Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

A distributed predictive controller lets teams of quadrupedal robots carry a shared payload through cluttered spaces, coordinating both payload state and interaction forces while reducing computation time.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A distributed model-predictive controller with ADMM coordination lets teams of quadrupedal robots safely carry a shared payload around obstacles, with simulations and hardware demos.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful, hardware-validated distributed MPC for quadruped payload transport, but the safety-critical claim is softer than advertised; worth a serious referee with major revisions. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17007 v1 pith:3NWIC3XH submitted 2026-07-18 cs.RO math.OC

ADMM-Based Safety-Critical Distributed NMPC for Cooperative Transportation by Quadrupedal Robots

Ruturaj S. Sambhus , Kapi Ketan Mehta , Yicheng Zeng , Kaveh Akbari Hamed This is my paper
classification cs.RO math.OC
keywords distributed model predictive controlADMMquadrupedal robotscooperative payload transportationcontrol barrier functionsholonomic constraintssafety-critical controlmulti-robot systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to establish that a team of load-carrying quadruped robots can be controlled by a distributed nonlinear predictive controller rather than a centralized one, without losing safety or tracking quality. It splits the coupled robot-payload planning problem into parallel local controllers that agree on the shared payload trajectory and the interaction wrenches through ADMM, while enforcing obstacle-avoidance constraints with higher-order control barrier functions. If true, this would make cooperative transportation scalable and real-time for larger teams, since per-robot optimization time grows more slowly than centralized optimization. The paper reports up to 23 percent lower average solve time for four-agent teams, comparable tracking, and about four times lower payload yaw error than a wrench-only consensus baseline.

Core claim

The central claim is that safety-critical cooperative transportation of a shared payload by multiple quadrupeds can be decomposed into parallel local NMPC subproblems that reach consensus over both the payload-state trajectory and the interaction-wrench trajectories, with acceleration-level holonomic coupling constraints and HOCBF safety constraints included directly in the distributed formulation. Unlike prior wrench-only ADMM formulations, this architecture keeps local copies of the payload state so each robot predicts a dynamically consistent shared trajectory. The authors validate this in simulation for two, three, and four agents and in real-time experiments on two- and three-robot team

What carries the argument

The central object is the ADMM-based distributed optimization architecture: each agent maintains local copies of the payload trajectory and all interaction wrenches, penalized toward a global consensus trajectory with a block-diagonal penalty matrix. The local subproblems include the single-rigid-body dynamics, acceleration-level holonomic constraints from rigid coupling, and higher-order control barrier function (HOCBF) constraints for obstacle avoidance. Two ADMM iterations per control update are used, with parallel local solves and warm-starting.

Load-bearing premise

The safety-critical claim rests on the assumption that HOCBF constraints computed on the reduced-order single-rigid-body model, with states from motion capture and kinematic estimation, guarantee safety of the full 18-DoF robots when tracked by the low-level whole-body controller; the paper itself reports brief apparent safety-boundary violations under MoCap noise and strong pushes.

