Corridor-based Adaptive Control Barrier and Lyapunov Functions for Safe Mobile Robot Navigation

Nicholas Mohammad; Nicola Bezzo

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Corridor-based Adaptive Control Barrier and Lyapunov Functions for Safe Mobile Robot Navigation

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A corridor-based safety layer lets contour-tracking controllers navigate unknown cluttered environments while formally keeping the robot inside a free-space corridor, with CBF parameters adapted online by a learned policy.

desk verdict Useful CBF-MPCC integration with runtime gain adaptation, but the formal obstacle-free corridor guarantee is not proven as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14700 v1 pith:TUBJXOPA submitted 2025-07-19 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Nicholas Mohammad , Nicola Bezzo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

keywords controlbarrierfunctionsLyapunovmodelpredictivecontoursafenavigationsoftactor-criticfree-spacecorridormobilerobotsrecedinghorizonplanning

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 argues that a receding-horizon contour-tracking controller can be made safe in unknown cluttered environments by enclosing the planned path in a free-space corridor and enforcing the corridor with two Control Barrier Function (CBF) constraints inside a Model Predictive Contour Control (MPCC) formulation. It further argues that the CBF tuning parameters, which are notoriously hard to set in advance, can be adapted at runtime by a Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) policy. The paper also establishes a sampling condition: if the corridor offset curves are sampled with step size at most $r_c/(1+d_+\kappa_+)$, then no undetected obstacle can protrude into the safe set by more than half a costmap cell. If these claims hold, agile contour-tracking controllers gain a practical safety layer without sacrificing the ability to pass through narrow corridors. In simulation the full approach succeeds in 200 of 225 runs (89%), versus 76% for a baseline without CBF constraints, and a physical wheeled-robot experiment navigates a cluttered room without collision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the corridor safe set $\mathcal{C} = \{x \in \mathbb{X} \mid \hat{d}^{\pm}(p,\hat{\xi}) \in [-\underline{d}(\hat{\xi}), \overline{d}(\hat{\xi})]\}$, generated by two offset curves $\overline{r}(\xi)$ and $\underline{r}(\xi)$ from a differentiable corridor-generation method, and enforced by two CBF inequalities $\dot{h}(x_k,u_k)+\alpha\,h(x_k)\ge 0$ and $\dot{\underline{h}}(x_k,u_k)+\underline{\alpha}\,\underline{h}(x_k)\ge 0$ inside the MPCC. The identity carrying the theoretical claim is Lemma 1's sampling bound $\Delta\xi \le r_c/(1+d_+\kappa_+)$, which the proof derives from a Frenet-Serret first-order approximation of the inter-sample distance; Lemma 2 converts that bound into the $r_c/2$ protrusion guarantee. The SAC policy supplies the parameter-adaptation loop, with $\alpha_{k+1}=\alpha_0+\sum_{i=1}^k a_i$ and rewards that penalize low progress, violations of the $[\alpha^-,\alpha^+]$ interval, negative CBF values, and solver infeasibility.

