Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Unknown robots with limited actuators can still meet finite-time reach-avoid-stay goals by tracking input-compatible spatiotemporal tubes.

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

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 11:38 UTC pith:U4CA6ZUN

load-bearing objection Clean, usable extension of the authors’ STT line that finally puts actuator limits and offline feasibility into a closed-form FT-RAS controller. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08189 v1 pith:U4CA6ZUN submitted 2026-07-09 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Input-Constrained Spatiotemporal Tubes for Safe Navigation of Unknown Euler-Lagrange Systems in Dynamic Environments

Siddhartha Upadhyay , Ratnangshu Das , Pushpak Jagtap This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY
keywords input constraintssafety guaranteesspatiotemporal tubeunknown Euler-Lagrange systemsfinite-time reach-avoid-stayapproximation-free controldynamic environments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

When a robot’s equations of motion are unknown and its motors have hard force or torque limits, guaranteeing that it will reach a goal in finite time, avoid moving obstacles, and stay at the goal is hard. This paper shows that the problem can be solved by first building a moving ball (a spatiotemporal tube) whose path and shrinking radius keep the robot clear of obstacles and eventually inside the target, then applying a simple closed-form controller that never asks for more force than the actuators can supply. Offline inequalities link the available actuator strength, the size of unknown disturbances, and the speed of the tube so that, whenever those inequalities hold, the robot is mathematically forced to stay inside the tube. Because the controller is a handful of algebraic expressions with no online optimization or model learning, it runs in real time on ordinary robots. Simulations on a ground robot, a quadrotor and a spacecraft, plus hardware trials on a mobile robot, confirm that the vehicle stays safe and reaches its target while the commanded torques remain inside the prescribed limits.

Core claim

For an unknown Euler–Lagrange system subject to known actuator bounds, if the initial state lies inside a carefully designed spatiotemporal tube and two offline feasibility inequalities that relate actuator authority, uncertainty bounds and tube speeds are satisfied, then the closed-form velocity and torque laws keep the state inside the tube for all future time, thereby enforcing the finite-time reach-avoid-stay specification while never violating the input limits.

What carries the argument

Input-constrained spatiotemporal tubes: a time-varying ball whose center and radius evolve according to explicit obstacle-avoidance and goal-seeking dynamics, together with a two-stage controller that uses bounded transformation functions so that both the virtual velocity and the actual torque always remain inside their prescribed limits.

Load-bearing premise

The environment must eventually leave a clear corridor of fixed width around the tube center so that the goal-seeking term can take over; without that separation the method only guarantees perpetual avoidance, not finite-time arrival.

What would settle it

Run the same mobile-robot hardware trial with actuator limits deliberately set below the offline feasibility bound; if the robot either saturates, leaves the tube, or collides while the mathematics claims the bound is violated, the central claim fails.

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

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the spatiotemporal tube (STT) framework to unknown Euler–Lagrange systems under hard actuator limits, targeting finite-time reach-avoid-stay (FT-RAS) tasks in dynamic environments. It designs center and radius ODEs for a time-varying ball that is goal-directed and obstacle-avoiding, derives offline feasibility conditions relating available control authority, uncertainty bounds, and tube rates, and synthesizes a closed-form two-stage controller based on bounded transformations that keeps the state inside the tube while enforcing |τ|≤τ̄ by construction. Theorems 3.3 and 4.3 provide the main guarantees (tube FT-RAS properties under Assumptions 4–5; closed-loop tube invariance under feasibility (27)–(28)). Validation includes simulations on a mobile robot, quadrotor, and spacecraft, plus hardware experiments on a differential-drive robot, and a comparison against unconstrained real-time STT.

