Time Shift Governor-Guided MPC with Collision Cone CBFs for Safe Adaptive Cruise Control in Dynamic Environments

Anouck Girard; Ilya Kolmanovsky; Robin Inho Kee; Taehyeun Kim

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Time Shift Governor-Guided MPC with Collision Cone CBFs for Safe Adaptive Cruise Control in Dynamic Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A time shift governor that shifts the lead vehicle's reference trajectory backward in time, combined with a relaxed collision cone barrier, lets an MPC-based adaptive cruise controller avoid every collision in 50 randomized…

desk verdict A plausible TSG-MPC-CBF architecture for ACC, but the relaxed C3BF inequality is written backwards (likely a typo) and the safety claims rest on unvalidated slack tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.24083 v1 pith:3MJG4BNL submitted 2025-06-30 eess.SY cs.SY

Robin Inho Kee , Taehyeun Kim , Anouck Girard , Ilya Kolmanovsky This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords adaptivecruisecontrolbarrierfunctionscollisionconeCBFtimeshiftgovernormodelpredictivesafeautonomousdrivingrecursivefeasibilitydynamicobstacleavoidance

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

The paper proposes adding a time shift governor to an MPC-CBF adaptive cruise controller so the controlled car remains safe when the lead vehicle brakes, reverses, or swerves suddenly and when obstacles move across the road. The key move is to make a small time shift in the lead vehicle's reference trajectory an extra decision variable inside the optimal control problem, so the controller can react to the lead's earlier position instead of declaring the safety problem infeasible. A relaxed collision cone barrier with a bounded slack term keeps the obstacle-avoidance constraint feasible when strict enforcement would be too conservative. In 50 randomized low-speed trials on a curved road with moving obstacles, the TSG-guided controller completed every trial without collision, while the baseline MPC-CBF collided in 9 trials.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Time Shift Governor (TSG), a scalar decision variable $\tau_{\mathrm{shift}}$ that time-shifts the lead vehicle's reference trajectory and projects it onto the circular road reference to form a virtual target. This virtual target enters the ACC safety control barrier function (7); together with a relaxed Collision Cone CBF (C3BF) whose inequality (9) includes a slack variable $\delta_{\mathrm{C3BF}}$ penalized in the cost, it keeps the discrete-time CBF constraints (10e)-(10g) feasible over the MPC horizon. The TSG supplies the mechanism for adapting to sudden lead-vehicle reversals or moving obstacles without lengthening the prediction horizon.

What would settle it

Run the same 50-trial scenario with the slack upper bound lowered from 3.0 to 0.5 and obstacle speeds raised above 1.4 m/s while recording the minimum distance from the ego vehicle to each obstacle; a collision or a distance below the summed vehicle and obstacle radii in any trial where the slack saturates at its bound would directly refute the safety claim. A subtler check is to record whether the TSG-guided controller ever becomes infeasible when the lead vehicle reverses earlier than in the tested trials; if it does, recursive feasibility, not just slack tuning, is the limiting assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that augmenting the MPC-CBF formulation with a time shift governor and a relaxed collision cone CBF keeps adaptive cruise control safe when the lead vehicle and obstacle motion change rapidly. The time shift parameter $\tau_{\mathrm{shift}}$ shifts the lead vehicle's trajectory backward in time to generate a virtual reference target, and the relaxed C3BF constraint with a bounded slack $\delta_{\mathrm{C3BF}} \in [0, 3.0]$ softened by a penalty coefficient $\lambda = 0.01$ keeps the optimization feasible when strict safety constraints cannot be met. In simulation, the TSG-guided controller completes all 50 trials without collision whereas the baseline MPC-CBF collides in 9 trials (6 rear-end collisions with the lead vehicle and 3 with dynamic obstacles), supporting the claim that the augmentation improves recursive feasibility and constraint satisfaction in dynamic environments.