What would settle it

In an environment with a deliberately tight acute-angle turn, run MPCC-CBF-SAC with the corridor generation method from the paper; if the robot collides because the offset curves self-intersect and the OCP becomes infeasible, the claimed safety guarantee fails exactly in the regime the paper identifies as its failure mode, and a coarse-costmap run with $\Delta\xi$ above the Lemma 1 bound would test whether an obstacle protrudes more than $r_c/2$ into the corridor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a constructive way to convert a receding-horizon trajectory into a continuously defined safe set: two offset curves around the planned path bound the signed contour error, and the corresponding CBF inequalities are inserted into the MPCC optimal control problem as constraints (23) and (24). The paper shows that if the offsets are sampled with step size $\Delta\xi \le r_c/(1+d_+\kappa_+)$, then consecutive raycast samples are at most $r_c$ apart, so any obstacle cell protruding into the corridor can penetrate at most $r_c/2$ (Lemma 2). That makes the corridor obstacle-free up to the costmap resolution, and after shifting the offset curves by the robot's circumscribing radius, the robot stays inside $\mathcal{C}$ as long as the OCP solver returns a feasible solution. The SAC policy, which acts on state embeddings of obstacle-costmap context, velocity, CBF values, and current $\alpha$, adjusts the two $\alpha$ parameters online so that the CBF constraints remain feasible enough to make progress toward the goal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the corridor generator returns non-self-intersecting offset curves and the nonlinear OCP solver returns a feasible solution at every control step; the paper reports that in 25 of 225 runs these conditions fail, leading to collisions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any control-affine system whose corridor CBFs can be made relative-degree one inherits the safety layer without changing the MPCC objective; the paper demonstrates this for a unicycle model.
If the sampling condition of Lemma 1 is respected, the safe set contains no obstacle protrusion larger than half a costmap cell, so the guarantee scales with the costmap resolution and the planner's maximum curvature bound.
The learned $\alpha$ policy removes manual CBF tuning; the same simulation-trained policy transfers to a physical wheeled robot in the paper's experiment.
The reported 25 failures are attributed to corridor self-intersection and OCP infeasibility, not to the CBF condition itself, so improving the corridor generator directly targets the dominant remaining source of collisions.
Because recursive feasibility is not generally ensured for this nonlinear OCP, the framework's safety guarantee is best read as holding whenever the solver returns a feasible solution.

Reading between the lines

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

Lemma 2 suggests an adaptive-sampling extension the paper leaves implicit: a planner that locally adjusts $\Delta\xi$ based on the curvature of the planned path could maintain the $r_c/2$ protrusion bound while using fewer samples on straight segments.
The guarantee is local to the receding-horizon corridor; a whole-mission safety certificate would require the high-level planner to keep the entire planned path within the bounded-curvature, non-self-intersecting regime that the corridor generator needs.
A natural ablation would replace the learned SAC policy with a hand-coded rule that raises $\alpha$ exactly when the OCP reports infeasibility; comparing success rates would isolate how much of the improvement comes from learning versus from reactive feasibility repair.
The corridor construction is static within a planning cycle; extending the approach to dynamic obstacles would require either replanning the corridor at a rate comparable to obstacle motion or inflating the costmap in time.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The real contribution here is the integration: putting corridor-based CBF constraints (from [8]) into an MPCC and using a SAC policy to adapt the two class-K gains online. That combination is new relative to the cited literature, and the validation is more than a toy: 45 held-out BARN worlds, 5 trials each, plus a Jackal run, with a meaningful baseline comparison (76% vs 89% success). The authors also get credit for admitting that 25 of 225 runs fail due to self-intersecting offset curves and OCP infeasibility.

The soft spots are real. The main one is Section V-F, the formal safety argument. Lemma 1's proof uses p_i = r(ξ_i) + n_r(ξ_i)d and p_{i+1} = r(ξ_{i+1}) + n_r(ξ_{i+1})d, with the same d in both. But in the actual construction, d is a sampled function; between consecutive samples it can drop from d+ to 0 near an obstacle corner. The missing term (d_{i+1}-d_i)n_r can be larger than r_c even when Eq. (33) holds. So Lemma 2's r_c/2 protrusion bound does not follow. And even if the raycast samples were dense, the corridor C is formed by polynomial fits to those samples via the LP in [8]; the lemmas bound gaps between raycast points, not the deviation of the fitted polynomials from the true obstacle boundary. The LP maximizes corridor area, so the fit can overshoot into an obstacle while satisfying all sampled constraints. That means the central claim—'C is obstacle-free, hence the CBF constraints keep the robot safe'—is not actually established by the paper's arguments. This is a theoretical gap, not an empirical caveat; it applies even when the OCP solves and the offset curves do not self-intersect.

