Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Integrating Planning and Predictive Control Using the Path Feasibility Governor

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A small add-on unit, the Path Feasibility Governor, filters a planned path into feasible intermediate references for MPC and is proven to keep the closed loop safe, feasible, and asymptotically stable from any state connected to the…

desk verdict Nice idea, but the proofs cover the fixed-constraint MPC while the simulated implementation uses trajectory-dependent linearized constraints, so the central guarantee is unproven for the actual controller. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09134 v1 pith:63EJES2M submitted 2025-07-12 eess.SY cs.SY

Shu Zhang , James Y. Z. Liu , Dominic Liao-McPherson This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93C5593D2093D30
keywords pathfeasibilitygovernormodelpredictivecontrolrecursiveregionofattractionplanningconstraintsatisfactionasymptoticstabilityquadrotornavigation
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 aims to close the gap between geometric path planning and constrained predictive control: planners produce collision-free paths that ignore dynamics, while a model predictive controller (MPC) can only track references it can reach within its prediction horizon. The proposed Path Feasibility Governor (PathFG) is a small add-on unit that slides an auxiliary reference $s\in[0,1]$ along the planned path, always selecting the furthest point the MPC can feasibly reach in the remaining steps. The central claim is that this one-dimensional filter guarantees recursive feasibility, constraint satisfaction, and asymptotic stability from every initial state that can be connected to the target by a continuous, strictly admissible path, expanding the region of attraction from the $N$-step backward reachable set to the full path-connected set. A practical consequence is that prediction horizons can be kept short and cheap because the planner, not the horizon, handles the non-convex obstacles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the auxiliary-reference selection map $g(\xi^*_N)=\max\{s\in[0,1]\mid(\xi^*_N,s)\in\tilde{T}\}$, where $\tilde{T}=\{(x,s)\mid(x,p(s))\in T\}$ is the terminal set sliced along the path and $\xi^*_N$ is the optimal final predicted state of the previous MPC solution. Because that state was reachable in $N$ steps from the previous state, it is reachable in $N-1$ steps from the current state, so pulling the reference as far forward as the terminal set allows makes recursive feasibility hold by construction. The companion pieces are the Lyapunov-based terminal set $T=\{(x,r)\mid\Delta(x,r)\leq 0\}$ built from the explicit-reference-governor threshold construction, and the input-to-state stability of the MPC closed loop with respect to reference changes (Lemma 4), which together imply that whenever the predicted terminal state gets close to the path equilibrium the reference jumps at least a fixed margin $\alpha$ forward (Lemma 6), so $s_k$ reaches $1$ in finite time (Lemma 8).

What would settle it

Feed a deliberately borderline path into the quadrotor setup, one whose waypoints graze the inflated obstacle boundary so that some equilibrium $\bar{x}_{p(s)}$ lies on the boundary of $X$ or $U$ rather than strictly inside $\mathcal{R}_\varepsilon$, and run the closed loop; if the MPC problem becomes infeasible at any step, or if the observed increments of $s_k$ are not bounded below by a positive constant across runs, the premises of Theorems 1 and 2 are not satisfied. A simpler check: sample a typical RRT* or potential-field path in the paper's environment and test the strict margin $p(s)\in\mathcal{R}_\varepsilon$ pointwise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a scalar auxiliary reference moving along a planner-supplied path can carry all the non-convexity of the motion planning problem, leaving the MPC with only the convex tracking task. Given a target $r\in\mathcal{R}_\varepsilon$ and a continuous path $p:[0,1]\to\mathcal{R}_\varepsilon$ with $p(1)=r$ whose start is MPC-feasible, the PathFG update $s_k=g(\xi^*_{N|k-1})=\max\{s\in[0,1]\mid(\xi^*_{N|k-1},s)\in\tilde{T}\}$ selects the next reference, and Theorem 1 proves the closed loop satisfies $(x_k,s_k)\in\tilde{\Gamma}$, so state and input constraints hold for all $k$. Theorem 2 then proves that the equilibrium $(\bar{x}_r,1)$ is asymptotically stable with region of attraction $(D_x(r)\times[0,1])\cap\tilde{\Gamma}$, where $D_x(r)$ is the set of all initial states from which a feasible path to the target exists; the proof combines input-to-state stability of the MPC policy with respect to reference increments with a minimal-jump lemma showing $s_k$ advances by at least a fixed amount whenever the predicted terminal state is close to the path, yielding finite-time convergence of $s_k$ to $1$. The numerical study shows a quadrotor navigating a cluttered environment with prediction horizon $N=5$ where ungoverned MPC requires $N\geq 20$, at computation times near $0.01$ s, well below the $0.1$ s sampling period.