Load-bearing premise

The controller's safety guarantee rests on the unproven assumption that allowing the obstacle-avoidance condition to be softly violated up to a fixed limit of 3.0 units will never let a real collision happen, even though no relationship between that violation limit and the physical distance to an obstacle is established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

TSG augmentation can preserve recursive feasibility of short-horizon MPC-CBF in dynamic environments where strict CBF constraints would otherwise make the optimization infeasible.
A relaxed C3BF with slack reduces the conservatism of collision cone avoidance, letting the controller react to obstacles that are far away but approaching.
The approach adds only one extra scalar decision variable, so it remains computationally light with a prediction horizon of five steps.
The same architecture transfers to other curved-road ACC scenarios with reversing or off-track lead vehicles, as illustrated by the circular-track simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the result is measured as collision rate over 50 trials, an independent stress test with obstacles moving faster than the sampled $[0.8, 1.4]$ m/s range and with lead-vehicle reversals at shorter notice would probe whether the TSG gain holds near the edge of the slack bound.
The slack bound $\bar{\delta} = 3.0$ is not tied to a physical distance; a state-dependent slack limit derived from a minimum avoidable distance would give the safety claim a quantitative foundation the paper does not provide.
On straight roads the circular-projection step would need to be replaced by a straight-line projection; verifying the TSG's benefit in that geometry is a direct next test suggested by the paper's circular-path assumption.
The paper states that long-horizon scenarios and comparisons with other constraint-enforcement methods remain future work; benchmarking against tube-based MPC or learning-based CBF adaptation would clarify how much of the 18-point success-rate gap is attributable to the TSG itself.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The thing to know: the paper's headline inequality is written backwards. Eq. (10g) enforces h(x_{k+1}) ≤ δ_k (with γ=1), an upper bound on the barrier value, not the safety lower bound h ≥ 0. The relaxed C3BF introduced in Eq. (9) has the opposite inequality. So the 100% vs 82% success claim cannot be traced to the constraint as stated. This is almost certainly a typo, but it sits at the center of the contribution.

What's actually new: applying the Time Shift Governor to ground-vehicle ACC, with the TSG's scalar shift parameter as an extra decision variable in an MPC-CBF scheme. That is a genuine new application; the TSG lineage is properly cited. The paper is cleanly written, and the experiments—though limited—are described in enough detail to reproduce the setup. The authors are upfront about limitations (no long-horizon study, no hardware, no comparison to other constraint-enforcement methods). I believe them.

The soft spots beyond the sign error: recursive feasibility is claimed as a key property but never proven; the slack bound δ ∈ [0,3] is not tied to any physical distance, so the "practical safety" claim rests on tuning. Fifty random trials is a fine start, but there are no error bars and no code or data dropped. Given the hand-tuned weights for both controllers, I can't rule out that some of the baseline's failures are tuning artifacts. The ablation is also coarse: the TSG adds a decision variable and extra computation, and the paper doesn't isolate what part of the improvement comes from the TSG vs the slack relaxation.

Who benefits: researchers working on safety-critical MPC for ground robots will find the architecture suggestive, and the sign error is instructive for anyone writing CBF constraints. The paper deserves a serious referee because the core idea is plausible and the flaw is fixable, but as written the simulation claims do not substantiate the method. My recommendation: send it to review, and make the inequality fix plus a formal recursive-feasibility argument or a much heavier simulation study (sensitivity sweeps, error bars, code release) conditions for acceptance.

More personally, I would not cite it in its current form, but I would keep an eye on a revised version.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a TSG-guided MPC-CBF controller for adaptive cruise control on curved roads with moving obstacles. A time shift governor augments the MPC by shifting the lead-vehicle reference trajectory, and a slack variable is introduced to soften the collision-cone CBF condition. The method is evaluated in 50 randomized simulations with a sinusoidal-speed lead vehicle and moving obstacles, reporting 100% success for the TSG-guided MPC-CBF versus 82% for the baseline MPC-CBF.

