Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Geometry-Aware Predictive Safety Filters on Humanoids: From Poisson Safety Functions to CBF Constrained MPC

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Poisson-equation safety limits let legged robots turn to dodge obstacles and slip through narrow gaps by rotating their bodies.

desk verdict A real engineering integration of Poisson safety functions into MPC+CBF with convincing hardware demos; the formal gap in time-varying safety is real but explicitly admitted, so the paper deserves review with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11129 v1 pith:4PAWLNYF submitted 2025-08-15 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Ryan M. Bena , Gilbert Bahati , Blake Werner , Ryan K. Cosner , Lizhi Yang , Aaron D. Ames This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords PoissonsafetyfunctioncontrolbarrierfunctionsmodelpredictiveleggedrobotscollisionavoidanceMinkowskidifferencesafesetbufferingfilter
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 a safety function obtained by numerically solving Poisson's equation can be extended along two new axes, time and robot orientation, and then used as a control barrier function inside a model predictive controller, yielding a real-time safety filter that accounts for the robot's full body geometry. The authors argue this matters because legged robots have asymmetric footprints and operate near people and moving objects, so a point-mass safety margin is either unsafe or overly conservative. They demonstrate on a quadruped and a humanoid carrying an oblong payload that the resulting controller keeps the robot's entire footprint inside the safe region by simultaneously translating and rotating, and that reorientation lets the humanoid pass through a gap that would otherwise produce a navigational deadlock. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's claim to be that Poisson safety functions, once parameterized by time and orientation, are a practical and versatile numerical source of CBF constraints for predictive safety filtering.

What carries the argument

The named central object is the Poisson safety function, defined as the solution of a Dirichlet problem $\Delta h = -f$ on the free-space domain with zero boundary values. The paper's extension solves the same equation on a non-cylindrical space-time domain whose boundary moves according to the predicted obstacle velocity field, and on a configuration-space domain lifted by the Minkowski difference $\mathcal{S} \ominus \mathcal{B}(q)$, so the solution depends on time and on the robot orientation $q$. This function does the load-bearing work: it converts raw perception data, namely an occupancy map plus optical-flow velocities, into a smooth numerically available safety value $h(x,q,t)$, and its positivity, enforced as a discrete-time CBF constraint inside the MPC, is what keeps the planned trajectory inside the safe set for the whole body geometry.

What would settle it

Run the predictive safety filter against an obstacle that is programmed to move at constant velocity for the first half of the MPC horizon and then stop or reverse; record the measured Poisson safety function $h(x,q,t)$ and the robot body's true occupancy. If $h$ goes negative or any part of the robot enters the obstacle's occupied region, the constant-velocity boundary prediction is falsified; the paper itself notes that safety cannot be formally guaranteed in general time-varying environments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the static Dirichlet problem for Poisson's equation can be reformulated as a parameterized moving boundary value problem, so the safe set depends on both time and robot orientation, and the resulting Poisson safety function $h(x,q,t)$ is a valid discrete-time CBF for a single-integrator reduced-order model. The temporal extension predicts the boundary via a transport equation under an assumed obstacle velocity field, and the geometric extension uses a Minkowski difference with the robot occupancy set to lift the domain into configuration space. Inserted as a DCBF constraint along the MPC horizon, this function produces velocity commands for a three-DOF single-integrator model (two translations plus heading), which are tracked by a learned locomotion controller. In the experiments, the evaluated value of $h$ remains positive during dynamic collision avoidance and environmental navigation, which the authors read as evidence that the full footprint of the robot stayed inside the original safe set; heading measurements show the robots rotating to align their major axis with the predicted obstacle motion or with the corridor, which is the mechanism that avoids deadlock.