What would settle it

Run the two- or three-agent transportation task using onboard state estimation instead of an external motion-capture system, or with a tighter safety margin than the reported threshold, and record the minimum value of the HOCBF safety functions. If any safety function goes negative for longer than a single control step, or the payload yaw error exceeds the roughly 4x margin reported relative to wrench-only consensus, the central safety-critical claim is contradicted.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Three- and four-agent transportation can be solved in real time with about 9% and 23% lower average NLP solve time than centralized NMPC while keeping similar closed-loop performance.
  • Explicit consensus over payload state plus holonomic constraints reduces payload yaw tracking error by roughly 4x compared to wrench-only consensus, indicating that distributed controllers should coordinate state, not just forces.
  • The same architecture handles payload mass uncertainty and external pushes in hardware experiments, suggesting it can be used outside simulation for load-carrying legged robots.
  • Increasing ADMM iterations improves consensus quality, but two iterations already provide sufficient coordination for stable transportation, offering a practical tuning guideline.
  • Communication delays up to 20 rounds with 50% packet dropouts degrade consensus convergence but still allow stable transportation and recovery.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the state-consensus advantage holds at larger scales, wrench-only distributed controllers for legged loco-manipulation could be upgraded by adding local payload-state copies rather than a separate payload solver, at modest communication cost.
  • The safety-critical claim currently rests on motion-capture state and a reduced-order model; a natural test is whether the same HOCBF layer preserves safety under onboard-only state estimation or model error in the whole-body tracking layer.
  • Because the paper notes formal convergence for finite-iteration nonconvex ADMM remains open, robustness in practice depends on the fixed two-iteration schedule; an extension could adapt the number of iterations online based on residual thresholds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an ADMM-based distributed nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) framework for cooperative payload transportation by teams of quadrupedal robots. The centralized finite-horizon optimal control problem is decomposed into parallel local NMPC subproblems, with consensus enforced over both payload-state and interaction-wrench trajectories. Each local problem incorporates single-rigid-body dynamics, acceleration-level holonomic coupling constraints, and higher-order control barrier function (HOCBF) safety constraints. The framework is evaluated in simulation with two, three, and four Unitree Go2 agents and in hardware experiments with two-agent and three-agent (heterogeneous Go2/A1) teams, under payload uncertainty, external disturbances, and various obstacle configurations. The reported results include up to 23% lower average NLP solve time than centralized NMPC for three- and four-agent cases, and an ablation indicating that payload-state consensus with holonomic constraints reduces payload yaw RMS error by approximately 4x relative to a wrench-only approximation.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, this would be a useful contribution to cooperative legged manipulation: it extends wrench-only ADMM formulations to include payload-state consensus and explicit holonomic constraints, and it provides unusually detailed hardware validation and ablation studies. The solve-time comparison is based on measured NLP solver times, the yaw-error improvement is a measured ablation outcome, and the paper reports ADMM residual behavior and parameter sensitivity, which are commendable. However, the headline 'safety-critical' property is not established by the evidence as presented: the paper's own hardware logs show HOCBF boundary violations that are attributed to measurement noise without independent verification, and no formal or experimental ground-truth link is provided between reduced-order planner safety and full-order robot safety. The contribution is therefore conditionally significant: it demonstrates a promising and well-engineered distributed optimization architecture, but the strongest advertised claim needs additional support.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Figs. 3-5; Section I-B] The 'safety-critical' claim is undermined by the paper's own reported data. The text states that a 'slight apparent violation of two HOCBF safety functions' occurs in nominal experiments and that 'strong pushes may induce brief apparent safety-boundary violations,' with all such events attributed to MoCap measurement noise. Since the safety function h in (6) is computed from estimated SRB center-of-mass states, a logged h<0 could equally indicate a genuine breach of the 0.6 m safety margin, a whole-body-control tracking error, or a sensor artifact. No formal bound relates SRB-planner feasibility plus WBC tracking error to full-order h>=0, and no independent ground-truth measurement of the full robot/payload geometry is provided. The title, abstract, and contribution statement in Section I-B therefore claim more than the evidence supports. Please either provide a robustness bound or indep
  2. [Section II-B, Eq. (5)] The acceleration-level holonomic constraint is stated but not derived. Eq. (4) defines the holonomic constraint phi_hol(x_i, x_L)=0, and Eq. (5) asserts that double differentiation yields phi_hol_ddot(x_i, x_L, u_i, lambda_L)=0. Because x_i includes Euler angles and the dynamics are discrete-time, the explicit expression is nontrivial. This constraint is load-bearing: it is enforced in each local feasible set Z_i and used in the local NMPC (17). Without the explicit derivation, or at least a precise statement of how phi_hol_ddot is computed (symbolic differentiation, finite differences, etc.), the formulation is not fully reproducible and the exact nature of the coupling constraint is unclear.
  3. [Section IV-C2, Table II] The comparison against 'wrench-only ADMM formulations' is not a faithful comparison. The ablation reduces rho_x and removes the holonomic constraints, which is a degraded version of the proposed architecture, not the algorithm of [28]. Moreover, the ablation changes two features at once, so the reported 4x reduction in RMS payload yaw error cannot be attributed specifically to payload-state consensus or to holonomic constraints. To support the contribution claim, implement a faithful wrench-only baseline or separate the two ablations.
  4. [Section IV-A, Table I] The statement that the distributed framework achieves 'comparable closed-loop performance' to centralized NMPC is not supported by any quantitative data. Table I reports only NLP solve times; no closed-loop tracking errors, obstacle clearance margins, or payload orientation errors are compared between distributed and centralized formulations. Without such a comparison, the reader cannot evaluate whether the computational gains come at a performance cost. Please add closed-loop performance metrics for both formulations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II-B] The five-dimensional holonomic constraint (three translational, two rotational) is described verbally but the actual constraint function for the rigid coupling mechanism and the yaw-free joint is not written out. Please provide the explicit expression.
  2. [Section IV-A] A terminal weighting matrix P_SRB = 10 Q_SRB is mentioned, but the cost (10) has no terminal cost term. Clarify how P_SRB enters the local NMPC (e.g., as a terminal state penalty appended to the horizon).
  3. [Table I] The column labeled 'Iterations' is ambiguous: it could mean IPOPT iterations or ADMM iterations. Please clarify the notation.
  4. [Figs. 3-5] The residual plots labeled 'RMS(m)' and 'RMS(N)' should state how the RMS is computed over the prediction horizon and over time, and whether it is an average over agents.
  5. [Section IV-A] The hardware implementation uses one offboard computer with multiple threads; the 'distributed' property is algorithmic, not network-based. This is acknowledged, but it is worth restating that the communication-delay ablation is an emulation.
  6. [References] Several key comparisons and prior works are arXiv preprints (e.g., [24], [28]). Please indicate in the text which results are published and which are preprint, and whether the comparison implementation is publicly available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: central claims are measured benchmarks/ablations; reported safety violations are a support gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are empirical measurements or direct algorithmic constructions rather than predictions obtained from fitted inputs. The distributed-vs-centralized solve-time comparison (Table I) is a measured benchmark of two concrete NLP formulations, and the 4x payload-yaw-error reduction (Table II) is a measured ablation comparing the nominal consensus gain with reduced-gain/no-holonomic variants; neither reduces by construction to an input parameter. The HOCBF conditions in (21) are taken from an external discrete-time CBF result [33], and the paper does not derive its central safety claim from its own prior work. The reported 'slight apparent violation of two HOCBF safety functions' and 'brief apparent safety-boundary violations' (Section IV-B) weaken the safety-critical claim as a correctness or validation matter, but they are not evidence of circularity: no equation is equivalent to its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The author self-citations ([9], [18], [19], [24], [34], etc.) serve as baselines or component modules (centralized NMPC, WBC), not as load-bearing proofs of this paper's claims; the claimed novelty—ADMM consensus over payload-state and interaction-wrench trajectories with holonomic constraints—is explicitly defined in equations (13)-(15) and (17)-(19). The paper even concedes that formal convergence guarantees for finite-iteration nonconvex ADMM remain open, which is an honest limitation rather than a circular dependency. Therefore no specific circular step is identifiable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central empirical claims rest on hand-tuned MPC/ADMM hyperparameters, SRB model fidelity, exact rigidity of the coupling, and the star-topology coordinator model. The 4x yaw-error reduction and 23% solve-time reduction are measured outcomes for one particular tuning, not derived relations.