Load-bearing premise

The entire guarantee rests on the planner returning a continuous path whose every point is a strictly admissible reference (equilibrium strictly inside the state and input constraints) and whose start is already feasible for the MPC, a strict-margin condition that standard planners do not guarantee and that the paper gives no procedure for verifying.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The region of attraction of the closed loop grows from the $N$-step backward reachable set of the terminal set to $D_x(r)$, the set of all initial states from which any feasible path to the target exists.
  • Prediction horizons can be drastically shortened: in the quadrotor study, PathFG+MPC with $N=5$ navigates an obstacle-dense environment where ungoverned MPC needs $N\geq 20$, keeping total computation around $0.01$ s per step, below the $0.1$ s sampling period.
  • Feasibility is recursive by construction: if $(x_0,p(0))\in\Gamma$, then $(x_k,s_k)\in\tilde{\Gamma}$ for all $k$, so constraint satisfaction holds at every time step without re-checking.
  • The auxiliary reference reaches $s=1$ in finite time, after which the loop behaves as standard MPC tracking the target reference.
  • Because the planner is decoupled from the controller, any planner satisfying the path condition can be swapped in, and replanning in dynamic environments only requires refreshing the path.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: add a post-planner filter that projects the planned path inward by the margin $\varepsilon$, or certifies pointwise membership in $\mathcal{R}_\varepsilon$, before PathFG engages, so that Assumption 3 becomes checkable rather than assumed.
  • The proof structure only needs a uniform minimum jump $\alpha$ along the path and continuity of $p$, so the same machinery should extend to piecewise-smooth paths, to replanning with moving targets, and to robust MPC paired with a robust invariant terminal set, since the ISS and terminal-set arguments carry over.
  • The simulation data show a performance trade-off the authors frame mildly: ungoverned long-horizon MPC converges faster but exceeds the real-time budget, so a practical reading is that PathFG is the enabler of short-horizon operation rather than a faster tracker.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Path Feasibility Governor (PathFG), an add-on module that integrates a path planner with a nonlinear MPC controller. Given a continuous path p(s) from the initial state to a target reference, PathFG selects, at each timestep, the furthest auxiliary reference s along the path for which the previous optimal terminal predicted state lies in the terminal set, thereby maintaining MPC feasibility while the path parameter progresses to 1. The paper proves recursive feasibility, constraint satisfaction, and asymptotic stability of the combined PathFG+MPC closed loop under Assumptions 1–3, with a region of attraction equal to the set of states connectable to the target by a feasible path. It then specializes the construction to linear systems with convexified obstacle constraints, gives a Lyapunov-based terminal set, and reports quadrotor navigation simulations with RRT* and potential-field planners.