Load-bearing premise

The boundary prediction assumes obstacle velocity $\mathbf{v}$ is constant over the MPC prediction horizon, so an obstacle that accelerates, brakes, or reverses inside that window makes the predicted safe boundary wrong and the safety constraint can admit a collision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Safe sets synthesized directly from perception can replace hand-specified analytical obstacle shapes, because the Poisson solve turns occupancy data into a smooth CBF.
  • Robot geometry enters the safety constraint through orientation, so the controller can rotate the body to fit through gaps that a fixed-radius margin would declare impassable.
  • Time enters the safety constraint through a predicted boundary, so the MPC can plan avoidance of moving obstacles over its horizon instead of reacting only to the current occupancy map.
  • The method inherits the guarantees of discrete-time CBFs: planned states keep $h$ positive and the safety value is lower-bounded along the trajectory, provided the boundary prediction model is accurate.
  • Because the safety filter operates on a reduced-order single-integrator model, it can run at 100 Hz and be paired with any low-level locomotion controller that tracks velocity commands.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is replacing the constant-velocity boundary predictor with an acceleration-aware or learned obstacle motion model; the same non-cylindrical domain construction would apply but with a nonlinear characteristic flow.
  • The regularity results for evolutionary problems on non-cylindrical domains cited in the paper suggest the approach could be carried to higher configuration dimensions, for example adding body-shape DOFs such as sway or arm configuration, at the cost of larger PDE solves.
  • If the Minkowski difference is computed as a convolution of the occupancy map with the robot kernel, the same pipeline could transfer from 2D floor-plan safety to 3D collision avoidance for drones or manipulators by changing the kernel and the Laplacian dimension.
  • The orientation-aware turning behavior indicates that a purely translational safety filter can misrepresent feasible motion in narrow environments; the paper's heading data could be used as a benchmark to quantify how much additional clearance a point-mass filter would require to complete the same corridor task.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a predictive safety filter that combines nonlinear MPC with control barrier function (CBF) constraints synthesized from Poisson safety functions. It extends the static Poisson safety function of [18] in two directions: a temporal parameterization (Section III-B) that predicts the evolution of the safe-set boundary under an assumed constant obstacle velocity field, and a geometric parameterization (Section III-C) that uses Minkowski differences to lift the domain into a configuration space that includes robot orientation. The resulting safety function h_p is embedded as a discrete-time CBF constraint in an MPC problem (29) on a single-integrator model of position and heading, and the resulting velocity commands are tracked by low-level RL locomotion controllers on Unitree Go2 and G1 robots. Experiments include dodgeball avoidance (Section V-B) and narrow-corridor navigation with a humanoid (Section V-C). The paper argues that the positivity of h_p during these experiments verifies that safety was maintained.