free parameters (8)
  • ADMM payload-state consensus penalty ρx = 1e4
    Hand-tuned; ablation shows lowering it to 1e1 or 0 (without holonomic constraints) increases payload yaw error 4x—underscores that the headline 4x improvement depends on this gain.
  • ADMM wrench consensus penalty ρλ = 1e3
    Hand-tuned consensus gain for interaction wrenches.
  • SRB position tracking weight Q_SRB_p = diag{1e7,1e7,16e7}
    Hand-tuned MPC weights; terminal weight P_SRB=10 Q_SRB. No fitting to data, but central to tracking performance.
  • Interaction-wrench penalty R_lambda = block diag{50 I_3, 500 I_3}
    Hand-tuned penalty on wrench magnitudes in the cost.
  • HOCBF coefficients (α1, α2) = (0.4, 0.04)
    Tuned for the discrete forward-difference CBF formulation; affects how aggressively safety constraints act.
  • Safety margin d_safe = 0.6 m (0.45 m in narrow passage)
    Chosen safety distance; directly defines the unsafe set and affects feasibility.
  • Number of ADMM iterations per MPC step = 2
    Ablation (Fig 7) shows iter=2 balances residual quality and solve time; iter=1 gives larger oscillations.
  • Prediction horizon N and sample time T_s = N=8, T_s=16.7 ms (60 Hz)
    Standard MPC design choices; horizon length affects tracking and solve time.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The quadruped robots and payload are governed by single rigid body (SRB) dynamics with Euler-angle orientation; full-order 18-DoF dynamics are not modeled in the NMPC.
    Central to the NMPC formulation (Section II-B); safety and tracking claims depend on SRB fidelity, with WBC used to track the plan.
  • domain assumption Each coupling mechanism exactly enforces a five-dimensional holonomic constraint (three translations, two rotations) between agent and payload, with no compliance or slip.
    The holonomic constraints (4)-(5) are derived from this assumed rigidity; if the coupling flexes, the model is invalid (Section II-B).
  • domain assumption The interaction topology is a star graph: each robot interacts only with the payload, not with other robots.
    The ADMM consensus structure (13)-(15) is built on this topology (Section II-A).
  • standard math The discrete-time HOCBF formulation of [33] for relative-degree-two systems provides a valid discrete safe-set certificate.
    Used to construct constraints (21); cited from the literature, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption ADMM iterations, with a finite number per MPC update, are sufficient to converge to a useful consensus for the nonconvex NLP.
    The paper states formal convergence for finite-iteration nonconvex ADMM remains open (Section V), but relies on observed residual decay in experiments.
  • domain assumption Payload SRB state is reconstructible from robot states and rigid coupling geometry via kinematic estimation.
    Used for feedback in experiments (Section IV-A); if estimate is biased, consensus tracks a wrong payload state.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ADMM-Based Safety-Critical Distributed NMPC for Cooperative Transportation by Quadrupedal Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NWIC3XH