Significance. If the theoretical claims hold, PathFG is a valuable modular contribution: it extends the feasibility-governor idea from convex to non-convex settings, significantly enlarges the MPC region of attraction without long horizons, and keeps the PathFG update as a cheap one-dimensional search. The paper is clearly written, the architecture is appealing, and the simulation comparison between short-horizon governed MPC and long-horizon ungoverned MPC is informative. The main proof strategy—using ISS of the tracking error and finite-time convergence of the path parameter—is sound for the fixed-constraint OCP considered in Section IV. However, the implementation in Section V uses successively re-linearized obstacle constraints, and the paper does not bridge the gap between that time-varying OCP and the theorems. The strength of the central claim therefore currently exceeds what is established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V.A (Eqs. (37), (53)) vs. §IV (Appendix A, Lemmas 4–8)] The theoretical guarantees are proven for the OCP (4) with a fixed constraint set X, while the controller implemented in Section V solves a sequence of OCPs in which the constraint sets Xi|k are re-linearized around the previous optimal trajectory and hence change at every timestep. Lemma 4's ISS argument uses a single time-invariant value function J(x,s) in (64)–(66), and Lemmas 5–8 inherit that structure; no ISS or Lyapunov argument is given for the time-varying feasible sets in (37)/(53). Moreover, the shifted candidate in the proof of Theorem 1 (Eq. (60)) only guarantees feasibility for a fixed X; under (37) the terminal step i=N refers to the undefined prediction ξ*_{N+1|k-1}, so the terminal constraint and the terminal set T from Section V.B require a separate invariance argument that is not supplied. The numerical example therefore does not validate the proved guarantees. The authors should either prove the corresponding safety/stability results for the successively linearized OCP, or explicitly restrict the formal claims to the fixed-constraint formulation and present the simulation as a heuristic demonstration.
  2. [Assumption 3 and §VI.E] Assumption 3 requires the planner to return a continuous path p:[0,1]→Rε such that every point p(s) is strictly steady-state admissible and (x0,p(0))∈Γ. This is a strong condition on the planner output, and the paper gives no procedure for verifying it. RRT* returns a discrete collision-free path whose interpolated segments are not guaranteed to maintain a positive margin from obstacles, and potential-field paths are typically generated as finite waypoint sequences and are not automatically continuous or strictly inside Rε. The simulation section does not report how the planner outputs were checked against Assumption 3 (e.g., minimum clearance, continuous interpolation, or post-processing). Since Theorems 1–2 and the set Dx(r) are defined through existence of a path satisfying (12), this unverified condition is load-bearing. Please add a verification/post-processing step and document its output, or state and prove a relaxed condition that standard planners can satisfy.
  3. [Assumption 2E and Lemma 5] The proof of Lemma 5 relies on uniform continuity of the optimal final predicted state ξ*_N via Assumption 2E, but Assumption 2E (Lipschitz continuity of the optimal solution map ζ*) is not established for the general nonlinear OCP (4). The citation to [45, Section 7.1] concerns time-distributed optimization and does not by itself prove this regularity for the exact solution map; for nonconvex constraints the argmin may be discontinuous or set-valued even when Assumptions 2A–2D hold. Lemma 1 establishes Assumption 2E only for the linear-quadratic case through [52]. The general statements of Theorems 1–2 are therefore conditional on an unproven regularity property. Please provide a proof or precise sufficient conditions for Assumption 2E for problem (4), or reformulate the main theorems for the linear case in which Lemma 1 applies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorem 2 statement] The region of attraction is stated as (Dx(r)×[0,1])∩Γ, but in the path-parameter coordinates the relevant feasible set is Γ̃ defined in (17); the tilde is missing in the theorem statement.
  2. [Eqs. (37) and (53)] The indexing uses ξ*_{i+1|k-1} for i=N, where ξ*_{N+1|k-1} is undefined; the index should be clamped or the notation should define ξ*_{N+1|k-1} explicitly.
  3. [Figure 6] The legend in subfigure 6 labels 'PathFG+MPC(N=5)' and 'PathFG(N=5)', which makes it difficult to distinguish the combined computation time from the PathFG-only overhead; separate axes or clearer annotations would help.
  4. [§VI.E] The simulation section does not report planner parameters, number of runs, or obstacle-clearance statistics, so the claim of consistent performance across different planners is not quantitatively supported.
  5. [§VI.A] The numerical example validates the controller on a linearized quadrotor model; the abstract's reference to nonlinear MPC is supported by the general formulation but not by this particular demonstration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PathFG safety and stability guarantees are derived from explicit assumptions and standard MPC arguments, not from fitted data or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is conditional rather than circular. Theorem 1 is proved by the standard MPC shift argument: given a feasible solution at step k, the shifted candidate (60) is feasible at step k+1 because the terminal set is invariant. Theorem 2 is proved via an ISS Lyapunov argument (Lemma 4) plus a finite-time progression argument for the auxiliary reference (Lemmas 6-8); these lemmas rely on Assumptions 1-3 and on standard external results [49]-[52] for MPC stability, uniform continuity, and Lipschitz continuity of the explicit solution. The claimed region of attraction, Dx(r), is defined as the set of states for which a path satisfying (12) exists; this is an explicit assumption (Assumption 3) and a definition, not the theorem's conclusion smuggled into its premise. The expanded-ROA statement is therefore conditional on the existence of a path whose start is MPC-feasible, which the paper states clearly. The self-citations [40]-[42] and [45] are contextual or supporting references for prior feasibility-governor work and for Assumption 2E; they are not used to prove the main theorems, so they are not load-bearing. The numerical study does not fit any parameter to the claimed guarantees; it demonstrates behavior under the stated design. A possible gap between the fixed-constraint OCP studied in the proofs and the re-linearized constraint sets Xi|k in Section V.A is a correctness concern about whether the implementation inherits the theorem, but it is not a circularity: the theorem does not assume the time-varying OCP it would need to cover.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical claims rest on standard MPC regularity assumptions plus a strong planner assumption (Assumption 3) and a strong regularity assumption (2E). No parameters are fitted to data in the derivations; the simulation tuning (Q,R,N,r_a) is illustrative and does not enter the proofs. The implementation adds time-varying linearized constraints that are not covered by the stated theorems, which is a gap reflected in the soundness score.

