Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

NMPCB: A Lightweight and Safety-Critical Motion Control Framework for Ackermann Mobile Robot

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural planner combined with a dual-form control barrier MPC claims to keep an Ackermann mobile robot collision-free while solving each control step in around a tenth of a second.

desk verdict The integration and experiments are real, but the dual-DCBF proof rests on a false duality equation, so the safety claim fails as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01752 v2 pith:QBFOVC45 submitted 2025-05-03 cs.RO

Longze Zheng , Qinghe Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords integratedplanningandcontrolcollisionavoidancebarrierfunctionmodelpredictiveneuralpathAckermannmobilerobotreal-timemotionoptimizationoptimal
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 proposes NMPCB, a motion-control framework for an Ackermann mobile robot that pairs a lightweight neural-network waypoint predictor with an MPC controller whose obstacle-avoidance constraints are rewritten in dual form. The central claim is that replacing the standard discrete control barrier function (DCBF) constraint with an explicit 'dual DCBF' constraint preserves the safety guarantees while making the optimization significantly cheaper to solve. In numerical scenes with four to six obstacles the controller solves each step in 33–48 ms on average (max under 100 ms), with success rates of 0.76–0.88, and the full planner-plus-controller stack reaches its goal on a real robot running at 10 Hz. The reason this matters is that conventional DCBF-MPC formulations often fail to return a solution in real time in cluttered environments, and the paper argues its reformulation removes that bottleneck without sacrificing the invariant-safe-set property.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dual DCBF constraint (22), a replacement for the standard DCBF constraint (4). It states $(A_{O_i}R(f(x,u))-b_{O_i})^T \lambda_{O_i} \ge \gamma_k \|y_{O_i}-R(x)\|_2^2$, with $\lambda_{O_i}\ge 0$, $\|\lambda_{O_i}A_{O_i}\|_2\le 1$, and $A_{O_i}y_{O_i}\le b_{O_i}$; here $A_{O_i}$ and $b_{O_i}$ define obstacle $O_i$ as a polytope, $R(x)$ is the robot center, and $y_{O_i}$ is a point in the obstacle. The constraint is constructed to be the dual of the squared-distance minimization (9), so by the paper's strong-duality argument it carries the same information as the implicit distance constraint but is written explicitly in terms of the optimization variables, which is what cuts the solve time. The other machinery is the Neural Dubins Model planner, an encoder-decoder network that takes start, goal, and obstacle map, produces a predicted next waypoint via LSTM and convolutional encoders, and then fits a Dubins curve to that waypoint to generate the reference trajectory for the MPC.