Minor points: no code release, so the simulations are not independently reproducible; only success rates are reported, no variance or per-world breakdown; and the alpha interval [0.05, 0.25] is tuned empirically, which softens the 'no manual tuning' claim.

Overall: the integration is worthwhile and the empirical evidence suggests promise, but the formal guarantees are over-claimed as written. The paper deserves peer review, but a serious referee should push for a corrected sampling bound (or an explicit retreat to a heuristic corridor guarantee) and, ideally, a code release. I would read a revised version again.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a control framework that integrates Control Lyapunov Functions (CLFs) and Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) into Model Predictive Contour Control (MPCC) for mobile robot navigation. A free-space corridor around the planned trajectory is constructed from two offset curves sampled by raycasting, and the corridor is encoded as two CBF constraints inside the MPCC optimal control problem. A Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) policy, trained offline, adjusts the CBF class-K parameters at runtime to improve feasibility. The central claim is that the framework enforces safety constraints derived from the corridor while tracking a receding-horizon plan. The validation consists of 225 simulated trials on BARN worlds, comparing the proposed MPCC-CBF-SAC against a baseline MPCC without CBF constraints, plus one hardware experiment on a Clearpath Jackal.

Significance. If the formal safety guarantee were fully established, the work would be a useful step toward combining corridor-based safe sets with learned parameter adaptation in MPCC, a controller that has shown strong tracking performance but limited formal safety assurances. The paper has clear strengths: a large simulation study on held-out BARN worlds, a hardware demonstration, and an explicit acknowledgment that recursive feasibility is not generally ensured in the proposed setting. However, the claimed guarantee is currently conditional on two components the paper does not formally control: the offset-curve corridor generator and the nonlinear OCP solver. The theoretical analysis in Section V-F has a gap in Lemma 1, and the empirical evaluation shows 25 of 225 runs fail when high-curvature plans make the corridor self-intersect and the OCP infeasible. As it stands, the contribution is an empirically promising framework rather than a formally guaranteed safety filter, and the paper should either repair the theoretical claims or reframe them as conditional statements.

major comments (4)

[Section V-F, Lemma 1 and Eq. (33)] The proof of Lemma 1 assumes a constant offset distance d between consecutive raycast samples, writing p_i = r(ξ_i)+n_r(ξ_i)d with the same d for both points. In the actual construction, the offset distances d(ξ) and d(ξ) are sampled by raycasting at each ξ_i and can change abruptly, for example from d_+ to 0 when an obstacle boundary lies between samples. The omitted term (d_{i+1}-d_i)n_r(ξ_i) can add up to |Δd| to the distance between consecutive samples, so the bound ∥p_{i+1}-p_i∥ ≤ (1+d_+κ_+)Δξ is not valid in general. Consequently, Lemma 2's r_c/2 protrusion bound and Corollary 1 are not established. The proof also relies on κ_+ being a true upper bound on the curvature of r, but Section VI-A states only that κ_+ = 6 was 'found empirically', so the sampling condition (33) is not certified against all trajectories produced by the motion planner. This is a load-bearing gap because the obstacle-freeness of C is a necessary condition for the safety guarantee.
[Section V-C.1 and Eq. (18)] Even if the raycast samples satisfied the gap bound in Lemma 1, the corridor C is defined by degree-D polynomials d(ξ;C) and d(ξ;C) fitted through the sampled distances via the LP of [8], not by linear interpolation between samples. The lemmas in Section V-F bound distances between sampled raycast points, not the deviation of the fitted polynomials from the true obstacle boundary between samples. Because the LP maximizes the area between the polynomials, the fitted polynomial can overshoot into an obstacle while satisfying all sampled distance constraints. The CBF constraints (23)-(24) enforce that the system remains inside the fitted polynomials, so a bound on the polynomial approximation error is needed before one can claim that the corridor is provably obstacle-free. This is a separate theoretical gap from the OCP infeasibility issue.
[Section VI-A and Section V-F] The paper's central claim that the framework 'enforces safety constraints' is conditional on the MPCC OCP being feasible and on the corridor generation succeeding. The paper states in Section V-F that recursive feasibility is not generally ensured for MPC, and Section VI-A reports that 25 of 225 test runs end in collision when high-curvature plans cause self-intersecting offset curves and infeasible MPCC OCPs. In those runs, the CBF constraints (23)-(24) are not enforced, so the closed-loop safety guarantee does not cover the reported failures. The abstract and introduction should either weaken the 'enforces safety' wording to reflect the conditional nature of the guarantee, or the framework should include a fallback mechanism that provably preserves safety when the nominal OCP is infeasible.
[Section VI-A] The empirical evaluation compares MPCC-CBF-SAC only against MPCC-BASE, which is the same MPCC formulation without any CBF constraints. Because there is no comparison to MPCC-CBF with fixed, well-tuned α values, the contribution of the SAC adaptation policy—the second main contribution stated in Section I—is not isolated. The observed improvement from 76% to 89% success could be due to the CBF constraints alone rather than to the learned adaptation mechanism. An ablation with constant α within the CBF-MPCC framework is needed to support the claim that runtime adaptation improves feasibility or performance.