free parameters (3)
  • Q and R cost matrices = Q=diag(10I3, 0.5I3, 2.5I3), R=0.1I4 (eq. 55)
    Chosen by hand for the simulation; the theoretical guarantees only require positive definiteness (Assumption 6A), so the specific values affect performance but not the formal claims.
  • Agent radius r_a and obstacle inflation margin = r_a=0.08 m; margin epsilon not specified
    The safety margin in Assumption 5 and the strict margin in R_epsilon (3) define the admissible path region. The paper never specifies epsilon or verifies that the planned paths satisfy the strict margin, which is a hidden tuning choice for the safety guarantee.
  • Prediction horizon N = N=5 and 15 for PathFG; N=50 for baseline
    Chosen for the simulation; the theory permits any finite N>0, so this is a design parameter, not fitted to data.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: f is Lipschitz, constraints continuous, and a steady-state map (x_bar_r, u_bar_r) exists for all r in R
    Needed to state the tracking problem; standard for MPC.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2A-2D: stage and terminal costs satisfy standard MPC stability conditions; terminal set positively invariant and contains equilibria in its interior
    These are the standard sufficient conditions for MPC stability (Mayne et al. [49]); the paper relies on them for the Lyapunov arguments.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2E: the optimal solution map zeta* is Lipschitz continuous
    This regularity assumption is used in Lemma 5 to bound the terminal state error by the state error. It is not proven for general nonlinear MPC and is stronger than typical assumptions; the paper cites [45, Sec 7.1] and [52] for discussion but does not verify it in the simulation.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: a path planner returns a continuous path p:[0,1] to R_epsilon with (x0,p(0)) in Gamma and p(1)=r
    Load-bearing: Theorems 1 and 2 are conditional on the existence and availability of such a path. The strict margin p(s) in R_epsilon is not a standard planner output and is not verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: (A,B) stabilizable
    Standard for the linear implementation; ensures the existence of an equilibrium parameterization and LQR terminal ingredients.
  • domain assumption Assumption 5: state constraints are a compact polyhedron intersected with complements of convex obstacles inflated by a safety margin
    Defines the non-convex constraint structure and enables the linearization in Section V.
  • domain assumption Assumption 6: Q,R positive definite and DARE inequality with P
    Standard LQR terminal conditions; ensures the terminal cost is a Lyapunov function.
  • standard math External results from [49]-[52] used as standard math (MPC Lyapunov function, ISS lemmas, Lipschitz continuity of explicit LQR)
    The proofs of Lemmas 4-5 and Lemma 1 rely on these cited results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrating Planning and Predictive Control Using the Path Feasibility Governor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63EJES2M