Significance. If the CBF property held for the parameterized, time-varying safety function, this work would be a useful step toward perception-based, geometry-aware safety filtering for legged robots. The real-time PDE solve (20–100 ms) and the hardware demonstrations on two different platforms are nontrivial strengths, and the paper is candid about the constant-velocity prediction assumption and explicitly disclaims formal safety guarantees in general time-varying environments. However, the formal transfer from the static Poisson CBF result in [18] to the parameterized moving-boundary problem is not actually proved, and the experimental evidence is largely qualitative: there are no baseline comparisons, no reported trial counts or error bars, and no tests under the non-constant-velocity conditions that the paper itself excludes. The contribution is promising but not yet substantiated at the level claimed in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (28)-(29)] The central theoretical premise—that the parameterized Poisson safety function h_p in (28) is a valid CBF for the reduced-order single-integrator model and that the DCBF constraint in (29) renders the safe set forward invariant—is asserted by appealing to [18], but [18] is summarized in Section III-A as applying to the static Dirichlet problem (17), not to the temporally and orientationally parameterized problem (28). No theorem, proposition, or argument is provided to show that the discrete-time CBF condition (9)–(10) holds for h_p(t, x, θ) when the safe set itself evolves in time and with heading. This is load-bearing: the claim that the MPC+CBF filter 'maintains safety' depends exactly on this forward-invariance property. The authors should either add a rigorous statement with explicit regularity assumptions on the boundary motion, the forcing function f, and the time-dependence of h_p, or explicitly describe the safety filter as heuristic rather than CBF-guaranteed.
  2. [Section IV and Section V-A, Eq. (31)] The safety constraint at each planning step is evaluated on a predicted future safe set obtained by propagating obstacle boundaries with the linear model (31), which is derived under the assumption of constant obstacle velocity v over the MPC horizon. If an obstacle accelerates, stops, or changes direction within the horizon, the predicted boundary is wrong, and the computed h_p no longer corresponds to the true safe set; the MPC can then issue commands that keep the modeled h_p positive while the true safety function becomes negative. The paper itself acknowledges this in Section IV: 'safety cannot be formally guaranteed in general time-varying environments.' The conclusion nevertheless states that positive h_p 'verifying that safety was effectively maintained.' The proof of the experimental safety claim therefore applies only to nearly constant-velocity obstacles, and no uncertainty margin, reachability bound, or adversarial test is provided to quantify robustness to prediction error. Please either add such a margin or clearly restrict the experimental claims to the constant-velocity regime.
  3. [Section V-B, Figs. 5 and 7] The evaluation of h_p is reported as the primary evidence of safety, but this evidence is insufficient as presented. First, h_p is computed on the predicted boundary, not on the true occupied set; second, h_p is evaluated on the planned or measured trajectory of the reduced-order state, not on the full-order robot footprint under the low-level RL controller, whose tracking error is not quantified. The paper cites [33] for the reduced-order-model safety argument but does not verify the required 'sufficient tracking' condition experimentally. Third, the figures show a single representative trial per scenario, with no trial count, no error bars, and no statistical summary. The sentence 'These results were consistent and repeatable, as demonstrated in the video' is not a quantitative substitute. The authors should report tracking errors, multiple trials with statistics, and ideally compare against an orientation-agnostic or fixed-radius baseline to support the claimed benefit of geometry-aware reorientation.
  4. [Section III-B, Eq. (23)] Equation (23) is written as an elliptic Dirichlet problem with the Laplacian taken only in the spatial variables; time enters solely as a parameter that moves the boundary. The paper then cites [30, 31] for regularity of 'the general case for parabolic equations.' Those references concern parabolic evolution problems in non-cylindrical domains, and it is not immediate that they apply to a family of elliptic problems parameterized by time. The smoothness of h_p with respect to time, and with respect to the heading variable after the Minkowski construction in (26), is precisely what is needed for the time-derivative term in the DCBF condition (10). The authors should clarify the mathematical setting—either prove the needed regularity directly for the parameterized elliptic problem, or state it as an assumption and explain why the cited parabolic results cover this case.
  5. [Section III-C and Section V-A, Eq. (24)] The Minkowski-difference construction is central to the claimed geometry-awareness, but the implementation is underspecified. The text says the Minkowski difference is performed 'for a discrete sampling of robot geometries along θ,' yet the sampling density, the representation of the robot occupancy set, the discretization of the PDE domain, and the interpolation of h_p between sampled orientations are not reported. These details are necessary both for reproducibility and for assessing whether the discretization errors could compromise the safety argument. Please add these numerical details and, if possible, an analysis of how the sampling resolution affects the conservativeness of the resulting safe set.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A] Please specify the grid resolution for the SOR solve, the number of sampled orientations for the Minkowski difference, and the interpolation scheme used to evaluate h_p at arbitrary orientations and times; these are needed for reproducibility.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains the typo 'non-cyclindrical' (should be 'non-cylindrical'); also, the notation v_s is used in the figure without an explicit definition at first use.
  3. [Section V-A, Eq. (31)] The statement 'we used (21) to derive the linear boundary prediction model' is confusing because (31) appears to be a restatement of (21) with a sampled index k; please clarify the relationship and define Δt_k explicitly.
  4. [Section V-C, Fig. 7] The text says h_p remained positive 'throughout the preponderance of the 100-second experiment,' while the figure caption says 'throughout the experiment'; please reconcile these statements and report any time instants where h_p approached zero.
  5. [General] No code or dataset is released; given that the contribution is substantially a numerical/experimental pipeline, a reproducibility statement with software and data availability would substantially strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the safety constraints are synthesized from external perception data via a PDE solve, the constant-velocity boundary prediction is an explicit modeling assumption, and the main self-cited static result is a checkable external theorem.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The safety constraint entering the MPC is constructed from external perception data: an occupancy map from eTAM segmentation and a velocity field from optical flow, which define the boundary of the predicted safe set. The parameterized Dirichlet problem (Eq. 28) is then solved numerically to produce the Poisson safety function h, and this h is used as a DCBF constraint in Eq. (29). No fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The temporal boundary-prediction model in Eq. (31) is an explicit 'constant v over the MPC prediction horizon' assumption, and the paper states in Section IV that 'safety cannot be formally guaranteed in general time-varying environments'; this is an honest scoping limitation, not a definitional shortcut. The geometric lifting via the Minkowski difference in Eq. (24) is a definitional equivalence between 'centroid in the reduced safe set' and 'full footprint in the original safe set'; it is a construction step, not a claim that derives a new fact from itself. The only self-citation of substance is [18], which supplies the static CBF property of Poisson safety functions; this is a peer-reviewed, checkable result with stated assumptions (smooth forcing, single-integrator dynamics) that do not include this paper's MPC implementation, so it does not make the present claim circular. The reported positive h traces are checks of the CBF constraint against the currently perceived safe set, not an independent collision measurement; this is a validation caveat, not a circularity in the derivation. Overall, no equation in the paper reduces an output claim to an input equation by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim absorbs several assumptions from prior work and implementation choices: the static Poisson-CBF theorem, constant-velocity boundary prediction, sufficient tracking by the low-level controller, and discrete approximation over orientation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Forcing function f in Poisson equation
    User-defined in (17)/(23)/(28); smoothness is assumed but the specific choice used in experiments is not reported, and it shapes the resulting safety function.
  • CBF parameter gamma
    Selected to produce dynamic robustness in the DCBF constraint (29); value not reported, central to the forward-invariance condition.
  • MPC weights Q,R and horizon N, dt
    Chosen to elicit desired behavior (Section IV); values not reported, affect planned trajectories and real-time performance.
  • Orientation sampling density for Minkowski difference
    The Minkowski difference is computed for a discrete sampling of theta (Section V-A); density is not reported and the CBF between samples is not characterized.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The static Poisson safety function solving (17) is a CBF for single-integrator dynamics (Theorem in [18]).
    This is the load-bearing theoretical premise for using the PDE solution as a safety constraint; it comes from the authors' own prior RSS paper and is not re-proven here.
  • domain assumption The boundary evolves continuously in time and the velocity field v is Lipschitz and constant over the MPC horizon.
    Needed for the boundary prediction model (21)/(31); if obstacles accelerate or turn, the predicted safe set is wrong. The paper acknowledges no safety guarantee in general dynamic environments (Section IV).
  • domain assumption The discrete-time single-integrator ROM with velocity input adequately represents the humanoid/quadruped, provided the low-level controller tracks velocity commands sufficiently well.
    Full-order safety is inherited from the ROM only under sufficient tracking (citing [33]); the paper does not quantify tracking performance in the experiments.
  • domain assumption The robot geometry is a rigid 2D footprint and the Minkowski difference over continuous theta can be represented by discrete samples.
    Section III-C models the robot as a rigid body; Section V-A samples orientations. No proof that safety at sampled orientations implies safety at interpolated orientations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geometry-Aware Predictive Safety Filters on Humanoids: From Poisson Safety Functions to CBF Constrained MPC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PAWLNYF