minor comments (4)

[Section V-F, Lemma 1 proof] The proof refers to 'Assumption 2' for the fact that ∥t_r(ξ)∥ = 1, but that fact follows from Assumption 1, which states that r(·) is parameterized by arc length.
[Section V-F, Lemma 1 proof] The expression d∥κ(ξ_i)∆n_r∥ appears to be a typo; it should be d∥κ(ξ_i)∆ξ∥, since ∆n_r has already been approximated by −κ(ξ_i)t_r(ξ_i)∆ξ.
[Equations (23)-(28)] The two CBF parameters in (23)-(24) are both rendered as 'α' in the text, which makes it hard to distinguish the upper and lower corridor constraints. Please use distinct symbols, especially because α_+ and α_- are also used for the adaptation interval.
[Section VI-A] The value κ_+ = 6 is reported as 'found empirically', but the theoretical sampling bound in Eq. (33) depends on this being a valid upper bound on the curvature of the reference path. Please justify the choice or discuss its sensitivity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: corridor construction, CBF constraints, and SAC adaptation are independent of the claimed safety conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The safety set C is defined by offset curves (16)-(17) and polynomial fits (18), and the CBF constraints (23)-(24) enforce h>=0; these are constructive definitions, not predictions derived from fitted outcomes. The sampling bound in Lemma 1 (Eq. 33) is a sufficient condition on Delta_xi computed from the costmap resolution r_c and an assumed curvature bound kappa_+, and Lemma 2's r_c/2 protrusion bound follows from the stated triangle-area argument. None of these steps is defined in terms of the final safety claim. The SAC policy is trained offline on 35 BARN worlds and evaluated on 45 different worlds, so the validation is not a restatement of fitted parameters. Self-citation to the authors' prior SAC adaptation work [3] is used as an implementation foundation and is adapted here, not invoked as the conclusion; the current paper supplies its own training procedure, reward, state, and experimental evaluation. The paper also explicitly discloses the limits of its guarantee: Section V-F states recursive feasibility is not generally ensured, and Section VI-A reports 25 of 225 test runs fail due to self-intersecting corridor curves and OCP infeasibility. These are acknowledged limitations and correctness risks, not circular reasoning. The theoretical gap noted in Lemma 1's proof (using a constant offset d between samples and not covering the fitted polynomial's inter-sample deviation) is a mathematical soundness concern that would affect the strength of the safety guarantee, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain, and no known result is merely relabeled. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the corridor generator producing obstacle-free offset curves, the OCP solving at each step, and the CBF validity for the unicycle. The theoretical lemmas only address obstacle protrusion at the sampling level. The learned alpha policy adds many parameters selected on training environments without sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (10)