@misc{pith2026260717007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ADMM-Based Safety-Critical Distributed NMPC for Cooperative Transportation by Quadrupedal Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NWIC3XH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17007}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This paper presents a safety-critical distributed nonlinear model predictive control (DNMPC) framework for cooperative payload transportation by teams of quadrupedal robots. The proposed approach models the robotic team and the shared payload as a dynamically coupled networked system with rigid holonomic coupling constraints arising from cooperative transportation. To enable distributed real-time optimization, the centralized finite-horizon optimal control problem is decomposed into parallel local NMPC subproblems coordinated through the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM). The resulting distributed framework enforces consensus over both payload-state and interaction-wrench trajectories while explicitly incorporating acceleration-level holonomic coupling constraints within the distributed predictive control formulation. Safety-critical obstacle avoidance constraints for both the robotic agents and payload are enforced using higher-order control barrier functions (HOCBFs). The framework is validated through numerical simulations with teams of two, three, and four quadrupedal robots transporting shared payloads in cluttered environments. Real-time experiments on two- and three-robot teams demonstrate safe and robust transportation under payload uncertainty and external disturbances. Compared with centralized NMPC, the proposed framework achieves up to 23% reduction in average NLP solve time while maintaining comparable closed-loop performance. Ablation studies further demonstrate robustness to communication delays and show that explicit payload-state consensus and holonomic constraints substantially improve payload tracking and distributed coordination over existing wrench-only consensus formulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17007 by Kapi Ketan Mehta, Kaveh Akbari Hamed, Ruturaj S. Sambhus, Yicheng Zeng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Experimental snapshots of cooperative payload transportation using Unitree Go2 and A1 robots in a lab environment with conical and cylindrical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the proposed ADMM-based safety-critical distributed NMPC framework for cooperative payload transportation. Parallel local NMPC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Nominal two-agent cooperative transportation with a 5 kg payload in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nominal three-agent cooperative transportation with a 5 kg payload [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Robustness experiments under payload uncertainty and external [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CoM trajectories of the robotic agents and shared payload in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Study of dynamic biped locomotion on rugged terrain-derivation and application of the linear inverted pendulum mode,

    S. Kajita and K. Tani, “Study of dynamic biped locomotion on rugged terrain-derivation and application of the linear inverted pendulum mode,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1991, pp. 1405–1406

    1991

  2. [2]

    Compliant leg behavior ex- plains basic dynamics of walking and running,

    H. Geyer, A. Seyfarth, and R. Blickhan, “Compliant leg behavior ex- plains basic dynamics of walking and running,”Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, vol. 273, pp. 2861–7, 08 2006

    2006

  3. [3]

    Centroidal dynamics of a humanoid robot,

    D. E. Orin, A. Goswami, and S.-H. Lee, “Centroidal dynamics of a humanoid robot,”Autonomous robots, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 161–176, 2013

    2013

  4. [4]