@misc{pith2026250811129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geometry-Aware Predictive Safety Filters on Humanoids: From Poisson Safety Functions to CBF Constrained MPC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PAWLNYF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11129}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous navigation through unstructured and dynamically-changing environments is a complex task that continues to present many challenges for modern roboticists. In particular, legged robots typically possess manipulable asymmetric geometries which must be considered during safety-critical trajectory planning. This work proposes a predictive safety filter: a nonlinear model predictive control (MPC) algorithm for online trajectory generation with geometry-aware safety constraints based on control barrier functions (CBFs). Critically, our method leverages Poisson safety functions to numerically synthesize CBF constraints directly from perception data. We extend the theoretical framework for Poisson safety functions to incorporate temporal changes in the domain by reformulating the static Dirichlet problem for Poisson's equation as a parameterized moving boundary value problem. Furthermore, we employ Minkowski set operations to lift the domain into a configuration space that accounts for robot geometry. Finally, we implement our real-time predictive safety filter on humanoid and quadruped robots in various safety-critical scenarios. The results highlight the versatility of Poisson safety functions, as well as the benefit of CBF constrained model predictive safety-critical controllers.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Towards General Language-Conditioned Latent Safety Filters

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single Hamilton-Jacobi safety filter conditioned on language constraints reduces violations in simulated pick-and-place, wiping, and stacking, with partial transfer to unseen constraint instances.