Significance. If the claims hold under the stated assumptions, the work addresses a genuine gap: formal FT-RAS for unknown EL systems with input constraints in dynamic environments, without models or online optimization. Strengths include approximation-free closed-form laws suitable for real time, offline-verifiable feasibility conditions that link actuator limits to tube design, structured contradiction/Lyapunov proofs, multi-platform simulation evidence, and hardware validation with explicit input-bound satisfaction. The quantitative comparison with unconstrained STT usefully illustrates the performance–authority trade-off. The contribution is incremental relative to the authors’ prior STT series but practically meaningful for safety-critical robotics under saturation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Assumption 5, Remark 3.2, Theorem 4.3, Abstract] Assumption 5 (and Remark 3.2) is load-bearing for the finite-time reach-and-stay half of Definition 2.1 / Problem 2.3 / Theorem 4.3: without a finite t1 after which all unsafe sets remain at least ra from the tube center, only perpetual avoidance is guaranteed and the goal-driven term never dominates. Theorem 4.3 currently states that the closed-form laws ensure FT-RAS whenever x(0)∈Γ(0) and (27)–(28) hold, without restating dependence on Assumption 5. The abstract and introduction similarly claim FT-RAS guarantees without flagging this environmental premise. The theorem statement (and abstract) should make the conditional nature of finite-time reach explicit, while retaining the unconditional safety claim.
  2. [Lemma 4.1, Eq. (28), Proposition A.1, Appendix A] Lemma 4.1 and feasibility condition (28) depend on constants α, β, θ from Proposition A.1 (bounds on ∂Ψ/∂s, (∂Ψ/∂s)s, and Ψ(s)/s). The concrete transformation in Appendix A is only defined piecewise; the paper does not compute or bound α, β, θ for that map. Without explicit values or a short derivation, condition (28) is not fully constructive offline as claimed in Remark 4.2. Provide the bounds (or a procedure) for the chosen Ψ so that feasibility can be checked from the design parameters alone.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title page / author block] Affiliations contain double commas (“Science„ Bengaluru”). Clean typography throughout.
  2. [Section 4.1] Notation drifts between x and x1 (e.g., vr(x1,t), e1(x1,t) in Stage 1) while the system state is x. Unify.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) for center dynamics is written with an informal case split; under Assumption 4 at most one j is active, but the typesetting would benefit from an explicit “let j* be the unique index with d(j*)≤ra” clause.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 lists “Formal Guarantee” for the proposed method without noting that full FT-RAS is conditional on Assumption 5; a footnote would align the table with Remark 3.2.
  5. [Section 5] Figures 2–6 rely on external video links; ensure still frames and captions are self-contained for print (e.g., annotate obstacle velocities and tube radius evolution more clearly).
  6. [Sections 3–4, Case Studies] A short design recipe for choosing k1,k2,k3, ra, rmin under (27)–(28) would help practitioners; currently parameters are stated case-by-case without a systematic selection procedure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: feasibility conditions and invariance proofs relate independent quantities (actuator bounds, uncertainty, tube rates) rather than restating the claim by construction; self-citations to prior STT work supply the tube idea but the input-constraint extension and its proofs are self-contained.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Introduction, contributions 1–2 and Section 3 (STT design)]
    "We extend the spatiotemporal tube (STT) framework by incorporating input constraints into the controller design... Unlike [24], the proposed tube dynamics are designed to ensure that the resulting tubes are compatible with the available control authority."

    The paper repeatedly cites its own prior STT line ([22–24], overlapping authors Das/Jagtap) as the foundation for the tube. This is ordinary incremental work and not load-bearing for the new claim: the input-constrained controller, feasibility inequalities (27)–(28), and the contradiction proofs of Theorem 4.3 are fully re-derived here and do not reduce to those citations by construction. Flagged only as minor self-citation presence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is standard control-theoretic: STT center/radius dynamics (4),(6) are designed under Ass. 4–5, Theorem 3.3 proves FT-RAS properties of the tube via Lyapunov finite-time arguments and boundary analysis of J(j), Lemma 3.5 bounds the rates, the two-stage controller (20),(22) uses bounded maps Ψ, and Theorem 4.3 proves invariance by contradiction (if the state or velocity error exits then feasibility (27)–(28) is violated). Feasibility itself is an offline inequality relating independent quantities (m, Vmax_M, mi d̄, ar from tube rates, τ̄) and is not tautological. Prior STT citations [22–24] (overlapping authors) motivate the tube construction but the new input-constraint controller, feasibility conditions, and Stage-1/2 proofs are derived in full here and do not reduce to those citations by definition. No fitted-input-as-prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported to force the result, and no ansatz smuggled as a theorem. Assumption 5 is an environmental premise (explicitly scoped in Remark 3.2) rather than a circular definition. Score 1 only for the presence of non-load-bearing self-citation of the STT lineage; the strongest claim (Theorem 4.3) stands independently.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central guarantee rests on standard EL structure and boundedness assumptions, several environmental separation assumptions introduced for the tube proofs, and many hand-chosen design gains that must satisfy offline inequalities. No new physical entities are postulated; the STT and bounded maps are design constructs.

