Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Distributed Motion Planning with Safety Guarantees for Self-Reconfiguring Robotic Boats

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that pairing distributed MPC with control barrier functions lets fleets of modular robotic boats assemble into lattice shapes and reconfigure without collisions or deadlocks.

desk verdict Useful hybrid ADMM-MPC + CBF architecture for modular boat reconfiguration with solid simulations and hardware, but the 'formal safety guarantee' claim outruns the theory and the paper's own data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20352 v1 pith:D5LTUSSQ submitted 2026-07-22 cs.RO

Alejandro Gonzalez-Garcia , Wei Wang , Wei Xiao , Wilm Decre , Jan Swevers , Carlo Ratti , Daniela Rus This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO MSC 68T4093C85
keywords modularroboticboatsself-reconfigurationdistributedMPCADMMcontrolbarrierfunctionscollisionavoidancemulti-agentmotionplanningshapeformation
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 tries to establish that a fleet of modular robotic boats can be steered into target lattice shapes—and reconfigured between shapes—without collisions or deadlocks by pairing a distributed predictive planner with a reactive safety filter. The core argument is that each component alone is insufficient: the nonconvex distributed optimization cannot provide safety guarantees under the single-iteration real-time constraint, while a purely reactive filter becomes deadlocked in dense swarms. In the proposed hybrid, ADMM-based distributed MPC supplies coordinated, horizon-aware trajectories, and a control-barrier-function quadratic program enforces pairwise separation at every control step. The paper reports 100% success and safety over all simulated configurations up to 25 agents and demonstrates a three-shape reconfiguration with four physical boats. A reader should care because this separation of planning from safety offers a path to scalable, formally-grounded self-assembly for floating modular robots.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid ADMM-CBF control loop. ADMM decomposes the coupled multi-agent optimal control problem into per-agent trajectory and collision-copy consensus subproblems, exchanging planned trajectories and dual variables with all neighbors. Because the collision constraints are nonconvex and only one ADMM iteration runs per step, the output is not guaranteed collision-free; the CBF-QP filter then solves a strictly convex quadratic program that minimally perturbs the command to satisfy decoupled pairwise barrier constraints. A time-varying safety distance d(t) and a sharing parameter beta are part of this mechanism, and slack variables in the consensus subproblem keep t

What would settle it

A specific two-agent experiment with perfect state feedback: drive the pair toward each other under the CBF-QP and record the minimum distance over the sampled trajectory; any free-navigation drop below d(t), or any sampled state where the QP is infeasible while h_ij >= 0, would falsify the claimed forward invariance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the collision-avoidance guarantee that distributed MPC cannot formally provide can be recovered by wrapping each agent's velocity command in a CBF-based quadratic program. ADMM solves local trajectory and consensus subproblems to produce a coordinated plan, while the filter chooses the closest safe velocity to that plan subject to linear constraints from pairwise barrier functions. A time-varying safety distance reconciles free-transit margins with close-range docking. The paper reports 100% success and safety in simulations up to 25 agents, and a three-shape reconfiguration with four physical boats.

Load-bearing premise

The formal safety guarantee rests on continuous-time barrier-function theory with perfect state information and a feasible QP at every instant, while the actual system is sampled at 5 Hz with centimeter-level localization error and no feasibility proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, modular boat swarms can run multi-shape assembly and disassembly sequences with no mid-maneuver collisions and no deadlocks, at least for the tested sizes up to 25 agents.
  • The planner/filter split means an approximate, real-time distributed optimizer can be used without giving up a formal safety layer; safety no longer depends on the optimizer converging.
  • The measured per-agent solve times (averaging under 10 ms at N=25 in simulation) indicate the approach can operate on onboard computers at 5 Hz with dedicated solvers.
  • Because the barrier construction is not specific to single-integrator models, the same hybrid could apply to double-integrator or dynamic boat models via higher-order CBFs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the asynchronous architecture they sketch—a slow, long-horizon ADMM planner plus a fast CBF filter—could push the framework past 25 agents; this is the most direct testable next step.
  • The paper's reported experimental dips below d(t) during navigation suggest the formal continuous-time guarantee does not automatically transfer to the sampled, uncertain implementation; a measurement-robust or discrete-time CBF would be needed to make the guarantee literal.
  • A further inference: the hybrid's advantage over CBF-only should grow with swarm density, so a systematic study varying density at fixed N would quantify exactly when predictive planning becomes necessary.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid framework for distributed motion planning of self-reconfiguring robotic boats. A central coordinator assigns target positions; each agent runs a distributed MPC formulated via ADMM to generate coordinated trajectories, and a CBF-based QP acts as a safety filter on the velocity command. The authors claim that the CBF filter provides formal safety guarantees despite the nonconvexity of the ADMM planning problem. The paper presents simulations for up to 25 agents (100% success and safety rates) and a four-robot physical experiment involving a three-shape reconfiguration sequence.