  2. SM2ITH: Safe Mobile Manipulation with Interactive Human Prediction via Task-Hierarchical Bilevel Model Predictive Control

    cs.RO 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A priority-ordered whole-body predictive controller that co-solves ORCA-based human-reaction predictions with task plans, validated on two mobile manipulators, beats weighted-sum and open-loop-prediction baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [18]

    Dynamic safety in complex environments: Synthesizing safety filters with poisson’s equation,

    G. Bahati, R. M. Bena, and A. D. Ames, “Dynamic safety in complex environments: Synthesizing safety filters with poisson’s equation,” in Robotics: Science and Systems, May 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [33]

    Safety-critical control for autonomous systems: Control barrier functions via reduced order models,

    M. H. Cohen, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safety-critical control for autonomous systems: Control barrier functions via reduced order models,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 57, p. 100947, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances,

    S. Bansal, M. Chen, S. Herbert, and C. J. Tomlin, “Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances,” in2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 2242– 2253, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    Comparative analysis of control barrier functions and artificial potential fields for obstacle avoidance,

    A. Singletary, K. Klingebiel, J. R. Bourne, N. A. Browning, P. Toku- maru, and A. D. Ames, “Comparative analysis of control barrier functions and artificial potential fields for obstacle avoidance,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [3]

    Borrelli, A

    F. Borrelli, A. Bemporad, and M. Morari,Predictive Control for Linear and Hybrid Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  6. [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,” in2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 3420–3431, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [5]

    Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,

    R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, S. Yang, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3402–3421, 2023

    2023

  8. [6]

    Learning how to autonomously race a car: a predictive control approach,

    U. Rosolia and F. Borrelli, “Learning how to autonomously race a car: a predictive control approach,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2713–2719, 2019

    2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [7]

    Haptic teleoperation of uavs through control barrier functions,

    D. Zhang, G. Yang, and R. P. Khurshid, “Haptic teleoperation of uavs through control barrier functions,”IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 109–115, 2020

    2020

  2. [8]

    Guaranteed safe spacecraft docking with control barrier functions,

    J. Breeden and D. Panagou, “Guaranteed safe spacecraft docking with control barrier functions,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 2000–2005, 2022

    2000

  3. [9]

    Collision avoidance and geofencing for fixed-wing aircraft with control barrier functions,

    T. G. Molnar, S. K. Kannan, J. Cunningham, K. Dunlap, K. L. Hobbs, and A. D. Ames, “Collision avoidance and geofencing for fixed-wing aircraft with control barrier functions,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, pp. 1–16, 2025

    2025

  4. [10]

    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,” in2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 3882–3889, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    Multi- layered safety for legged robots via control barrier functions and model predictive control,

    R. Grandia, A. J. Taylor, A. D. Ames, and M. Hutter, “Multi- layered safety for legged robots via control barrier functions and model predictive control,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 8352–8358, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  6. [12]

    Corridor mpc: Towards optimal and safe trajectory tracking,

    P. Roque, W. S. Cortez, L. Lindemann, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Corridor mpc: Towards optimal and safe trajectory tracking,” in2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 2025–2032, 2022

    2025

  7. [13]

    R. K. Cosner,Dynamic Safety Under Uncertainty: A Control Barrier Function Approach. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, 2025

    2025

  8. [14]

    A nonsmooth approach to controller synthesis for Boolean specifications,

    P. Glotfelter, J. Cortes, and M. Egerstedt, “A nonsmooth approach to controller synthesis for Boolean specifications,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, pp. 1–1, 2020

