presence of input constraints,” Systems & Control Letters , vol. 56, no. 11-12, pp. 722–729, 2007

    2007

  15. [23]

    Reference and command governors for systems with constraints: A survey on theory and applications,

    E. Garone, S. Di Cairano, and I. Kolmanovsky, “Reference and command governors for systems with constraints: A survey on theory and applications,” Automatica, vol. 75, pp. 306–328, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Indirect adaptive mpc for discrete-time lti systems with parametric uncertainties,

    A. Dhar and S. Bhasin, “Indirect adaptive mpc for discrete-time lti systems with parametric uncertainties,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 5498–5505, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

    D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V . Rao, and P. O. Scokaert, “Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Au- tomatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

    2000

  18. [26]

    Multi-model indirect adaptive mpc,

    A. Dhar and S. Bhasin, “Multi-model indirect adaptive mpc,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 1460–1465, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    A robust adaptive model predictive control framework for nonlinear uncertain systems,

    J. K ¨ohler, P. K ¨otting, R. Soloperto, F. Allg ¨ower, and M. A. M ¨uller, “A robust adaptive model predictive control framework for nonlinear uncertain systems,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 31, no. 18, pp. 8725–8749, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Correct-by-design control barrier functions for euler-lagrange systems with input constraints,

    W. S. Cortez and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Correct-by-design control barrier functions for euler-lagrange systems with input constraints,” in American Control Conference , pp. 950–955, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Adaptive tracking control of uncertain euler- lagrange systems with state and input constraints,

    P. Ghosh and S. Bhasin, “Adaptive tracking control of uncertain euler- lagrange systems with state and input constraints,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC) , pp. 4229–4234, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    M. W. Spong and M. Vidyasagar, Robot dynamics and control . John Wiley & Sons, 2008

    2008

  23. [31]

    Robust adaptive control,

    E. Lavretsky and K. A. Wise, “Robust adaptive control,” in Robust and adaptive control: With aerospace applications , pp. 317–353, Springer, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.