@misc{pith2026250709134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrating Planning and Predictive Control Using the Path Feasibility Governor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63EJES2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09134}
}
read the original abstract

The motion planning problem of generating dynamically feasible, collision-free trajectories in non-convex environments is a fundamental challenge for autonomous systems. Decomposing the problem into path planning and path tracking improves tractability, but integrating these components in a theoretically sound and computationally efficient manner is challenging. We propose the Path Feasibility Governor (PathFG), a framework for integrating path planners with nonlinear Model Predictive Control (MPC). The PathFG manipulates the reference passed to the MPC controller, guiding it along a path while ensuring constraint satisfaction, stability, and recursive feasibility. The PathFG is modular, compatible with replanning, and improves computational efficiency and reliability by reducing the need for long prediction horizons. We prove safety and asymptotic stability with a significantly expanded region of attraction, and validate its real-time performance through a simulated case study of quadrotor navigation in a cluttered environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09134 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Block diagram of the control architecture. Given a desired target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Given a desired target reference r, the path planner generates a path connecting the initial position to the target. The PathFG uses this path to create a sequence of intermediate references that are then passed to the MPC. A. Nonlinear MPC Since the control problem is constrained, we approach the control objectives using a standard nonlinear MPC formula￾tion, where the feedback policy is determined by solving the f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the PathFG workflow. The left subfigure shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Linear approximations of obstacle constraints. To linearize around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cascaded control architecture of the numerical example. The inner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quadrotor navigation with obstacle avoidance demonstrating PathFG’s compatibility with different path planners. Both RRT* (optimal) and potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of closed-loop performance across different prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Model Predictive Planner for UAV Navigation in Non-Convex Air Corridors

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Mixed-integer tracking MPC with a shortest-path offset cost plans dynamically feasible UAV trajectories in non-convex zonotopic air corridors and reaches the target without an external global planner.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [52]

    Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots,

    O. Khatib, “Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots,” inProceedings. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, pp. 500–505, 1985

    work page 1985

  2. [1]

    Safety:x k ∈ Xandu k ∈ Ufor allk∈N

    work page

  3. [2]

    In this paper, we focus on nominal MPC without explicitly considering disturbances for brevity and to better focus on our novel contribution

    Asymptotic stability: limk→∞ xk = ¯xr, where the equi- librium point¯xr is asymptotically stable. In this paper, we focus on nominal MPC without explicitly considering disturbances for brevity and to better focus on our novel contribution. The PathFG can be applied directly to problems with disturbances by pairing it with a robust MPC controller, e.g., on...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Path planning of automated guided vehicles based on improved A-star algorithm,

    C. Wang, L. Wang, J. Qin, Z. Wu, L. Duan, Z. Li, M. Cao, X. Ou, X. Su, W. Li, Z. Lu, M. Li, Y . Wang, J. Long, M. Huang, Y . Li, and Q. Wang, “Path planning of automated guided vehicles based on improved A-star algorithm,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, pp. 2071–2076, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    close enough

    The PathFG incurs minimal computational overhead due to its one-dimensional parameter search space when solving (21), enabling efficient computation using simple algorithms like the bisection method. Taken together, PathFG effectively addresses the integration challenge between the MPC and path planners in a scalable manner. In the following section, we p...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Inspection path planning for aerial vehicles via sampling-based sequential optimization,

    L. Shi, G. Mehrooz, and R. H. Jacobsen, “Inspection path planning for aerial vehicles via sampling-based sequential optimization,” in2021 In- ternational Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 679– 687, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Path planning for automa- tion of surgery robot based on probabilistic roadmap and reinforcement learning,

    D. Baek, M. Hwang, H. Kim, and D.-S. Kwon, “Path planning for automa- tion of surgery robot based on probabilistic roadmap and reinforcement learning,” in2018 15th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR), pp. 342–347, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    A survey on path planning algorithms for mobile robots,