alpha bounds and initial value (alpha_min, alpha_max, alpha_0) = 0.05, 0.25, 0.25
Selected empirically in Section VI-A; lower value gave conservative behavior, upper value allowed aggression.
kappa_plus (max curvature) = 6
Found empirically for computing Delta_xi in Eq. (33).
d_plus (raycast distance) = 0.35 m
Maximum ray distance used to sample corridor offsets; appears in Lemma 1.
r_c (costmap resolution) = 0.05 m
Occupancy grid resolution; treated as input for sampling and safety margin.
lambda (CBF exponential parameter) = not specified
User-defined parameter in Eqs. (26)-(27); must keep v*lambda in (0,1).
MPCC weights q_c, q_l, q_nu, p = not specified
Objective weights in Eq. (14a); values and sensitivity not reported.
CLF weights lambda_c, lambda_l, psi = not specified
Weights in the Lyapunov function V and class-K term in Eq. (14f); values not reported.
SAC reward weights gamma_v, gamma_b, gamma_h, gamma_z = not specified
Weights in Eq. (31); chosen for training but no values given.
corridor polynomial degree D and number of samples N_r = not specified
Corridor fitting parameters from [8]; not specified in this paper.
horizon length s_plus and OCP horizon N = s_plus such that samples are limited to 250; N not given
Chosen for runtime computational limits.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The planned trajectory r(xi) is a C2-continuous, arc-length parameterized curve with ds/dxi=1 (Assumption 1).
Used for the MPCC error definitions, offset curve construction, and Lemma 1's Frenet-Serret derivation.
domain assumption The OCP can maintain lag error eps_l about 0 if q_l >> q_c (Assumption 2).
Justifies that the virtual progress state xi_hat approximates the true projection xi*, which the CBFs depend on.
domain assumption The costmap X_O accurately captures obstacles at resolution r_c, and obstacles larger than r_c are detected.
Lemmas 1-2 and Corollary 1 only bound protrusion of undetected obstacles; full safety relies on sensing.
domain assumption The corridor generation method from [8] produces valid, non-self-intersecting offset curves.
The paper reports collisions when this fails during sharp turns (Section VI-A).
ad hoc to paper The relative-degree reduction CBFs in Eqs. (26)-(27), adapted from [16], are valid for the unicycle model.
The paper states L_g h without a full derivation; forward invariance depends on this formula.
domain assumption The nonlinear OCP in (14) is recursively feasible at runtime.
The authors state recursive feasibility is not generally ensured for MMPC, yet safety requires the constraints to be solved at every step.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Corridor-based Adaptive Control Barrier and Lyapunov Functions for Safe Mobile Robot Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TUBJXOPA

@misc{pith2026250714700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Corridor-based Adaptive Control Barrier and Lyapunov Functions for Safe Mobile Robot Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TUBJXOPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14700}
}

read the original abstract

Safe navigation in unknown and cluttered environments remains a challenging problem in robotics. Model Predictive Contour Control (MPCC) has shown promise for performant obstacle avoidance by enabling precise and agile trajectory tracking, however, existing methods lack formal safety assurances. To address this issue, we propose a general Control Lyapunov Function (CLF) and Control Barrier Function (CBF) enabled MPCC framework that enforces safety constraints derived from a free-space corridor around the planned trajectory. To enhance feasibility, we dynamically adapt the CBF parameters at runtime using a Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) policy. The approach is validated with extensive simulations and an experiment on mobile robot navigation in unknown cluttered environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14700 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** A receding horizon, high level motion-planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** (a) Visualization of the safe set C. (b) Illustration of the construction process for C. To construct these offset curves, we define two functions d(·), d(·) ∈ R≥0, which map the distances from r( ˆξ) to the nearest obstacles above and below, respectively. However, obtaining closed-form expressions for these functions at runtime is challenging – if not impossible – due to the complexity of arbitrary obstacle geometr… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Simulation results using (a) MPCC-BASE and (b) MPCC-CBF-SAC. (c) CBF values over the course of the navigation task for MPCC-CBF-SAC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (Left) αk adaptation plots during navigation (Right) Jackal navigating through a cluttered environment using MPCC-CBF-SAC. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK In this work, we have presented a novel CLF-CBF MPCC framework for general autonomous systems, leveraging recedi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[8]