Significance. If the formal safety guarantee were rigorously established, the framework would be a valuable and practical combination of long-horizon predictive planning and reactive safety filtering for multi-robot systems. The ablation study is informative: it demonstrates that ADMM-only planning leads to collisions and CBF-only control leads to deadlocks, and that the combined approach resolves both in the tested scenarios. The scalability analysis and the hardware experiments are also useful contributions. However, the central claim of a formal safety guarantee is not supported by the theoretical development or the experimental evidence, and the paper would need substantial revision to either provide the missing guarantees or temper the claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (10) and Section V, Fig. 5] The formal safety guarantee is not valid for the implemented system. The CBF theorem in Section II-C (Eqs. 2–5) assumes continuous-time dynamics and exact state information. The implementation is a 5 Hz sampled-data system with zero-order hold, state estimates with ±2–3 cm localization error, and a time-varying d(t). No discrete-time invariance theorem or robust margin is provided. The experimental data in Fig. 5 show inter-agent distances falling below the active d(t), and even below the module side length L=0.21 m, directly contradicting the claim of a formal guarantee. At minimum, the claim must be weakened to empirical safety or a robust discrete-time CBF analysis must be added.
  2. [Section III-C, QP (10)] The paper states that QP (10) is 'strictly convex and solvable in microseconds.' Strict convexity ensures a unique minimizer only if a feasible point exists; it does not guarantee feasibility. No proof is given that constraints (10b) and (10c) are jointly feasible at every state along closed-loop trajectories. If the QP is infeasible, the safety filter cannot produce any command, and the claimed guarantee fails. The slack variables in OCP Z (8b) apply to the planning layer, not to the safety filter.
  3. [Section III-D, Eq. (11) and Section V] The time-varying safety distance d(t) changes the safe set. When d(t) increases (e.g., from d_in to d_out after delatching), the system can start with h_ij < 0, violating the CBF condition h(x(0)) >= 0 that is required for forward invariance. The paper does not address re-initialization or a shrinking safe set. Additionally, the experimental value d_in = 0.18 m is set below the module side length L = 0.21 m, so the 'safety distance' is smaller than the physical footprint of the modules; the safety guarantee as stated does not prevent physical collision during docking.
  4. [Section II-C, Remark 2] The decoupling in Eq. (5) relies on both agents enforcing their respective shares with consistent state information. With localization uncertainty, the sum of the decoupled constraints may not recover the global constraint (4), even if each agent solves its QP exactly. This issue is acknowledged only in the experimental discussion, not in the theoretical development, and it is another reason why the formal guarantee is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] The table formatting is compact to the point of being hard to read; for example, '100% 100% 0%' appears as a single string. Consider adding explicit column separators. Also, the ADMM-only column reporting 0% safety for all N, including N=4, is surprising and would benefit from a one-line explanation.
  2. [Fig. 2] The y-axis uses a logarithmic scale but this is not indicated in the figure or caption. Please label the axis accordingly.
  3. [Section V, Table II] The text says the ADMM cycle is within the 200 ms budget for 86% of steps, but Table II shows a P95 of 247.2 ms. This is consistent, but it would be clearer to state that 14% of steps exceed the budget and to discuss the implications for real-time safety.
  4. [Section IV-A] The ablation study uses only 5 seeds per configuration and the scalability analysis 3 seeds. This is a small sample, and the reported 100% success/safety rates should be interpreted with that in mind. Please state this explicitly in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: safety guarantee is inherited from external CBF theory [18], [20]; author-overlap self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is a composition of externally established ingredients, not a reduction to its own inputs. The forward-invariance condition is quoted from Ames et al. [18] (Eq. 2), and the pairwise decoupling into agent-wise CBF constraints is attributed to Wang, Ames, and Egerstedt [20] (Section II-C, Remark 2). The ADMM formulation is taken from Van Parys and Pipeleers [17], also external. Author-overlap citations, e.g. [8] for the low-level PID/feedback-linearization controller and [19] for higher-order CBF remarks, support background or platform claims but are not load-bearing for the central safety argument. No parameter is fitted to the outcome and then reported as a prediction: the paper compares ADMM-CBF against ADMM-only and CBF-only baselines, revealing distinct failure modes (ADMM-only collisions, CBF-only deadlocks) that give the proposed combination independent empirical content. The paper's formal safety claim is, however, stated under continuous-time exact-state CBF assumptions (Eqs. 2-5), while the implementation is a 5 Hz sampled, state-uncertain, time-varying-d(t) system; Section V itself admits that 'some instances fall below the safety distance d(t), and at times even below the physical module side L.' That is a correctness/robustness gap, not a circular derivation: the guarantee is not defined in terms of the outcomes it is used to predict, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters are hand-tuned control design values, not fitted to target data; none are machine-learned. The axioms are mostly domain assumptions inherited from the hardware and from continuous-time CBF theory, not proven for the actual sampled-data implementation.