    M. M. Costa and M. F. Silva, “A survey on path planning algorithms for mobile robots,” in2019 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC), pp. 1–7, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Uncertain moving obstacles avoiding method in 3d arbitrary path planning for a spher- ical underwater robot,

    R. An, S. Guo, L. Zheng, H. Hirata, and S. Gu, “Uncertain moving obstacles avoiding method in 3d arbitrary path planning for a spher- ical underwater robot,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 151, p. 104011, 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    Gross motion planning—a survey,

    Y . K. Hwang and N. Ahuja, “Gross motion planning—a survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 219–291, 1992

    1992

  3. [10]

    Motion planning for mobile manipula- tors—a systematic review,

    T. Sandakalum and M. H. Ang, “Motion planning for mobile manipula- tors—a systematic review,”Machines, vol. 10, no. 2, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    STOMP: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning,

    M. Kalakrishnan, S. Chitta, E. Theodorou, P. Pastor, and S. Schaal, “STOMP: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning,” in2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4569– 4574, 2011

    2011

  5. [12]

    A survey of path planning algorithms for mobile robots,

    K. Karur, N. Sharma, C. Dharmatti, and J. E. Siegel, “A survey of path planning algorithms for mobile robots,”V ehicles, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 448– 468, 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    Brogan,Modern Control Theory

    W. Brogan,Modern Control Theory. Prentice Hall, 1991

    1991

  7. [14]

    Goodwin, M

    G. Goodwin, M. Seron, and J. de Don ´a,Constrained Control and Es- timation: An Optimisation Approach. Communications and Control Engineering, Springer London, 2006

    2006

  8. [15]

    FASTER: Fast and safe tra- jectory planner for flights in unknown environments,

    J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, and J. P. How, “FASTER: Fast and safe tra- jectory planner for flights in unknown environments,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1934–1940, 2019

    1934

  9. [16]

    Information theoretic MPC for model-based reinforcement learning,

    G. Williams, N. Wagener, B. Goldfain, P. Drews, J. M. Rehg, B. Boots, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information theoretic MPC for model-based reinforcement learning,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1714–1721, 2017

    2017

  10. [17]

    Robust real-time UA V replanning using guided gradient-based optimization and topological paths,

    B. Zhou, F. Gao, J. Pan, and S. Shen, “Robust real-time UA V replanning using guided gradient-based optimization and topological paths,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1208–1214, 2020

    2020

  11. [18]

    Efficient trajectory planning for high speed flight in unknown environments,

    M. Ryll, J. Ware, J. Carter, and N. Roy, “Efficient trajectory planning for high speed flight in unknown environments,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 732–738, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    External forces resilient safe motion planning for quadrotor,

    Y . Wu, Z. Ding, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “External forces resilient safe motion planning for quadrotor,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 8506–8513, 2021

    2021

  13. [20]

    Model predictive planning: Trajectory planning in obstruction-dense environments for low-agility aircraft,

    M. T. Wallace, B. Streetman, and L. Lessard, “Model predictive planning: Trajectory planning in obstruction-dense environments for low-agility aircraft,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 8288–8293, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-D complex environments,

    S. Liu, M. Watterson, K. Mohta, K. Sun, S. Bhattacharya, C. J. Taylor, and V . Kumar, “Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-D complex environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1688–1695, 2017

    2017

  15. [22]

    Online safe trajectory generation for quadrotors using fast marching method and bernstein basis polynomial,

    F. Gao, W. Wu, Y . Lin, and S. Shen, “Online safe trajectory generation for quadrotors using fast marching method and bernstein basis polynomial,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 344–351, 2018

    2018

  16. [23]

    FaSTrack: A modular framework for fast and guaranteed safe motion planning,

    S. L. Herbert, M. Chen, S. Han, S. Bansal, J. F. Fisac, and C. J. Tomlin, “FaSTrack: A modular framework for fast and guaranteed safe motion planning,” in2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1517–1522, 2017

    2017

  17. [24]

    Integrated planning and control for quadrotor navigation in presence of suddenly appearing objects and disturbances,