What would settle it

Take one convex polytope obstacle, compute $h_i(x)$ by solving (9) and $g_i(x)$ by solving (13) at a fine grid of robot positions, and compare the values; any mismatch beyond solver tolerance would disprove the equality in (14) and therefore break the equivalence of constraint (22) with the original DCBF.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the implicit, non-differentiable DCBF constraint $h_i(f(x,u)) \ge \gamma_k h_i(x)$ -- where $h_i(x)$ is defined as the squared minimum distance from the robot center $R(x)$ to polytopic obstacle $O_i$ via the quadratic program (9) -- can be replaced by the explicit dual DCBF constraint (22): $(A_{O_i}R(f(x,u))-b_{O_i})^T \lambda_{O_i} \ge \gamma_k \|y_{O_i}-R(x)\|_2^2$, subject to $\|\lambda_{O_i} A_{O_i}\|_2 \le 1$, $\lambda_{O_i}\ge 0$, and $A_{O_i} y_{O_i}\le b_{O_i}$. The paper asserts that strong duality makes the dual value $g_i(x)$ equal to $h_i(x)$, so the feasible input set of the controller is unchanged, and that in the multi-step formulation (24) the right-hand side can be frozen at the initial value $h_i(x_t)$ without affecting feasibility or safety. This substitution is what lets the MPC solve quickly enough for 10 Hz control, and the paper supports the claim with simulations and real-robot trials.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on the claim that for every robot position, the obstacle-distance formula and its shortcut version return exactly the same value, so the shortcut can be swapped in without changing the safety condition; if those two numbers ever disagree, the reformulation and its speed advantage lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The MDD-I controller solves each MPC step in about 33–48 ms on average and under 100 ms worst-case, enabling 10 Hz control on an embedded computing platform.
  • Across 50 random square and 50 line scenarios, the NMPCB stack reaches success rates of 0.76–0.88, compared with 0.12–0.16 for the RDA-planner-plus-MPC-DCBF baseline.
  • Because the dual DCBF constraint is explicit, the MPC no longer needs to solve a distance QP at every constraint evaluation, removing the main computational bottleneck of earlier DCBF-MPC formulations.
  • The same dual-constraint construction extends to polygonal robot and obstacle models (MDD-II) at the cost of higher solve times, so the geometry can be selected per scenario.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equality $g_i(x)=h_i(x)$ in (14) holds as stated, the same dualization should apply to any convex obstacle representation whose distance dual is explicit, such as ellipsoids or smooth convex bodies, giving a general recipe for fast safety-critical MPC.
  • The paper replaces the per-step right-hand side with the initial value $h_i(x_t)$ in (24) and asserts safety is unaffected; this is not proved, and the most natural test is a tight corridor or moving obstacle, where a violation would show whether the shortcut is sound.
  • The numerical comparison would be more decisive if the paper reported results when obstacle density increases beyond eight objects in the 50 m x 50 m workspace, since that is the regime where a fast controller is most needed.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents NMPCB, a motion planning and control framework for an Ackermann mobile robot. The planner (Neural Dubins Model) is an LSTM-CNN encoder-decoder trained on trajectories generated by the RDA planner; it predicts a future waypoint, from which a Dubins curve is constructed as a reference trajectory. The controller (MDD-I and MDD-II) is an MPC in which the standard DCBF obstacle-avoidance constraint is replaced by a 'dual DCBF' constraint, Eq. (22), intended to be explicit and cheaper to solve, and a further rollout simplification is introduced in Eq. (24). The paper claims that the dual constraint is equivalent to the original DCBF constraint, that the replacement does not reduce the feasible input set, and that the rollout modification does not affect safety or feasibility. These claims are supported by simulation comparisons with RDA+MPC-DCBF and RDA+MDD-I baselines and by real-world experiments on a Jetson Nano robot.

