pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.01445 · v6 · pith:O62GSK7Mnew · submitted 2024-04-01 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Using Dynamic Safety Margins as Control Barrier Functions

Victor Freire , Marco M. Nicotra This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 08:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords control barrier functionsdynamic safety marginsreference governorssafety-critical controlaugmented systemsconstraint handlingquadratic programming
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamic safety margins from reference governor methods can serve as control barrier functions on a system augmented with a virtual reference state.

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

The paper shows how to turn dynamic safety margins, a tool already used in reference governor designs, into control barrier functions without needing to redesign them from scratch. This works by stacking the original plant state together with a virtual reference signal to form a larger dynamical system on which the margin acts as a barrier. Because the construction inherits properties from the reference governor literature, it works regardless of the system's relative degree and can enforce several state and input limits at once by using the standard control-sharing property of barrier functions. The approach is then specialized to Lyapunov-based margins and tested in simulation, where it keeps the optimization feasible while improving performance over earlier margin-based controllers.

Core claim

Dynamic safety margins defined for a reference governor are control barrier functions for the augmented closed-loop system formed by concatenating the plant state with the virtual reference; the resulting barrier functions inherit the relative-degree independence and multi-constraint handling properties already known for dynamic safety margins.

What carries the argument

Dynamic safety margin (DSM) used as a control barrier function on the state-augmented plant-plus-reference system.

If this is right

  • The method applies to plants of any relative degree without extra differentiation steps.
  • Multiple state and input constraints are handled simultaneously through the control-sharing property.
  • Lyapunov-based dynamic safety margins yield explicit barrier functions that preserve persistent feasibility of the quadratic program.
  • The resulting controller guarantees safety while allowing the reference governor to drive the system toward a desired set point.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same augmentation trick might let other reference-governor constructs, such as command governors or command governors with prediction, be recast as barrier functions.
  • Because the barrier is built from an existing margin, existing stability proofs for the governor can be reused to certify both safety and stability in one step.
  • Numerical comparisons in the paper suggest the method reduces conservatism compared with static margins; this could be tested on hardware systems where input constraints are tight.

Load-bearing premise

Properties that dynamic safety margins satisfy in reference governor problems automatically satisfy the Lie-derivative inequality required for control barrier functions on the augmented system.

What would settle it

A concrete counter-example in which a dynamic safety margin that is known to be valid for a reference governor fails to satisfy the CBF decrease condition when the state and reference are concatenated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2404.01445 by Marco M. Nicotra, Victor Freire.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of CBF-based control (top) with RG-based control (bottom). The CBF approach filters a nominal input signal un to obtain a safe input u. The RG approach a nominal reference signal rn to obtain a safe virtual reference r for the nominal controller. A. Related Works While the term control barrier function can be traced back to the early 2000’s (see [5] for a historical account), the modern definiti… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Anthill-shaped Lyapunov function V (x, v) at v = 0.5, with the safety threshold value Γ∗(v) and stability threshold value Γ(v). While this function is discontinuous, it is bounded by the smooth function Γ ∗ s (v) = max min Γ ∗ (v), 1 4  , − 1 4  . Thus, by Theorem 6, ∆ : D →˜ R 2 defined as ∆(x, v) =  Γ ∗ s (v) − V (x, v) 0.99Γ(v) − V (x, v)  , (47) is a DSM for π and, by Theorem 3, a (vector-valued) C… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Closed-loop behavior for the anthill system using each of the considered constrained control approaches. The dashed green and blue lines represent the evolution of the virtual reference v(t) for the ERG and the DSM-CBF approaches, respectively. In addition, we show the performance of the candidate CBFs for three different class K functions α1 = α2 = α : c 7→ aic, where ai ∈ {7, 0.15, 0.07}. Larger ai corre… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overhead crane system from [44]. B. Overhead Crane Consider the dynamics of an overhead crane [44] M(q)q¨ + C(q, q˙)q˙ + G(q) = Bu, (49) where the generalized coordinates q = [x; θ] are the gantry position x and the payload angle θ, and M(q) =  mc + mp mpLcos θ mpLcos θ mpL 2  , B =  1 0  , C(q, q˙) =  0 −mpL ˙θ sin θ 0 0  , G(q) =  0 mpgLsin θ  , where mc, mp > 0 represent the gantry and payload m… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Closed-loop behavior of the overhead crane system under each of the considered constrained control approaches. The dashed green and blue lines represent the evolution of the virtual reference v(t) for the ERG and DSM-CBF approaches, respectively. While only the trace for horizon T = 5 for the backup CBF approach is shown, the computational burden of other horizon choices is shown in Table I. approach track… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents an approach to design control barrier functions (CBFs) for arbitrary state and input constraints using tools from the reference governor literature. In particular, it is shown that dynamic safety margins (DSMs) are CBFs for an augmented system obtained by concatenating the state with a virtual reference. The proposed approach is agnostic to the relative degree and can handle multiple state and input constraints using the control-sharing property of CBFs. The construction of CBFs using Lyapunov-based DSMs is then investigated in further detail. Numerical simulations show that the method outperforms existing DSM-based approaches, while also guaranteeing safety and persistent feasibility of the associated optimization program.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that dynamic safety margins (DSMs) from the reference governor literature can be used directly as control barrier functions (CBFs) for an augmented dynamical system formed by concatenating the plant state with a virtual reference state. The construction is presented as relative-degree agnostic and extensible to multiple state/input constraints via the control-sharing property of CBFs. The paper further develops the case of Lyapunov-based DSMs and reports numerical simulations in which the resulting controllers outperform prior DSM-based methods while preserving safety and persistent feasibility of the associated quadratic program.