    W. Liu, Y . Ren, and F. Zhang, “Integrated planning and control for quadrotor navigation in presence of suddenly appearing objects and disturbances,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 899–906, 2024. 14

    2024

  18. [25]

    Path planning and predictive control of au- tonomous vehicles for obstacle avoidance,

    D. Zhang and B. Chen, “Path planning and predictive control of au- tonomous vehicles for obstacle avoidance,” in2022 18th IEEE/ASME International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), pp. 1–6, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    Supporting BIT*- based path planning with MPC-based motion planning of the self-driving car,

    A. A. Al-Moadhen, H. G. Kamil, and A. R. Khayeat, “Supporting BIT*- based path planning with MPC-based motion planning of the self-driving car,”International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 214–226, 2022

    2022

  20. [27]

    Randomized kinodynamic planning,

    S. M. LaValle and J. J. Kuffner, “Randomized kinodynamic planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 20, pp. 378–400, 2001

    2001

  21. [28]

    FaSTrack: A modular framework for real-time motion planning and guaranteed safe tracking,

    M. Chen, S. L. Herbert, H. Hu, Y . Pu, J. F. Fisac, S. Bansal, S. Han, and C. J. Tomlin, “FaSTrack: A modular framework for real-time motion planning and guaranteed safe tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 5861–5876, 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    Safe returning FaSTrack with robust control Lyapunov-value functions,

    Z. Gong, B. Li, and S. Herbert, “Safe returning FaSTrack with robust control Lyapunov-value functions,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 8, pp. 1373–1378, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Randomized kinodynamic planning,

    S. M. LaValle and J. J. Kuffner, “Randomized kinodynamic planning,” inProceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 473–479, 1999

    1999

  24. [31]

    Motion planning with invariant set trees,

    A. Weiss, C. Danielson, K. Berntorp, I. V . Kolmanovsky, and S. D. Caira- no, “Motion planning with invariant set trees,” in2017 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA), pp. 142–148, 2017

    2017

  25. [32]

    LQR- trees: Feedback motion planning via sums-of-squares verification,

    R. Tedrake, I. R. Manchester, M. Tobenkin, and J. W. Roberts, “LQR- trees: Feedback motion planning via sums-of-squares verification,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1038– 1052, 2010

    2010

  26. [33]

    Safe positively invariant sets for spacecraft obstacle avoid- ance,

    A. Weiss, C. D. Petersen, M. Baldwin, R. S. Erwin, and I. V . Kol- manovsky, “Safe positively invariant sets for spacecraft obstacle avoid- ance,”Journal of Guidance Control and Dynamics, vol. 38, pp. 720–732, 2015

    2015

  27. [34]

    Path planning using positive invariant sets,

    C. Danielson, A. Weiss, K. Berntorp, and S. D. Cairano, “Path planning using positive invariant sets,”2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 5986–5991, 2016

    2016

  28. [35]

    The explicit reference governor: A general framework for the closed-form control of constrained nonlinear systems,

    M. M. Nicotra and E. Garone, “The explicit reference governor: A general framework for the closed-form control of constrained nonlinear systems,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 89–107, 2018

    2018

  29. [36]

    Automated driving: Safe motion planning using positively invariant sets,

    K. Berntorp, A. Weiss, C. Danielson, S. D. Cairano, and I. Kolmanovsky, “Automated driving: Safe motion planning using positively invariant sets,” in2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 1–6, 2017

    2017

  30. [37]

    Robust motion planning for uncertain systems with disturbances using the invariant- set motion planner,

    C. Danielson, K. Berntorp, A. Weiss, and S. D. Cairano, “Robust motion planning for uncertain systems with disturbances using the invariant- set motion planner,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 4456–4463, 2020

    2020

  31. [38]

    Dynamically feasible path planning in cluttered environments via reachable Bezier polytopes,

    N. Csomay-Shanklin, W. D. Compton, and A. D. Ames, “Dynamically feasible path planning in cluttered environments via reachable Bezier polytopes,” 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise,