Significance. If the theoretical derivation were correct, the proposed dualization could be a practically useful way to replace implicit, non-differentiable distance constraints with explicit linear constraints in CBF-based MPC, improving computation time while retaining safety guarantees. The experimental section is reasonably broad: it reports 50 random scenarios per configuration, aggregate success rates and computation times, and a real-world validation on an Ackermann robot, and the controller solve times of 33-48 ms are a concrete positive result. However, the theoretical safety certificate is the core contribution, and it is not valid as presented. The reported speed advantage of the neural planner over RDA is also expected, because the planner is trained on RDA-generated trajectories. No code or dataset is provided to verify the numerical results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eqs. (9), (13), (14)] The equality g_i(x)=h_i(x) is not justified because (13) is not the dual of (9). Problem (9) minimizes the squared distance ||y-R(x)||_2^2 subject to A y <= b; its Lagrangian dual is max_{lambda>=0} [(A R(x)-b)^T lambda - (1/4)||A^T lambda||_2^2], which contains a quadratic penalty and no norm constraint. The linear program in (13) is the dual of the unsquared distance minimization min ||y-R(x)||_2. Strong duality for (9) therefore does not give (14), and Eq. (14) is generally false. For a one-dimensional example with obstacle {y : -y <= -1} and robot position R(x)=0.5, one has h_i=0.25 while the value of (13) is 0.5, so the claimed inequality chain (15) also fails. Since Eqs. (16)-(22) all invoke (14), the assertion that the dual DCBF constraint (22) preserves the safe set and does not reduce the feasible input set is unsupported; the safety certificate for MDD-I and MDD-II is not established.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (18)] The assertion that there exists a single lambda_{O_i}^* satisfying (13b)-(13c) such that (A R(x)-b)^T lambda_{O_i}^* = h_i(x) for all x is not a consequence of strong duality. Strong duality provides, for each fixed x, an optimal dual variable lambda^*(x); as the robot position changes, the active facet of the polytope at the closest point changes, so the maximizing lambda generally changes. The subsequent claim that the feasible input set is unchanged relies on this universal-certificate statement. In the MPC formulation (23), lambda_{k+1} is a fresh decision variable at each step, so a per-step existence statement would be needed, not the stronger universal statement. As written, the equivalence between (22) and (4) does not follow even after correcting the dual problem.
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (24)] The claim that replacing (23e) by (24) 'affects neither the system feasibility nor its safety' is not proved and is not a consequence of the preceding derivations. The original constraint at time k depends on the predicted state through ||y_k - R(x_{t+k})||_2^2 and on the per-step decay gamma_k. The replacement uses a cumulative product of decay factors applied to h_i(x_t), a quantity fixed at the current state and independent of the predicted barrier values. Even if the duality issue in Eq. (14) were repaired, one would need a new argument to show that satisfaction of the cumulative-product constraint at every k implies the recursive condition h_i(x_{t+k+1}) >= gamma_k h_i(x_{t+k}) or at least h_i(x_{t+k+1}) >= 0 as required. No such argument appears. Because MDD-I, the version recommended by the paper, is exactly the controller with this substitution, the safety guarantee for the reported implementation is missing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-A, Eq. (11)] The notation x_{0:t} in Eq. (11) is not defined; the decoder inputs are otherwise described as H, Z, x_goal, and the current point, so the formal dependence should be stated consistently.
  2. [Section III-B, Eq. (10)] The superscript c on {x : h_i(x)>0} is used to denote closure, which conflicts with the standard complement notation; please use cl(.) or define the notation explicitly.
  3. [Section III-C, Eq. (23)] The decision variable set is declared as U and Omega, but y_{O_i}^k and lambda_{O_i}^{k+1} appear as optimization variables in constraints (23e)-(23f); the variable list and the initialization in (23b) should be corrected accordingly.
  4. [Section IV-A] The dataset represents obstacles as circles, while MDD-I is described as a formulation for convex polygon obstacles; the conversion from the circular obstacles in the simulated scenarios to the polytopic constraints in (22) is not specified, which makes reproduction difficult.
  5. [Figure 5] The caption states that the computation cost is shown as a deviation from 'the 0.1s benchmark line in Fig. 4,' but Fig. 4 contains trajectory plots, not a runtime benchmark; the caption should be rewritten.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the safety derivation uses external duality arguments and the neural planner comparison is a supervised-learning empirical result, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central safety argument is built on a strong-duality substitution (Eq. 14), feasibility inequalities (15), (19), and the chain (21), all of which are external mathematical arguments rather than self-referential definitions. Whether the dual written in (13) is in fact the dual of the squared-distance program (9) is a correctness question, not a circularity one; the same holds for the unproved assertion that the rollout replacement (24) preserves feasibility and safety. The Neural Dubins Model is trained offline on RDA-generated trajectories (Section IV-A), so its faster planner runtime relative to RDA is an empirical computational comparison, while its success rates (0.76-0.86) are comparable to rather than derived from the RDA baseline; this is a supervised-learning relationship, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. All cited prior CBF work, including [18] and [20], is external to the present authors, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The Neural Dubins Model and the dual DCBF constraint are algorithmic constructions, not invented entities. The load-bearing assumptions are the point-mass and polytope geometric model, exact kinematic modeling, the correctness of the strong-duality step, and the unproved safety of the rollout substitution.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma (CBF decay rate) = 0.9
    Hand-chosen in Section IV-B and used in constraints (7d) and (24); controls how fast the barrier function may decay.
  • Prediction horizon N and safety horizon N_CBF = N=11, N_CBF=10
    Set in Section IV-B; bounds the optimization window and safety window, directly affecting solve time and feasibility.
  • Slack penalty weight p_omega = not reported
    Introduced in Eq. (26c) to balance safety relaxation and cost; the value is not given, so the trade-off cannot be reproduced.
  • Safety distance D_safe = not reported
    Used in Section III-D for the point-mass obstacle-avoidance model to ignore distant obstacles; value not reported, influencing both safety and solve time.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The robot is a point mass and every obstacle is a union of convex polytopes.
    Stated in Section II-C; if the robot shape or obstacle geometry is not captured, the distance constraints may not protect the physical robot.
  • domain assumption The bicycle model in Eq. (25) describes the Ackermann robot exactly.
    Used in Section III-D for all optimization and experiments; model mismatch is not quantified.
  • standard math Strong duality holds for the distance-to-polytope optimization and the stated dual is the correct dual of problem (9).
    Invoked in Eq. (13)-(14), Section III-B; the paper applies strong duality to the squared-distance QP but writes the dual of the distance problem, so this axiom is misapplied as written.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing the DCBF right-hand side with gamma^k h_i(x_t) preserves recursive safety.
    Asserted in Section III-C after Eq. (24) with no proof; the resulting condition is weaker than the standard DCBF condition when h_i increases along the trajectory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NMPCB: A Lightweight and Safety-Critical Motion Control Framework for Ackermann Mobile Robot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBFOVC45