    2020

  9. [15]

    Composing control barrier functions for complex safety specifications,

    T. G. Molnar and A. D. Ames, “Composing control barrier functions for complex safety specifications,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2023

    2023

  10. [16]

    V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,

    H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1366–1373, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  11. [17]

    Learning barrier functions with memory for robust safe navigation,

    K. Long, C. Qian, J. Cort ´es, and N. Atanasov, “Learning barrier functions with memory for robust safe navigation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4931–4938, 2021

    2021

  12. [19]

    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, 2017

    2017

  13. [20]

    Control barrier functions in sampled-data systems,

    J. Breeden, K. Garg, and D. Panagou, “Control barrier functions in sampled-data systems,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 367– 372, 2022

    2022

  14. [21]

    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,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, (Cambridge, Massachusetts), July 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,

    Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,” in2016 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 322–328, 2016

    2016

  16. [23]

    High-order control barrier functions,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “High-order control barrier functions,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3655–3662, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Safe backstep- ping with control barrier functions,

    A. J. Taylor, P. Ong, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safe backstep- ping with control barrier functions,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 5775–5782, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Isidori,Nonlinear control systems: an introduction

    A. Isidori,Nonlinear control systems: an introduction. Springer, 1985

    1985

  19. [26]

    Control bar- rier function-based safety filters: Characterization of undesired equi- libria, unbounded trajectories, and limit cycles,

    P. Mestres, Y . Chen, E. Dall’anese, and J. Cort ´es, “Control bar- rier function-based safety filters: Characterization of undesired equi- libria, unbounded trajectories, and limit cycles,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09289, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces,

    S. Osher, R. Fedkiw, and K. Piechor, “Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces,”Appl. Mech. Rev., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. B15–B15, 2004

    2004

  21. [28]

    L. C. Evans,Partial differential equations. American Mathematical Society, 1998

    1998

  22. [29]

    A lagrangian particle level set method,

    S. E. Hieber and P. Koumoutsakos, “A lagrangian particle level set method,”Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 210, no. 1, pp. 342– 367, 2005

    2005

  23. [30]

    A variational approach to evolution problems with variable domains,

    S. Bonaccorsi and G. Guatteri, “A variational approach to evolution problems with variable domains,”Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 51–70, 2001

    2001

  24. [31]

    Evolutionary problems in non-cylindrical domains,

    V . B ¨ogelein, F. Duzaar, and C. Scheven, “Evolutionary problems in non-cylindrical domains,” inHarnack Inequalities and Nonlinear Operators: Proceedings of the INdAM conference to celebrate the 70th birthday of Emmanuele DiBenedetto, pp. 43–60, Springer, 2021

    2021

  25. [32]

    Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,

    T. G. Molnar, R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, W. Ubellacker, and A. D. Ames, “Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,” Robotics & Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 944–951, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learning environments,

    M. Mittal, C. Yu, Q. Yu, J. Liu, N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, J. L. Yuan, R. Singh, Y . Guo, H. Mazhar, A. Mandlekar, B. Babich, G. State, M. Hutter, and A. Garg, “Orbit: A unified simulation framework for interactive robot learning environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letter...

    2023

  27. [35]

    Ad- vancing humanoid locomotion: Mastering challenging terrains with denoising world model learning,

    X. Gu, Y .-J. Wang, X. Zhu, C. Shi, Y . Guo, Y . Liu, and J. Chen, “Ad- vancing humanoid locomotion: Mastering challenging terrains with denoising world model learning,” inRobotics: Science and Systems, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Efficient track anything,

    Y . Xiong, C. Zhou, X. Xiang, L. Wu, C. Zhu, Z. Liu, S. Suri, B. Varadarajan, R. Akula, F. Iandola,et al., “Efficient track anything,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18933, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Two-frame motion estimation based on polynomial ex- pansion,

    G. Farneb ¨ack, “Two-frame motion estimation based on polynomial ex- pansion,” inImage Analysis, pp. 363–370, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003

    2003

  30. [38]

    J. C. Strikwerda,Finite difference schemes and partial differential equations. SIAM, 2004

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.