Significance. The architectural idea of coupling a time shift governor with safety-critical MPC is interesting and the chosen low-speed ACC scenario is practically relevant. The paper is clearly organized and reports its simulation setup and parameters in a transparent way. However, the core C3BF constraint is internally inconsistent as written: Eq. (9) and Eq. (10g) have opposite slack signs, so the implemented OCP does not enforce the advertised safety condition. In addition, the recursive-feasibility and practical-safety claims are supported neither by proof nor by a quantitative link between the slack and physical distance. The contribution is therefore not established in the current manuscript.

major comments (4)

[IV-D and IV-E, Eq. (9)/(10g)] The sign of the slack is inconsistent between the definition of the relaxed C3BF and the implemented OCP. Eq. (9) states h(x_{k+1}) - h(x_k) + alpha(h(x_k)) - delta >= 0, i.e., the left-hand side is required to be at least delta, which is stricter than the strict CBF condition; Eq. (10g) states the opposite inequality, with the left-hand side <= delta_k. With the reported alpha(h)=h (gamma=1), Eq. (10g) reduces to h(x_{k+1}) <= delta_k, an upper bound on the barrier value rather than a lower bound. Since the safe set is C_C3BF = {x : h(x) >= 0}, this constraint permits and even encourages h <= 0 and provides no obstacle-avoidance guarantee. The simulation results therefore cannot be attributed to the C3BF constraint as written. If the intended relaxation is h(x_{k+1}) - h(x_k) + alpha(h(x_k)) >= -delta_k, the OCP constraint must be corrected and the experiments rerun.
[IV-D through V] No result is derived that links the slack variable delta_C3BF to the physical distance between the ego vehicle and an obstacle. The values delta in [0,3] and lambda=0.01 are hand-tuned parameters; when the slack is active, the CBF condition, even with a corrected sign, no longer implies forward invariance of any safety set. The paper's claim of 'practical safety guarantees' in dynamic environments is therefore unsupported by the theoretical development in Section II. A quantitative statement, such as a lower bound on the minimum distance as a function of delta, would be needed.
[III and V] Recursive feasibility is stated as a key requirement in Section III and is claimed as a benefit of the TSG in Sections IV-B and V, but no proof or formal argument is given. The OCP (10) contains nonlinear, time-varying constraints and a slack variable; recursive feasibility of such a formulation is nontrivial and cannot be inferred from 50 successful simulation trials. This is a load-bearing gap because the paper explicitly motivates the TSG as a means of 'enhancing recursive feasibility.'
[IV-E, Eq. (10a)] The time shift parameter tau_shift is described in Sections III and IV-B as an optimization variable, but in (10a) the minimization is only over u_{0:N-1} and delta_C3BF,0:N-1. The cost and constraints depend on tau_shift through (10d). As written, either tau_shift must be included in the decision-variable list with an update rule, or the TSG is an externally prescribed parameter. This ambiguity affects the central claimed contribution, since the TSG mechanism is not fully defined in the optimization problem.

minor comments (4)