@misc{pith2026250501752,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NMPCB: A Lightweight and Safety-Critical Motion Control Framework for Ackermann Mobile Robot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBFOVC45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01752}
}
read the original abstract

In multi-obstacle environments, real-time performance and safety in robot motion control have long been challenging issues, as conventional methods often struggle to balance the two. In this paper, we propose a novel motion control framework composed of a Neural network-based path planner and a Model Predictive Control (MPC) controller based on control Barrier function (NMPCB) . The planner predicts the next target point through a lightweight neural network and generates a reference trajectory for the controller. In the design of the controller, we introduce the dual problem of control barrier function (CBF) as the obstacle avoidance constraint, enabling it to ensure robot motion safety while significantly reducing computation time. The controller directly outputs control commands to the robot by tracking the reference trajectory. This framework achieves a balance between real-time performance and safety. We validate the feasibility of the framework through numerical simulations and real-world experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01752 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the motion planning and control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the Neural Dubins Model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the CDM. endpoint xgoal, and all path points from the start point to the current point x0:t are input into the decoder. It then outputs the future states xˆt+Npred within a specified time horizon Npred, D(H, Z, xgoal, x0:t) → xˆt+Npred . (11) The decoder network D is composed of a single-layer LSTM network followed by a fully connected layer. We use a mean squared error (MSE) loss between the predict… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of trajectories among different algorithms in numerical simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of computation cost of three algorithms. It illustrates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of trajectories among different algorithms in real-world experiments. During the experiments, the control module frequency was set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The Ackermann mobile robot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Epsilon: An efficient planning system for automated vehicles in highly interactive environ- ments,

    W. Ding, L. Zhang, J. Chen, and S. Shen, “Epsilon: An efficient planning system for automated vehicles in highly interactive environ- ments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1118–1138, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

    A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in 2019 18th European control conference (ECC) . Ieee, 2019, pp. 3420–3431

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,

    J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,” in 2021 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 3882–3889

    2021

  4. [4]

    Path planning with modified a star algorithm for a mobile robot,

    F. Ducho ˇn, A. Babinec, M. Kajan, P. Be ˇno, M. Florek, T. Fico, and L. Juriˇsica, “Path planning with modified a star algorithm for a mobile robot,” Procedia engineering, vol. 96, pp. 59–69, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Path planning using lazy prm,

    R. Bohlin and L. E. Kavraki, “Path planning using lazy prm,” in Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium conference. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Symposia proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065), vol. 1. IEEE, 2000, pp. 521–528

    2000

  6. [6]

    A motion planner for car-like robots based on rapidly-exploring random trees,

    R. R. Radaelli, C. Badue, M. A. Gonc ¸alves, T. Oliveira-Santos, and A. F. De Souza, “A motion planner for car-like robots based on rapidly-exploring random trees,” in Advances in Artificial Intelligence– IBERAMIA 2014: 14th Ibero-American Conference on AI, Santiago de Chile, Chile, November 24-27, 2014, Proceedings 14. Springer, 2014, pp. 469–480

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Neural rrt*: Learning-based optimal path planning,

    J. Wang, W. Chi, C. Li, C. Wang, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Neural rrt*: Learning-based optimal path planning,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1748–1758, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Nr-rrt: Neural risk-aware near-optimal path planning in uncertain nonconvex environments,