free parameters (5)
  • k1, k2, k3 (tube center gains)
    Hand-chosen positive constants controlling goal pull and avoidance; must satisfy k2≥vo and enter feasibility via c̄, r̄.
  • ra, rmax, rmin, ν (tube geometry/smoothing)
    Design radii and smoothing parameter chosen so r(t)>0 and separation holds; rmax≤min(dS,dT,ra).
  • v̄, τ̄, μv, pv, qv (velocity/torque and funnel parameters)
    Actuator and funnel widths/rates chosen to meet (27)–(28); not fitted to data but free design knobs that the claim depends on.
  • α, β, θ (bounds on Ψ and derivatives)
    Constants from Proposition A.1 used in ar and feasibility; depend on the chosen transformation and are treated as known upper bounds.
  • m, mi, Vmax_M, d̄ (uncertainty/control authority bounds)
    Assumed known a priori for “unknown” EL systems; feasibility (28) is meaningless without them.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption System is Euler–Lagrange with unknown but bounded M,V,G and disturbance d (Assumptions 1–3).
    Standard robust EL control premise; required for all feasibility and Stage-2 bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper Unsafe sets remain pairwise separated by at least 2ra (Assumption 4), or may be merged when close.
    Enables single-obstacle activation in center dynamics; Remark 3.1 allows merging but changes the geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists finite t1 after which all unsafe sets stay ≥ra from the tube center (Assumption 5).
    Load-bearing for finite-time reach of T; without it only avoid is guaranteed.
  • domain assumption Obstacle center velocities are bounded by known vo (Definition 2.2).
    Used to set k2≥vo and bound ṙ.
  • standard math Bounded transformation Ψ with properties in Proposition A.1 (partial Ψ/∂s, etc. bounded).
    Smooth saturation map; existence of α,β,θ is by construction of the example Ψ.
  • standard math Finite-time stability comparison lemma (Bhat–Bernstein style) for V̇≤−cV^{2/3}.
    Cited as Theorem 4.2 in [29] for tc computation in Theorem 3.3.
invented entities (2)
  • Input-constrained spatiotemporal tube (STT) with feasibility-linked center/radius dynamics no independent evidence
    purpose: Time-varying safe set whose motion is designed to be trackable under actuator limits while encoding FT-RAS.
    Design construct extending prior STT; not a physical entity. Independent evidence is only the paper’s own sims/hardware.
  • Offline feasibility conditions (27)–(28) no independent evidence
    purpose: Relate τ̄, uncertainty bounds, and tube/funnel rates so invariance proofs go through under saturation.
    Paper-specific certificate; falsifiable by choosing parameters that violate them and observing constraint breach, but not independently measured outside this framework.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25073 in / 3609 out tokens · 44492 ms · 2026-07-10T11:38:15.492423+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Safe navigation in dynamic environments is challenging when system dynamics are unknown and actuator inputs are limited. Existing methods either rely on accurate models, require online optimization, or do not explicitly account for input constraints. This paper presents a real-time control framework for unknown Euler-Lagrange systems that guarantees finite-time reach-avoid-stay (FT-RAS) specifications while respecting actuator limits. We extend the spatiotemporal tube (STT) framework by incorporating input constraints into the controller design and derive offline-verifiable feasibility conditions that relate the available control authority to the tube design and uncertainty bounds. The resulting framework is approximation-free and computationally efficient, making it suitable for real-time implementation. The proposed approach is validated through simulations on a mobile robot, a quadrotor, and a spacecraft, together with hardware experiments on a mobile robot, demonstrating safe navigation while satisfying actuator constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08189 by Pushpak Jagtap, Ratnangshu Das, Siddhartha Upadhyay.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pictorial representation of different terms affecting the STT center dynamics and radius dynamics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Simulation results for 2-D Mobile Robot, (a) and (b) present snapshots of the robot trajectory at two different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hardware results for the 2D mobile robot. The first two plots depict snapshots of the hardware experiment at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation results for the 3-D quadrotor. The first two plots present snapshots of the STT and the system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation results for spacecraft attitude reorientation. The unsafe regions are represented by red cones, while [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between (a) existing STT method [24] and (b) proposed method with input constraint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The safety filter: A unified view of safety-critical control in autonomous systems.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 7, 2023