free parameters (7)
  • beta (CBF sharing parameter) = 0.5
    Hand-chosen to split collision-avoidance responsibility equally between agents; affects feasibility and conservatism of the safety filter (Eq. 5).
  • gamma (CBF gain) = 1.0
    Hand-chosen class-K gain in the barrier condition; controls how fast agents move away from the safety boundary.
  • mu (ADMM penalty) = 10 (200 for N=64)
    Hand-tuned consensus penalty; affects convergence and the quality of the approximate plan.
  • w_g (goal weight) = 1 + |N_i|
    Hand-set relative weight between target tracking and consensus penalties in OCP X (Eq. 7a).
  • N_h (predictive horizon) = 10
    Chosen predictive horizon; N_h=25 was explored for N=64 but was too slow for real-time use.
  • d_out, d_in (safety distances) = 0.32 m, 0.18 m
    Hand-selected for navigation and docking phases; d_in < L permits latching, deliberately violating the nominal safety distance.
  • arrival tolerance epsilon = not reported
    Central coordinator switches d(t) when all agents are within epsilon of targets; the value is never stated, affecting the docking-phase transition.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Closed-loop boat dynamics are well approximated by single-integrator kinematics: dot p_i = u_i (Eq. 1)
    Section II-B, Remark 1: relies on feedback-linearized low-level controller compensating nonlinear hydrodynamics; no dynamic model is identified or validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption Communication and interaction graph is fully connected (Assumption 1)
    Section III-B: each agent solves constraints against all N-1 neighbors; this scaling assumption drives the OCP Z cost and is not relaxed in experiments.
  • domain assumption The decentralized barrier decoupling (Eq. 5) preserves forward invariance of the global safe set
    Section II-C, Remark 2: sum of decoupled constraints recovers global constraint only if both agents enforce their share; requires synchronous execution and exact state knowledge.
  • ad hoc to paper CBF-QP (10) is feasible at every control step
    Section III-C: no slack variables or feasibility guarantee are provided for the QP; if the feasible set is empty, safety cannot be enforced.
  • domain assumption Continuous-time CBF invariance extends to 5 Hz sampled-data control with zero-order hold
    Section III-C: safety theorem [18] is continuous-time; the paper does not derive a discrete-time or measurement-robust variant.
  • domain assumption Time-varying d(t) switching (11) does not break forward invariance
    Section III-D: d jumps between d_out and d_in; the barrier function h changes discontinuously, and the invariance argument is not re-derived for this switch.
  • domain assumption State estimates are exact for the safety filter
    Section V: acoustic localization error ±2-3 cm is disclosed after the fact; the CBF guarantee in Section III uses exact positions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distributed Motion Planning with Safety Guarantees for Self-Reconfiguring Robotic Boats." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D5LTUSSQ