    F. Meng, L. Chen, H. Ma, J. Wang, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Nr-rrt: Neural risk-aware near-optimal path planning in uncertain nonconvex environments,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engi- neering, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 135–146, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Path planning using neural a* search,

    R. Yonetani, T. Taniai, M. Barekatain, M. Nishimura, and A. Kanezaki, “Path planning using neural a* search,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2021, pp. 12 029–12 039

    2021

  2. [10]

    Optimization-based colli- sion avoidance,

    X. Zhang, A. Liniger, and F. Borrelli, “Optimization-based colli- sion avoidance,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 972–983, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Rda: An accelerated collision free motion planner for autonomous navigation in cluttered environments,

    R. Han, S. Wang, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Y . C. Eldar, Q. Hao, and J. Pan, “Rda: An accelerated collision free motion planner for autonomous navigation in cluttered environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1715–1722, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Kinodynamic trajectory optimization and control for car-like robots,

    C. R ¨osmann, F. Hoffmann, and T. Bertram, “Kinodynamic trajectory optimization and control for car-like robots,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 5681–5686

    2017

  5. [13]

    Collision avoidance and stabilization for autonomous vehicles in emergency scenarios,

    J. Funke, M. Brown, S. M. Erlien, and J. C. Gerdes, “Collision avoidance and stabilization for autonomous vehicles in emergency scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1204–1216, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Safe control synthesis with uncertain dynamics and constraints,

    K. Long, V . Dhiman, M. Leok, J. Cort ´es, and N. Atanasov, “Safe control synthesis with uncertain dynamics and constraints,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7295–7302, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Safe navigation and obstacle avoidance using differ- entiable optimization based control barrier functions,

    B. Dai, R. Khorrambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, V . Gonc ¸alves, A. Tzes, and F. Khorrami, “Safe navigation and obstacle avoidance using differ- entiable optimization based control barrier functions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5376–5383, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Safety-critical control with nonaffine control inputs via a relaxed control barrier function for an autonomous vehicle,

    J. Seo, J. Lee, E. Baek, R. Horowitz, and J. Choi, “Safety-critical control with nonaffine control inputs via a relaxed control barrier function for an autonomous vehicle,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1944–1951, 2022

    1944

  9. [17]

    Discrete control barrier functions for safety-critical control of discrete systems with application to bipedal robot navigation

    A. Agrawal and K. Sreenath, “Discrete control barrier functions for safety-critical control of discrete systems with application to bipedal robot navigation.” in Robotics: Science and Systems , vol. 13. Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017, pp. 1–10

    2017

  10. [18]

    Enhancing feasibility and safety of nonlinear model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier functions,

    J. Zeng, Z. Li, and K. Sreenath, “Enhancing feasibility and safety of nonlinear model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier functions,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 6137–6144

    2021

  11. [19]

    Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,

    Z. Jian, Z. Yan, X. Lei, Z. Lu, B. Lan, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . Ieee, 2023, pp. 3679–3685

    2023

  12. [20]

    Safety-critical control and planning for obstacle avoidance between polytopes with control barrier functions,

    A. Thirugnanam, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical control and planning for obstacle avoidance between polytopes with control barrier functions,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 286–292

    2022

  13. [21]

    Toward safety- aware informative motion planning for legged robots,

    S. Teng, Y . Gong, J. W. Grizzle, and M. Ghaffari, “Toward safety- aware informative motion planning for legged robots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.14252, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Model-based constrained reinforcement learning using generalized control barrier function,

    H. Ma, J. Chen, S. Eben, Z. Lin, Y . Guan, Y . Ren, and S. Zheng, “Model-based constrained reinforcement learning using generalized control barrier function,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 4552– 4559

    2021

  15. [23]

    Classification of the dubins set,

    A. M. Shkel and V . Lumelsky, “Classification of the dubins set,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 179–202, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Long short-term memory,

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  17. [25]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Large-scale nonlinear programming using ipopt: An integrating framework for enterprise-wide dynamic optimization,

    L. T. Biegler and V . M. Zavala, “Large-scale nonlinear programming using ipopt: An integrating framework for enterprise-wide dynamic optimization,” Computers & Chemical Engineering , vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 575–582, 2009

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.