    Kai-Chieh Hsu, Haimin Hu, and Jaime F Fisac. The safety filter: A unified view of safety-critical control in autonomous systems.Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 7, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Challenges and solutions for autonomous ground robot scene understanding and navigation in unstructured outdoor environments: A review.Applied Sciences, 13(17):9877, 2023

    Liyana Wijayathunga, Alexander Rassau, and Douglas Chai. Challenges and solutions for autonomous ground robot scene understanding and navigation in unstructured outdoor environments: A review.Applied Sciences, 13(17):9877, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Formal synthesis of controllers for safety-critical autonomous systems: Developments and challenges.Annual Reviews in Control, 57:100940, 2024

    Xiang Yin, Bingzhao Gao, and Xiao Yu. Formal synthesis of controllers for safety-critical autonomous systems: Developments and challenges.Annual Reviews in Control, 57:100940, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Structured control for autonomous robots.IEEE transactions on robotics and automation, 10(1):34–43, 1994

    Reid G Simmons. Structured control for autonomous robots.IEEE transactions on robotics and automation, 10(1):34–43, 1994

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(7):846–894, 2011

    Sertac Karaman and Emilio Frazzoli. Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(7):846–894, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Numerical potential field techniques for robot path planning.IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 22(2):224–241, 1992

    Jerome Barraquand, Bruno Langlois, and J-C Latombe. Numerical potential field techniques for robot path planning.IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 22(2):224–241, 1992

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Peng Hang, Sunan Huang, Xinbo Chen, and Kok Kiong Tan. Path planning of collision avoidance for unmanned ground vehicles: A nonlinear model predictive control approach.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 235(2):222–236, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Nonlinear model predictive path following controller with obstacle avoidance.Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 102(1):16, 2021

    Ignacio Sanchez, Agustina D’Jorge, Guilherme V Raffo, Alejandro H Gonzalez, and Antonio Ferramosca. Nonlinear model predictive path following controller with obstacle avoidance.Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 102(1):16, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    EMPC with adaptive APF of obstacle avoidance and trajectory tracking for autonomous electric vehicles.ISA transactions, 135:438–448, 2023

    Hongjiu Yang, Zhengyu Wang, Yuanqing Xia, and Zhiqiang Zuo. EMPC with adaptive APF of obstacle avoidance and trajectory tracking for autonomous electric vehicles.ISA transactions, 135:438–448, 2023. 18 APREPRINT- JULY10, 2026

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Ames, Xiangru Xu, Jessy W

    Aaron D. Ames, Xiangru Xu, Jessy W. Grizzle, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(8):3861–3876, 2017

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Agrawal and Dimitra Panagou

    Devansh R. Agrawal and Dimitra Panagou. Safe control synthesis via input constrained control barrier functions. In2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 6113–6118, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    3d uav navigation with moving-obstacle avoidance using barrier lyapunov functions.IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(12):49–54, 2019

    Esteban Restrepo, Ioannis Sarras, Antonio Loria, and Julien Marzat. 3d uav navigation with moving-obstacle avoidance using barrier lyapunov functions.IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(12):49–54, 2019

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    A collision cone approach for control barrier functions.IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2026

    Manan Tayal, Bhavya Giri Goswami, Karthik Rajgopal, Rajpal Singh, M Tejas Rao, Jishnu Keshavan, Pushpak Jagtap, and Shishir Nadubettu Yadukumar. A collision cone approach for control barrier functions.IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2026

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Safe control under input limits with neural control barrier functions

    Simin Liu, Changliu Liu, and John Dolan. Safe control under input limits with neural control barrier functions. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1970–1980. PMLR, 2023

    work page 1970

  15. [15]

    Dimarogonas

    Wenceslao Shaw Cortez and Dimos V . Dimarogonas. Correct-by-design control barrier functions for euler-lagrange systems with input constraints. In2020 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 950–955, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    Paulo Tabuada.Verification and control of hybrid systems: a symbolic approach. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    work page 2009

  17. [17]

    PhD thesis, Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), 2019

    Adnane Saoud.Compositional and efficient controller synthesis for cyber-physical systems. PhD thesis, Université Paris Saclay (COmUE), 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Compositional abstraction-based synthesis for interconnected systems: An approximate composition approach.IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 8(2):702–712, 2021