@misc{pith2026260720352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distributed Motion Planning with Safety Guarantees for Self-Reconfiguring Robotic Boats},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D5LTUSSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20352}
}
read the original abstract

Aquatic self-reconfigurable robots must assemble into desired shapes while ensuring safe interactions among multiple agents. This paper proposes a hybrid framework that combines distributed Model Predictive Control (MPC) with Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) for multi-agent shape formation and reconfiguration. Given a desired shape and target assignment, a distributed MPC scheme, solved via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM), computes coordinated trajectories through local optimization and information exchange. To ensure safety in real time, distributed CBF-based filters are applied to enforce inter-agent collision avoidance. The proposed approach leverages the predictive capabilities of MPC to mitigate local minima, while CBFs provide formal safety guarantees despite the nonconvexity of the underlying optimization problem. Simulation results with up to 25 agents and experimental validation with four physical robots demonstrate the effectiveness and scalability of the framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture of the proposed ADMM-CBF framework. A central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Per-agent online computation time of the proposed ADMM-CBF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sequential snapshots of the four-module self-reconfiguration experiment in the water tank. Left to right: (a) The scattered initial configuration at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Module positions during a three-shape self-reconfiguration experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Inter-agent distances during the experiment. The black line shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references

  1. [8]

    Self-reconfiguring modular robotic boats,

    W. Wang, N. Hagemann, A. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Self-reconfiguring modular robotic boats,”Nature Communications, vol. 17, p. 5626, 2026

    2026

  2. [19]

    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, 2021

    2021

  3. [1]

    Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems [grand challenges of robotics],

    M. Yim, W.-m. Shen, B. Salemi, D. Rus, M. Moll, H. Lipson, E. Klavins, and G. S. Chirikjian, “Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems [grand challenges of robotics],”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 2007

    2007

  4. [2]

    A distributed reconfiguration planning algorithm for modular robots,

    C. Liu, M. Whitzer, and M. Yim, “A distributed reconfiguration planning algorithm for modular robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4231–4238, 2019

    2019

  5. [3]

    Soft lattice modules that behave independently and collectively,

    L. Zhao, Y . Wu, J. Blanchet, M. Perroni-Scharf, X. Huang, J. Booth, R. Kramer-Bottiglio, and D. Balkcom, “Soft lattice modules that behave independently and collectively,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 5942–5949, 2022

    2022

  6. [4]

    Design of a multi-environmentally adaptable modular self- reconfigurable robot,

    Z. Yang, S. Zhao, K. Han, J. Qi, N. Zhao, X. Sui, J. Fan, J. Zhao, and Y . Zhu, “Design of a multi-environmentally adaptable modular self- reconfigurable robot,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 8627–8634, 2024

    2024

  7. [5]

    Decoding modular reconfig- urable robots: A survey on mechanisms and design,

    G. Liang, D. Wu, Y . Tu, and T. L. Lam, “Decoding modular reconfig- urable robots: A survey on mechanisms and design,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 740–767, 2025

    2025

  8. [6]

    Softrafts: floating and adaptive soft modular robots,

    L. Zhao, Y . Jiang, C.-Y . She, A. Q. Li, M. Chen, and D. Balkcom, “Softrafts: floating and adaptive soft modular robots,”npj Robotics, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 8, 2026

    2026

Show all 29 references
  1. [7]