    D. Q. Mayne, “Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise,”Automatica, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 2967–2986, 2014

    2014

  33. [40]

    Invari- ant set distributed explicit reference governors for provably safe on-board control of nano-quadrotor swarms,

    B. Convens, K. Merckaert, B. Vanderborght, and M. M. Nicotra, “Invari- ant set distributed explicit reference governors for provably safe on-board control of nano-quadrotor swarms,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, 2021

    2021

  34. [41]

    Governor-parameterized barrier function for safe output tracking with locally sensed constraints,

    Z. Li and N. Atanasov, “Governor-parameterized barrier function for safe output tracking with locally sensed constraints,”Automatica, vol. 152, no. 110996, 2023

    2023

  35. [42]

    ≡” is used for definitions, e.g., “a≡b

    from convex to non-convex search spaces. As non-convex motion planning problems are commonly found across robotics, aerospace, and many other sectors, this extension significantly broadens the set of applications that can be tackled with this method. Another closely related li...

  36. [43]

    J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, and M. M. Diehl,Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design. Nob Hill Publishing, 2018

    2018

  37. [44]

    Feasibility governor for linear model predictive control,

    T. Skibik, D. Liao-McPherson, T. Cunis, I. Kolmanovsky, and M. M. Nicotra, “Feasibility governor for linear model predictive control,”2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 2329–2335, 2021

    2021

  38. [45]

    A feasibility governor for enlarging the region of attraction of linear model predictive controllers,

    T. Skibik, D. Liao-McPherson, T. Cunis, I. V . Kolmanovsky, and M. M. Nicotra, “A feasibility governor for enlarging the region of attraction of linear model predictive controllers,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 5501–5508, 2022

    2022

  39. [46]

    A terminal set fea- sibility governor for linear model predictive control,

    T. Skibik, D. Liao-McPherson, and M. M. Nicotra, “A terminal set fea- sibility governor for linear model predictive control,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 5089–5095, 2023

    2023

  40. [47]

    Model predictive control for tracking using artificial references: Fundamentals, recent results and practical implementation,

    P. Krupa, J. K ¨ohler, A. Ferramosca, I. Alvarado, M. Zeilinger, T. Alamo, and D. Limon, “Model predictive control for tracking using artificial references: Fundamentals, recent results and practical implementation,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), ...

    2024

  41. [48]

    Kouvaritakis and M

    B. Kouvaritakis and M. Cannon,Model Predictive Control: Classical, Robust and Stochastic. Springer, 2016

    2016

  42. [49]

    Time- distributed optimization for real-time model predictive control: Stability, robustness, and constraint satisfaction,

    D. Liao-McPherson, M. M. Nicotra, and I. Kolmanovsky, “Time- distributed optimization for real-time model predictive control: Stability, robustness, and constraint satisfaction,”Automatica, vol. 117, no. 108973, 2020

    2020

  43. [50]

    MPC for tracking piecewise constant references for constrained linear systems,

    D. Limon, I. Alvarado, T. Alamo, and E. F. Camacho, “MPC for tracking piecewise constant references for constrained linear systems,”Automatica, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 2382–2387, 2008

    2008

  44. [51]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011

    2011

  45. [53]

    Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

    D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P. Scokaert, “Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,”Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

    2000

  46. [54]

    Limon, T

    D. Limon, T. Alamo, D. M. Raimondo, D. M. de la Pe ˜na, J. M. Bravo, A. Ferramosca, and E. F. Camacho,Input-to-State Stability: A Unifying Framework for Robust Model Predictive Control, pp. 1–26. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009

    2009

  47. [55]

    Input-to-state stability for discrete-time non- linear systems,

    Z.-P. Jiang and Y . Wang, “Input-to-state stability for discrete-time non- linear systems,”Automatica, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 857–869, 2001

    2001

  48. [56]

    The explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems,

    A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V . Dua, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “The explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems,”Automatica, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2002

    2002

  49. [57]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes,Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces. CMS books in Mathematics, New York: Springer, 2 ed., 2017

    2017

Pith tools

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