    Adnane Saoud, Pushpak Jagtap, Majid Zamani, and Antoine Girard. Compositional abstraction-based synthesis for interconnected systems: An approximate composition approach.IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 8(2):702–712, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Omegathreads: Symbolic controller design for ω-regular objectives

    Mahmoud Khaled and Majid Zamani. Omegathreads: Symbolic controller design for ω-regular objectives. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pages 1–7, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Scalable distributed controller synthesis for multi-agent systems using barrier functions and symbolic control

    David Smith Sundarsingh, Jay Bhagiya, Jeel Chatrola, Adnane Saoud, Pushpak Jagtap, et al. Scalable distributed controller synthesis for multi-agent systems using barrier functions and symbolic control. In62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 6436–6441, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Scalable and approximation-free symbolic control for unknown euler-lagrange systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19859, 2025

    Ratnangshu Das, Shubham Sawarkar, and Pushpak Jagtap. Scalable and approximation-free symbolic control for unknown euler-lagrange systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19859, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Prescribed-time reach-avoid-stay specifications for unknown systems: A spatiotemporal tubes approach.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2024

    Ratnangshu Das and Pushpak Jagtap. Prescribed-time reach-avoid-stay specifications for unknown systems: A spatiotemporal tubes approach.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Spatiotemporal tubes for temporal reach-avoid-stay tasks in unknown systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    Ratnangshu Das, Ahan Basu, and Pushpak Jagtap. Spatiotemporal tubes for temporal reach-avoid-stay tasks in unknown systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Real-time spatiotemporal tubes for dynamic unsafe sets.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 11(2):2146–2153, 2026

    Ratnangshu Das, Siddhartha Upadhyay, and Pushpak Jagtap. Real-time spatiotemporal tubes for dynamic unsafe sets.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 11(2):2146–2153, 2026

    work page 2026

  25. [25]

    Springer, 1998

    Romeo Ortega, Antonio Loria, Per Johan Nicklasson, and Hebertt Sira-Ramirez.Euler-Lagrange systems. Springer, 1998

    work page 1998

  26. [26]

    Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2010

    Bruno Siciliano, Lorenzo Sciavicco, Luigi Villani, and Giuseppe Oriolo.Robotics: Modelling, Planning and Control. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Robot control by using only joint position measurements.IEEE Transactions on Automatic control, 35(9):1058–1061, 1990

    S Nicosia and P Tomei. Robot control by using only joint position measurements.IEEE Transactions on Automatic control, 35(9):1058–1061, 1990

    work page 1990

  28. [28]

    Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002

    Hassan K Khalil and Jessy W Grizzle.Nonlinear systems, volume 3. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    Finite-time stability of continuous autonomous systems.SIAM Journal on Control and optimization, 38(3):751–766, 2000

    Sanjay P Bhat and Dennis S Bernstein. Finite-time stability of continuous autonomous systems.SIAM Journal on Control and optimization, 38(3):751–766, 2000

    work page 2000

  30. [30]

    A low-complexity global approximation-free control scheme with prescribed performance for unknown pure feedback systems.Automatica, 50(4):1217–1226, 2014

    Charalampos P Bechlioulis and George A Rovithakis. A low-complexity global approximation-free control scheme with prescribed performance for unknown pure feedback systems.Automatica, 50(4):1217–1226, 2014

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Bechlioulis, and Dimos V

    Farhad Mehdifar, Charalampos P. Bechlioulis, and Dimos V . Dimarogonas. Funnel control under hard and soft output constraints. InIEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 4473–4478, 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Adaptive rigidity-based formation control for multirobotic vehicles with dynamics.IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 23(1):389–396, 2014

    Xiaoyu Cai and Marcio De Queiroz. Adaptive rigidity-based formation control for multirobotic vehicles with dynamics.IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 23(1):389–396, 2014

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Zhenhua Pan, Chengxi Zhang, Yuanqing Xia, Hao Xiong, and Xiaodong Shao. An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-UA V systems.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 69(3):1129–1133, 2022. 19 APREPRINT- JULY10, 2026

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Autonomous driving motion planning with constrained iterative lqr.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 4(2):244–254, 2019

    Jianyu Chen, Wei Zhan, and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Autonomous driving motion planning with constrained iterative lqr.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 4(2):244–254, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Rungger and M

    M. Rungger and M. Zamani. SCOTS: A tool for the synthesis of symbolic controllers. Inthe 19th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pages 99–104, 2016. 20

    work page 2016