    Dynamic locomotion in the MIT Cheetah 3 through convex model-predictive control,

    J. Di Carlo, P. M. Wensing, B. Katz, G. Bledt, and S. Kim, “Dynamic locomotion in the MIT Cheetah 3 through convex model-predictive control,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct 2018, pp. 1–9

    2018

  5. [5]

    Variational-based optimal control of underactuated balancing for dynamic quadrupeds,

    M. Chignoli and P. M. Wensing, “Variational-based optimal control of underactuated balancing for dynamic quadrupeds,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 49 785–49 797, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Representation- free model predictive control for dynamic motions in quadrupeds,

    Y . Ding, A. Pandala, C. Li, Y .-H. Shin, and H.-W. Park, “Representation- free model predictive control for dynamic motions in quadrupeds,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1154–1171, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Predictive control with indirect adaptive laws for payload transportation by quadrupedal robots,

    L. Amanzadeh, T. Chunawala, R. T. Fawcett, A. Leonessa, and K. Ak- bari Hamed, “Predictive control with indirect adaptive laws for payload transportation by quadrupedal robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 10 359–10 366, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Robust predictive control for quadrupedal locomotion: Learning to close the gap between reduced-and full-order models,

    A. Pandala, R. T. Fawcett, U. Rosolia, A. D. Ames, and K. Ak- bari Hamed, “Robust predictive control for quadrupedal locomotion: Learning to close the gap between reduced-and full-order models,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6622–6629, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    A nonlin- ear MPC framework for loco-manipulation of quadrupedal robots with non-negligible manipulator dynamics,

    R. S. Sambhus, K. K. Mehta, A. M. Sadeghi, B. M. Imran, J. Kim, T. Chunawala, V . Pastore, S. Vijayan, and K. Akbari Hamed, “A nonlin- ear MPC framework for loco-manipulation of quadrupedal robots with non-negligible manipulator dynamics,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 4050–4057, 2026

    2026

  10. [10]

    Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,

    P. M. Wensing, M. Posa, Y . Hu, A. Escande, N. Mansard, and A. D. Prete, “Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 43–63, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Crocoddyl: An efficient and versatile framework for multi-contact optimal control,

    C. Mastalli, R. Budhiraja, W. Merkt, G. Saurel, B. Hammoud, M. Naveau, J. Carpentier, L. Righetti, S. Vijayakumar, and N. Mansard, “Crocoddyl: An efficient and versatile framework for multi-contact optimal control,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020

    2020

  12. [12]

    ProxDDP: Proximal constrained trajectory optimization,

    W. Jallet, A. Bambade, E. Arlaud, S. El-Kazdadi, N. Mansard, and J. Carpentier, “ProxDDP: Proximal constrained trajectory optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 2605–2624, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    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, Aug 2017

    2017

  14. [14]

    Safety barrier certificates for collisions-free multirobot systems,

    L. Wang, A. D. Ames, and M. Egerstedt, “Safety barrier certificates for collisions-free multirobot systems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 661–674, 2017

    2017

  15. [15]

    Multirobot adversarial resilience using control barrier functions,

    M. Cavorsi, L. Sabattini, and S. Gil, “Multirobot adversarial resilience using control barrier functions,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 797–815, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Walking in narrow spaces: Safety-critical locomotion control for quadrupedal robots with duality-based optimization,

    Q. Liao, Z. Li, A. Thirugnanam, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Walking in narrow spaces: Safety-critical locomotion control for quadrupedal robots with duality-based optimization,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023, pp. 2723–2730

    2023

  17. [17]

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

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

    2021

  18. [18]

    Safety-critical and distributed nonlinear predictive controllers for teams of quadrupedal robots,

    B. M. Imran, J. Kim, T. Chunawala, A. Leonessa, and K. Akbari Hamed, “Safety-critical and distributed nonlinear predictive controllers for teams of quadrupedal robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 9176–9183, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    ADMM-based distributed MPC with control barrier functions for safe multi-robot quadrupedal locomotion,

    Y . Zeng, R. S. Sambhus, B. M. Imran, J. Kim, V . Pastore, and K. Akbari Hamed, “ADMM-based distributed MPC with control barrier functions for safe multi-robot quadrupedal locomotion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19170, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Layered control for cooperative locomotion of two quadrupedal robots: Centralized and distributed approaches,