Significance. If the central transfer result is rigorously established, the work supplies a systematic route for synthesizing CBFs from an existing, well-studied class of safety margins, thereby linking two mature literatures in constrained control. The relative-degree independence and multi-constraint handling are practically attractive features. The simulation evidence of improved performance is useful but would gain weight from additional theoretical comparisons.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (main theorem on DSMs as CBFs): the proof that a DSM satisfies the CBF inequality on the augmented dynamics must explicitly compute the Lie derivative along the closed-loop vector field that includes the virtual-reference dynamics; it is not immediate that the reference-governor DSM condition carries over without an additional verification step that accounts for the augmentation.
  2. [§4] §4 (Lyapunov-based DSM construction): the claim that the resulting CBF is parameter-free appears to rest on the choice of the Lyapunov function and the DSM update law; the paper should clarify whether any free parameters remain after the augmentation and how they affect the feasibility set of the QP.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 (simulation parameters): the reported settling times and peak constraint violations should be accompanied by the corresponding CBF gain values to allow direct comparison with the baseline DSM method.
  2. [Notation] Notation section: the symbol for the virtual reference state is introduced late; an early, consolidated table of symbols would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below and will incorporate the suggested clarifications in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (main theorem on DSMs as CBFs): the proof that a DSM satisfies the CBF inequality on the augmented dynamics must explicitly compute the Lie derivative along the closed-loop vector field that includes the virtual-reference dynamics; it is not immediate that the reference-governor DSM condition carries over without an additional verification step that accounts for the augmentation.

    Authors: We agree that the proof in §3 would benefit from an explicit computation of the Lie derivative along the augmented closed-loop vector field. In the revised manuscript we expand the proof to include this step-by-step calculation, verifying that the DSM condition directly implies the CBF inequality for the augmented dynamics without requiring further assumptions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Lyapunov-based DSM construction): the claim that the resulting CBF is parameter-free appears to rest on the choice of the Lyapunov function and the DSM update law; the paper should clarify whether any free parameters remain after the augmentation and how they affect the feasibility set of the QP.

    Authors: We appreciate the request for clarification. The Lyapunov function is chosen to satisfy the system dynamics and the DSM update law is then fixed accordingly; once selected, the resulting CBF for the augmented system contains no additional free parameters. We will add a paragraph in §4 explaining this choice and its effect on QP feasibility, confirming that feasibility is preserved by the underlying DSM properties. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation builds on external reference governor literature