Differentiable collision- free parametric corridors,

J. Arrizabalaga, Z. Manchester, and M. Ryll, “Differentiable collision- free parametric corridors,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2024, pp. 1839–1846

work page 2024
[1]

A comprehensive review on limitations of autonomous driving and its impact on accidents and collisions,

A. Chougule, V . Chamola, A. Sam, F. R. Yu, and B. Sikdar, “A comprehensive review on limitations of autonomous driving and its impact on accidents and collisions,” IEEE Open Journal of V ehicular Technology, vol. 5, pp. 142–161, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

A gp-based robust motion planning framework for agile autonomous robot navigation and recov- ery in unknown environments,

N. Mohammad, J. Higgins, and N. Bezzo, “A gp-based robust motion planning framework for agile autonomous robot navigation and recov- ery in unknown environments,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 2418–2424

work page 2024
[3]

Soft actor-critic-based control barrier adaptation for robust autonomous navigation in unknown environ- ments,

N. Mohammad and N. Bezzo, “Soft actor-critic-based control barrier adaptation for robust autonomous navigation in unknown environ- ments,” in 2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2025 (to appear)

work page 2025
[4]

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) , 2019, pp. 3420– 3431

work page 2019
[5]

Iss and integral-iss disturbance attenuation with bounded controls,

D. Liberzon, “Iss and integral-iss disturbance attenuation with bounded controls,” in Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.99CH36304) , vol. 3, 1999, pp. 2501–2506 vol.3

work page 1999
[6]

Model predictive contouring control,

D. Lam, C. Manzie, and M. Good, “Model predictive contouring control,” in 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2010, pp. 6137–6142

work page 2010
[7]

Mpcc++: Model predictive contouring con- trol for time-optimal flight with safety constraints,

M. Krinner, A. Romero, L. Bauersfeld, M. Zeilinger, A. Carron, and D. Scaramuzza, “Mpcc++: Model predictive contouring con- trol for time-optimal flight with safety constraints,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17551, 2024

arXiv 2024

Show all 23 references

[9]

Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications,

T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, K. Hartikainen, G. Tucker, S. Ha, J. Tan, V . Kumar, H. Zhu, A. Gupta, P. Abbeel et al. , “Soft actor-critic algorithms and applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05905 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[10]

Model predictive contouring control for time-optimal quadrotor flight,

A. Romero, S. Sun, P. Foehn, and D. Scaramuzza, “Model predictive contouring control for time-optimal quadrotor flight,” IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3340–3356, 2022

2022
[11]

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 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , 2014, pp. 6271– 6278

2014
[12]

Safe teleoperation of dynamic uavs through control barrier functions,

B. Xu and K. Sreenath, “Safe teleoperation of dynamic uavs through control barrier functions,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2018, pp. 7848–7855

2018
[13]

Safety-critical control for non-affine nonlinear systems with application on autonomous vehicle,

T. D. Son and Q. Nguyen, “Safety-critical control for non-affine nonlinear systems with application on autonomous vehicle,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2019, pp. 7623–7628

2019
[14]

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 2021 American Control Conference (ACC) , 2021, pp. 3882–3889

2021
[15]

Multiple control barrier functions: An application to reactive obstacle avoidance for a multi-steering tractor-trailer sys- tem,

M. Aali and J. Liu, “Multiple control barrier functions: An application to reactive obstacle avoidance for a multi-steering tractor-trailer sys- tem,” in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2022, pp. 6993–6998

2022
[16]

Collision-free source seeking control methods for unicycle robots,

T. Li and B. Jayawardhana, “Collision-free source seeking control methods for unicycle robots,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol, 2024

2024
[17]