[II-C, Eq. (4) vicinity] The text refers to 'hC3BP' in one place; this should be 'hC3BF'.
[V-A, solver reference] The sentence 'using the IPOPT solver [23]' cites the do-mpc paper; IPOPT should be cited directly or the software stack should be described more accurately.
[IV-B, Eq. for fshift] The virtual heading is computed as atan2(ylead(tau+tau_shift), xlead(tau+tau_shift)), which projects the lead position onto a circle centered at the global origin. The reference-frame assumption should be stated explicitly, since a circular road reference can have an arbitrary center.
[Abstract] The phrase 'defined for obstacle-free curved road tracking' is confusing because the paper's contribution includes obstacle avoidance; the wording should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TSG-guided MPC-CBF safety claim is supported by an external simulation comparison, not by a fitted input or a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain from the CBF definitions (Section II) through the relaxed C3BF (Section IV-D) to the implemented OCP (Section IV-E) and the simulation evaluation (Section V). The central claim is the 100% success rate over 50 trials in Table I relative to an 82% baseline. That result is computed by running the proposed controller and a baseline controller in the same simulator; it is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the outcome and then re-predicting the same outcome. The relaxed C3BF slack variable delta is an input tuning choice, but the paper does not claim to derive collision avoidance from delta; it claims simulation effectiveness, so no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The cited TSG works [13]-[16] are authored by the same group, but the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or use those citations to forbid alternatives; the TSG is an architectural component whose benefit is demonstrated against the baseline, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. The only substantive issue I found is the sign mismatch between Eq. (9), which requires h(x_{k+1}) - h(x_k) + alpha(h(x_k)) - delta >= 0, and Eq. (10g), which imposes the opposite inequality; this is a correctness or consistency concern, not circularity, because the simulation result does not reduce to its own premise. Similarly, the lack of a derived bound linking delta to physical distance weakens the safety guarantee but does not make the derivation circular. Accordingly, no circular step is established by the paper's own equations or citations, and the default non-finding applies.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The reported 100% success depends on hand-tuned gains and slack bounds, the kinematic bicycle model, and an unproved feasibility-preservation property of the TSG. The simulated scenario is a stress test tailored to the TSG's anticipated benefit. No new physical entities are introduced; the virtual target is a computational device.

free parameters (7)

Slack penalty lambda = 0.01
Penalizes relaxed C3BF violations in the cost; hand-tuned, no sensitivity analysis.
Slack upper bound delta_bar = 3.0
Limits allowed CBF violation; chosen ad hoc.
C3BF class K gain gamma = 1.0
Set following [11]; still a tuning choice not derived from data.
ACC CBF class K gain gamma_virtual = 0.1
Chosen so the baseline stays feasible on the nominal path.
Cost weights Q, R, Qd, Qshift = tuned, not specified
Shape the tracking/effort trade-off and the TSG usage; no values are given.
Prediction horizon N = 5 steps
Short horizon claimed to benefit from TSG; no horizon sensitivity study.
Safe distance factor 1.8 s = 1.8
From the half-speedometer guideline [22]; converts speed to seconds.

assumptions (5)

standard math Discrete-time CBF forward invariance theorem
Used to justify the safety constraints (10e) and (10g); cited to [17,19], not reproved.
domain assumption Kinematic bicycle model with small-angle approximation (cos beta approx 1, sin beta approx beta) matches the 2016 KIA Soul
Section IV-A; the vehicle dynamics are assumed to be control-affine under this approximation, with slip angle capped at +/-12 degrees.
domain assumption Euler discretization at Delta t = 0.05 s preserves the CBF safety properties
Section IV-A/V-A; no analysis of discretization error on constraint enforcement.
ad hoc to paper Time-shifting the lead reference via fshift preserves feasibility improvement
Section IV-B; the key TSG benefit is asserted, not proven, and no bound on tau_shift is derived.
domain assumption Half-speedometer safe-distance rule yields a valid CBF for ACC
Section IV-C; taken from [22], treated as a given safety metric.

invented entities (1)

Virtual lead-vehicle target x_virtual
purpose: Provides a time-shifted reference position onto which the ego vehicle tracks, enabling anticipatory response to lead-vehicle changes.
A computational construct defined in Section IV-B through fshift; it is not a physical entity and has no testable prediction outside the controller.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time Shift Governor-Guided MPC with Collision Cone CBFs for Safe Adaptive Cruise Control in Dynamic Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MJG4BNL