    Parallel self- assembly for a multi-usv system on water surface with obstacles,

    L. Zhang, Y . Huang, Z. Cao, Y . Jiao, and H. Qian, “Parallel self- assembly for a multi-usv system on water surface with obstacles,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 22, pp. 2213– 2224, 2025

    2025

  2. [9]

    Self-assembly of a swarm of autonomous boats into floating structures,

    I. O’Hara, J. Paulos, J. Davey, N. Eckenstein, N. Doshi, T. Tosun, J. Greco, J. Seo, M. Turpin, V . Kumar, and M. Yim, “Self-assembly of a swarm of autonomous boats into floating structures,” in2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014, pp. 1234–1240

    2014

  3. [10]

    Automated self-assembly of large maritime structures by a team of robotic boats,

    J. Paulos, N. Eckenstein, T. Tosun, J. Seo, J. Davey, J. Greco, V . Kumar, and M. Yim, “Automated self-assembly of large maritime structures by a team of robotic boats,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 958–968, 2015

    2015

  4. [11]

    Trajectory planning for the shapeshifting of autonomous surface vessels,

    B. Gheneti, S. Park, R. Kelly, D. Meyers, P. Leoni, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Trajectory planning for the shapeshifting of autonomous surface vessels,” in2019 International Symposium on Multi-Robot and Multi-Agent Systems (MRS), 2019, pp. 76–82

    2019

  5. [12]

    Amplitude control for parallel lattices of docked modboats,

    G. Knizhnik and M. Yim, “Amplitude control for parallel lattices of docked modboats,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 3027–3033

    2022

  6. [13]

    Distributed motion control for multiple connected surface vessels,

    W. Wang, Z. Wang, L. Mateos, K. W. Huang, M. Schwager, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Distributed motion control for multiple connected surface vessels,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 11 658–11 665

    2020

  7. [14]

    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

  8. [15]

    Distributed opti- mization methods for multi-robot systems: Part 1—a tutorial [tutorial],

    O. Shorinwa, T. Halsted, J. Yu, and M. Schwager, “Distributed opti- mization methods for multi-robot systems: Part 1—a tutorial [tutorial],” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 121–138, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, J. Eckstein,et al., “Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers,”F oundations and Trends® in Machine learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, 2011

    2011

  10. [17]

    Distributed MPC for multi-vehicle systems moving in formation,

    R. Van Parys and G. Pipeleers, “Distributed MPC for multi-vehicle systems moving in formation,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 97, pp. 144–152, 2017

    2017

  11. [18]

    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), 2019, pp. 3420–3431

    2019

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    ROS: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, B. Gerkey, K. Conley, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, E. Berger, R. Wheeler, and A. Ng, “ROS: an open-source robot operating system,” inProc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) Workshop on Open Source Robotics, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    T. I. Fossen,Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Control. John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Casadi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,

    J. A. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “Casadi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 11, pp. 1–36, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Fatrop: A fast constrained optimal control problem solver for robot trajectory optimization and control,

    L. Vanroye, A. Sathya, J. De Schutter, and W. Decr ´e, “Fatrop: A fast constrained optimal control problem solver for robot trajectory optimization and control,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 036– 10 043

    2023

  17. [25]

    OSQP: an operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,

    B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd, “OSQP: an operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 637–672, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Distributed admm for time-varying communication networks,

    Z. Tian, Z. Zhang, and R. Jin, “Distributed admm for time-varying communication networks,” in2022 IEEE 96th V ehicular Technology Conference (VTC2022-Fall), 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  19. [27]

    Shape formation in homogeneous swarms using local task swapping,

    H. Wang and M. Rubenstein, “Shape formation in homogeneous swarms using local task swapping,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 597–612, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    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

    2006

  21. [29]

    Measurement-robust control barrier func- tions: Certainty in safety with uncertainty in state,

    R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, A. J. Taylor, T. G. Molnar, K. L. Bouman, and A. D. Ames, “Measurement-robust control barrier func- tions: Certainty in safety with uncertainty in state,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021, p...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.