Autonomous racing with multiple vehicles using a parallelized optimization with safety guarantee us- ing control barrier functions,

S. He, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Autonomous racing with multiple vehicles using a parallelized optimization with safety guarantee us- ing control barrier functions,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2022, pp. 3444–3451

2022
[18]

A sequential mpc approach to reactive planning for bipedal robots using safe corridors in highly cluttered environments,

K. S. Narkhede, A. M. Kulkarni, D. A. Thanki, and I. Poulakakis, “A sequential mpc approach to reactive planning for bipedal robots using safe corridors in highly cluttered environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 831–11 838, 2022

2022
[19]

Arc-length parameterized spline curves for real-time simulation,

H. Wang, J. Kearney, and K. Atkinson, “Arc-length parameterized spline curves for real-time simulation,” in5th International Conference on Curves and Surfaces , 2003

2003
[20]

Faster: Fast and safe trajectory planner for navigation in unknown environments,

J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, M. Everett, and J. P. How, “Faster: Fast and safe trajectory planner for navigation in unknown environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 922–938, 2022

2022
[21]

acados – a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control,

R. Verschueren, G. Frison, D. Kouzoupis, J. Frey, N. van Duijkeren, A. Zanelli, B. Novoselnik, T. Albin, R. Quirynen, and M. Diehl, “acados – a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control,” Mathematical Programming Computation , 2021

2021
[22]

Benchmarking metric ground navigation,

D. Perille, A. Truong, X. Xiao, and P. Stone, “Benchmarking metric ground navigation,” in 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) , 2020, pp. 116–121

2020
[23]

Approximation of planar offset curves using quadratic trigonometric splines with shape parameter,

J. Gu, Y . Jung, K. Lee, and D. Lee, “Approximation of planar offset curves using quadratic trigonometric splines with shape parameter,” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing , 2013

2013

Pith tools

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

[1] [8]

Differentiable collision- free parametric corridors,

J. Arrizabalaga, Z. Manchester, and M. Ryll, “Differentiable collision- free parametric corridors,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2024, pp. 1839–1846

work page 2024

[2] [1]

A comprehensive review on limitations of autonomous driving and its impact on accidents and collisions,

A. Chougule, V . Chamola, A. Sam, F. R. Yu, and B. Sikdar, “A comprehensive review on limitations of autonomous driving and its impact on accidents and collisions,” IEEE Open Journal of V ehicular Technology, vol. 5, pp. 142–161, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [2]

A gp-based robust motion planning framework for agile autonomous robot navigation and recov- ery in unknown environments,

N. Mohammad, J. Higgins, and N. Bezzo, “A gp-based robust motion planning framework for agile autonomous robot navigation and recov- ery in unknown environments,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 2418–2424

work page 2024

[4] [3]

Soft actor-critic-based control barrier adaptation for robust autonomous navigation in unknown environ- ments,

N. Mohammad and N. Bezzo, “Soft actor-critic-based control barrier adaptation for robust autonomous navigation in unknown environ- ments,” in 2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2025 (to appear)

work page 2025

[5] [4]

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) , 2019, pp. 3420– 3431

work page 2019

[6] [5]

Iss and integral-iss disturbance attenuation with bounded controls,

D. Liberzon, “Iss and integral-iss disturbance attenuation with bounded controls,” in Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.99CH36304) , vol. 3, 1999, pp. 2501–2506 vol.3

work page 1999

[7] [6]

Model predictive contouring control,

D. Lam, C. Manzie, and M. Good, “Model predictive contouring control,” in 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2010, pp. 6137–6142

work page 2010

[8] [7]

Mpcc++: Model predictive contouring con- trol for time-optimal flight with safety constraints,

M. Krinner, A. Romero, L. Bauersfeld, M. Zeilinger, A. Carron, and D. Scaramuzza, “Mpcc++: Model predictive contouring con- trol for time-optimal flight with safety constraints,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17551, 2024

arXiv 2024