@misc{pith2026250624083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time Shift Governor-Guided MPC with Collision Cone CBFs for Safe Adaptive Cruise Control in Dynamic Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MJG4BNL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.24083}
}

read the original abstract

This paper introduces a Time Shift Governor (TSG)-guided Model Predictive Controller with Control Barrier Functions (CBFs)-based constraints for adaptive cruise control (ACC). This MPC-CBF approach is defined for obstacle-free curved road tracking, while following distance and obstacle avoidance constraints are handled using standard CBFs and relaxed Collision Cone CBFs. In order to address scenarios involving rapidly moving obstacles or rapidly changing leading vehicle's behavior, the TSG augmentation is employed which alters the target reference to enforce constraints. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the TSG-guided MPC-CBF approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.24083 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Representative trials (Panels A and B) selected from 50 simulation experiments. Each panel shows: (a) Baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Researches on adaptive cruise control system: A state of the art review,

L. Yu and R. Wang, “Researches on adaptive cruise control system: A state of the art review,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 236, no. 2-3, pp. 211–240, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Evaluating the safety impact of adaptive cruise control in traffic oscillations on freeways,

Y . Li, Z. Li, H. Wang, W. Wang, and L. Xing, “Evaluating the safety impact of adaptive cruise control in traffic oscillations on freeways,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 104, pp. 137–145, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Del Re, F

L. Del Re, F. Allg ¨ower, L. Glielmo, C. Guardiola, and I. Kol- manovsky, Automotive model predictive control: models, methods and applications. Springer, 2010, vol. 402

work page 2010
[4]

Adaptive cruise control for a smart car: A comparison benchmark for mpc-pwa control methods,

D. Corona and B. De Schutter, “Adaptive cruise control for a smart car: A comparison benchmark for mpc-pwa control methods,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 365– 372, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

G. J. Naus, J. Ploeg, M. Van de Molengraft, W. Heemels, and M. Stein- buch, A model predictive control approach to design a parameterized adaptive cruise control. Springer, 2010

work page 2010
[6]

Integrated adaptive cruise control with weight coefficient self-tuning strategy,

J. Zhang, Q. Li, and D. Chen, “Integrated adaptive cruise control with weight coefficient self-tuning strategy,”Applied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 978, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Safety-Critical Model Predictive Control with Discrete-Time Control Barrier Function,

J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-Critical Model Predictive Control with Discrete-Time Control Barrier Function,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 3882–3889

work page 2021
[8]

Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in 2019 18th European control conference (ECC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 3420–3431

work page 2019

Show all 23 references

[9]

Advances in the theory of control barrier functions: Addressing practical challenges in safe control synthesis for autonomous and robotic systems,

K. Garg, J. Usevitch, J. Breeden, M. Black, D. Agrawal, H. Par- wana, and D. Panagou, “Advances in the theory of control barrier functions: Addressing practical challenges in safe control synthesis for autonomous and robotic systems,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 57, p. 100...

2024
[10]

Learning to refine input constrained control barrier functions via uncertainty-aware online parameter adaptation,

T. Kim, R. I. Kee, and D. Panagou, “Learning to refine input constrained control barrier functions via uncertainty-aware online parameter adaptation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14616, 2024

2024 arXiv
[11]

A collision cone approach for control barrier functions,

M. Tayal, B. G. Goswami, K. Rajgopal, R. Singh, T. Rao, J. Keshavan, P. Jagtap, and S. Kolathaya, “A collision cone approach for control barrier functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07043, 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Parameter governors for discrete- time nonlinear systems with pointwise-in-time state and control con- straints,

I. V . Kolmanovsky and J. Sun, “Parameter governors for discrete- time nonlinear systems with pointwise-in-time state and control con- straints,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 841–848, 2006

2006
[13]

Time shift governor for coordinated control of two spacecraft formations,

G. R. Frey, C. D. Petersen, F. A. Leve, E. Garone, I. V . Kolmanovsky, and A. R. Girard, “Time shift governor for coordinated control of two spacecraft formations,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 296–301, 2016

2016
[14]

Time shift governor for constrained control of spacecraft orbit and attitude relative motion in bicircular restricted four-body problem,