    J. Kim, R. T. Fawcett, V . R. Kamidi, A. D. Ames, and K. Akbari Hamed, “Layered control for cooperative locomotion of two quadrupedal robots: Centralized and distributed approaches,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4728–4748, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Cooperative locomotion via supervisory predictive control and distributed nonlinear controllers,

    J. Kim and K. Akbari Hamed, “Cooperative locomotion via supervisory predictive control and distributed nonlinear controllers,”Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 144, no. 3, p. 031005, Mar. 2022

    2022

  22. [22]

    Distributed data-driven predictive control for multi-agent collaborative legged locomotion,

    R. T. Fawcett, L. Amanzadeh, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and K. Ak- bari Hamed, “Distributed data-driven predictive control for multi-agent collaborative legged locomotion,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 9924–9930

    2023

  23. [23]

    Centralized model predictive control for collaborative loco-manipulation,

    F. De Vincenti and S. Coros, “Centralized model predictive control for collaborative loco-manipulation,” inRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), Daegu, Republic of Korea, 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    Safety-critical centralized nonlinear MPC for cooperative payload transportation by two quadrupedal robots,

    R. S. Sambhus, Y . Zeng, K. K. Mehta, J. Kim, and K. Ak- bari Hamed, “Safety-critical centralized nonlinear MPC for cooperative payload transportation by two quadrupedal robots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03200, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    J. M. Maestre and R. R. Negenborn,Distributed Model Predictive Control Made Easy. Springer, 2014

    2014

  26. [26]

    Architectures for distributed and hierarchical model predictive control—A review,

    R. Scattolini, “Architectures for distributed and hierarchical model predictive control—A review,”Journal of Process Control, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 723–731, 2009

    2009

  27. [27]

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein,Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers, 2011

    2011

  28. [28]

    ACLM: ADMM- based distributed model predictive control for collaborative loco- manipulation,

    Z. Zhou, P. Shu, R. Cao, Y . Zhao, and Y . Zhao, “ACLM: ADMM- based distributed model predictive control for collaborative loco- manipulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07095, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Multi-quadruped cooperative object transport: Learning decentralized pinch-lift-move,

    B. Pandit, A. K. Shrestha, and A. Fern, “Multi-quadruped cooperative object transport: Learning decentralized pinch-lift-move,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.14342, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Learning multi-agent loco-manipulation for long-horizon quadrupedal pushing,

    Y . Feng, C. Hong, Y . Niu, S. Liu, Y . Yang, W. Yu, T. Zhang, J. Tan, and D. Zhao, “Learning multi-agent loco-manipulation for long-horizon quadrupedal pushing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07104, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Learning multi-agent local collision-avoidance for collaborative carrying tasks with coupled quadrupedal robots,

    F. Bray, S. Tolomei, A. Cramariuc, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “Learning multi-agent local collision-avoidance for collaborative carrying tasks with coupled quadrupedal robots,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23278, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Collaborative loco-manipulation for pick-and-place tasks with dynamic reward cur- riculum,

    T. An, F. D. Vincenti, Y . Ma, M. Hutter, and S. Coros, “Collaborative loco-manipulation for pick-and-place tasks with dynamic reward cur- riculum,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13239, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Discrete-time control barrier function: High-order case and adaptive case,

    Y . Xiong, D.-H. Zhai, M. Tavakoli, and Y . Xia, “Discrete-time control barrier function: High-order case and adaptive case,”IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 3231–3239, 2023

    2023

  34. [34]

    Robust stabilization of periodic gaits for quadrupedal locomotion via QP-based virtual constraint controllers,

    R. T. Fawcett, A. Pandala, A. D. Ames, and K. Akbari Hamed, “Robust stabilization of periodic gaits for quadrupedal locomotion via QP-based virtual constraint controllers,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, pp. 1736– 1741, 2021

    2021

  35. [35]

    M. H. Raibert,Legged robots that balance. MIT press, 1986

    1986

  36. [36]

    CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and opti- mal control,

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and opti- mal control,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019

    2019

  37. [37]

    On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,

    A. W ¨achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,” Mathematical programming, vol. 106, pp. 25–57, 2006. 9

    2006

  38. [38]

    Per-contact iteration method for solving contact dynamics,

    J. Hwangbo, J. Lee, and M. Hutter, “Per-contact iteration method for solving contact dynamics,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 895–902, April 2018

    2018

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.