T. Kim, I. Kolmanovsky, and A. Girard, “Time shift governor for constrained control of spacecraft orbit and attitude relative motion in bicircular restricted four-body problem,” in 2024 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 3074–3080

2024
[15]

Time shift governor for spacecraft proximity operation in elliptic orbits,

——, “Time shift governor for spacecraft proximity operation in elliptic orbits,” in AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 2452

2024
[16]

Constrained control for autonomous spacecraft rendezvous: Learning-based time shift governor,

T. Kim, R. I. Kee, I. Kolmanovsky, and A. Girard, “Constrained control for autonomous spacecraft rendezvous: Learning-based time shift governor,” in AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum, 2025, p. 1700

2025
[17]

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 (RSS), 2017

2017
[18]

Robust tube based mpc for tracking of piece-wise constant references,

I. Alvarado, D. Lim ´on, T. Alamo, M. Fiacchini, and E. F. Cama- cho, “Robust tube based mpc for tracking of piece-wise constant references,” in 2007 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2007, pp. 1820–1825

2007
[19]

Safe policy synthesis in multi-agent pomdps via discrete-time barrier func- tions,

M. Ahmadi, A. Singletary, J. W. Burdick, and A. D. Ames, “Safe policy synthesis in multi-agent pomdps via discrete-time barrier func- tions,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 4797–4803

2019
[20]

On the handling of automated vehicles: modeling, bifurcation analysis, and experiments,

S. Oh, S. S. Avedisov, and G. Orosz, “On the handling of automated vehicles: modeling, bifurcation analysis, and experiments,” European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids, vol. 90, p. 104372, 2021

2021
[21]

2016 kia soul specifications,

Kia Motors America, “2016 kia soul specifications,” https://www.kiamedia.com/us/en/models/soul/2016/specifications, 2016, accessed: 2025-02-17

2016
[22]

A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators,

K. V ogel, “A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators,” Accident analysis & prevention, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 427– 433, 2003

2003
[23]

do-mpc: Towards FAIR nonlinear and robust model predictive control,

F. Fiedler, B. Karg, L. L ¨uken, D. Brandner, M. Heinlein, F. Brabender, and S. Lucia, “do-mpc: Towards FAIR nonlinear and robust model predictive control,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 140, p. 105676, 2023

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Researches on adaptive cruise control system: A state of the art review,

L. Yu and R. Wang, “Researches on adaptive cruise control system: A state of the art review,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 236, no. 2-3, pp. 211–240, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Evaluating the safety impact of adaptive cruise control in traffic oscillations on freeways,

Y . Li, Z. Li, H. Wang, W. Wang, and L. Xing, “Evaluating the safety impact of adaptive cruise control in traffic oscillations on freeways,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 104, pp. 137–145, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Del Re, F

L. Del Re, F. Allg ¨ower, L. Glielmo, C. Guardiola, and I. Kol- manovsky, Automotive model predictive control: models, methods and applications. Springer, 2010, vol. 402

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Adaptive cruise control for a smart car: A comparison benchmark for mpc-pwa control methods,

D. Corona and B. De Schutter, “Adaptive cruise control for a smart car: A comparison benchmark for mpc-pwa control methods,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 365– 372, 2008

work page 2008

[5] [5]

G. J. Naus, J. Ploeg, M. Van de Molengraft, W. Heemels, and M. Stein- buch, A model predictive control approach to design a parameterized adaptive cruise control. Springer, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Integrated adaptive cruise control with weight coefficient self-tuning strategy,

J. Zhang, Q. Li, and D. Chen, “Integrated adaptive cruise control with weight coefficient self-tuning strategy,”Applied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 978, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Safety-Critical Model Predictive Control with Discrete-Time Control Barrier Function,

J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-Critical Model Predictive Control with Discrete-Time Control Barrier Function,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 3882–3889

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in 2019 18th European control conference (ECC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 3420–3431

work page 2019