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that dynamic safety margins (DSMs) from the reference governor literature satisfy the CBF conditions when applied to an augmented state-plus-virtual-reference system. This is presented as a shown result using existing tools, with the construction investigated via Lyapunov-based DSMs and the control-sharing property. No load-bearing step reduces by definition or self-citation to the paper's own fitted outputs or inputs; the abstract and description indicate an independent transfer of properties from prior external work rather than any self-definitional equivalence, fitted prediction renamed as result, or ansatz smuggled via the authors' own prior citations. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transfer of DSM properties to CBF conditions via state augmentation and control-sharing, drawing from reference governor literature without new derivations shown in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Properties of dynamic safety margins and control-sharing from reference governor literature hold and transfer to the CBF framework
    The abstract relies on these existing properties without re-deriving or verifying them for the new use case.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5627 in / 1247 out tokens · 29127 ms · 2026-05-25T08:24:20.478425+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    under the name of zeroing CBFs. Since then, many works have studied different properties of CBFs and the systems they are used in: [7], [8] address the relative degree of CBFs; [9] defines control-sharing CBFs to enforce multiple constraints at once; [10], [11] consider discrete-time and sampled-data systems, respectively; [12], [13] study robust CBFs. Mo...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    to define a natural generalization of control barrier functions (CBFs) to (vector-valued) CBFs. •We show that dynamic safety margins (DSMs) are (vector-valued) CBFs for an augmented system consisting of the concatenation of the state vector and the reference of the prestabilizing controller used to construct the DSM. Additionally, we show that the relativ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    candidate

    SinceCis closed and0is a regular value ofh, we can apply Theorem 2 to concludeCis control invariant. Notice compactness ofUimpliesξ:D →Ris continuous, and thereforeˆα: [0,∞)→R. Without it, we lose necessity in Lemma 1. However, the sufficiency in Lemma 1 (i.e., the CBF certifies control invariance of its compact superlevel set) is maintained even when the...

    work page

  4. [4]

    To prove property (22c), leti∈ {1,2}be given and pick (x,v)∈ ˜Dsuch that∆ i(x,v) = 0

    So, we must have that(x,v)∈ ˜Dand we conclude that ˜C is closed inR n ×R l, and therefore compact. To prove property (22c), leti∈ {1,2}be given and pick (x,v)∈ ˜Dsuch that∆ i(x,v) = 0. Then, by (33b), ∂∆i ∂x fπ(x,v) =− ∂V ∂x fπ(x,v)≥0.(38) The following corollary highlights that for Lyapunov-based DSMs, anyα∈Kcan be used for the DSM-CBF policy βgiven in (...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The simulation results for each approach are shown in Fig

    with classKfunctionα:c7→7c. The simulation results for each approach are shown in Fig. 3. All approaches are able to enforce safety and reach the closest safe point to the desired reference but differ in performance and computational complexity. As expected, our DSM-CBF approach exhibits behavior that more closely resembles the nominal behavior than the E...

    work page

  6. [6]

    For each of the two bounds, we take Γ∗ 1(v) = 1 2 kp(v−x min)|v−x min|, Γ∗ 2(v) = 1 2 kp(xmax −v)|x max −v|

    Position constraints:x min ≤x≤x max. For each of the two bounds, we take Γ∗ 1(v) = 1 2 kp(v−x min)|v−x min|, Γ∗ 2(v) = 1 2 kp(xmax −v)|x max −v|

    work page

  7. [7]

    Solving (34) yields the constant function Γ∗ 3(v) = mcu2 max 2(mckp +k 2 d)

    Input constraints:|u| ≤u max, withu max >0. Solving (34) yields the constant function Γ∗ 3(v) = mcu2 max 2(mckp +k 2 d)

    work page

  8. [8]

    Solving (34) yields the constant function Γ∗ 4(v) =m pgL(1−cosθ max)

    Angle constraints:|θ| ≤θ max, withθ max ∈(0, π/2). Solving (34) yields the constant function Γ∗ 4(v) =m pgL(1−cosθ max)

    work page

  9. [9]

    For this constraint, we were unable to find an analytical expression forΓ ∗ 5(v)associated toV

    Payload constraints:x+Lsinθ≤p max, withp max ≥ xmax. For this constraint, we were unable to find an analytical expression forΓ ∗ 5(v)associated toV. However, as detailed in [32, Proposition 4], we can define V (x, v) = 1 2 ˙q⊤M(x) ˙q+ 4 π2 mpgLθ2 + 1 2 kp(x−v) 2, which satisfiesV (x, v)≤V(x, v),∀θ∈(−π/2, π/2). Moreover, sincex max ≤p max, we can perform a...

    work page

  10. [10]

    On the safety of connected cruise control: analysis and synthesis with control barrier functions,

    T. G. Molnar, G. Orosz, and A. D. Ames, “On the safety of connected cruise control: analysis and synthesis with control barrier functions,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (CDC), 2023, pp. 1106–1111

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Control barrier function based visual servoing for mobile manipula- tor systems under functional limitations,

    S. Heshmati-Alamdari, M. Sharifi, G. C. Karras, and G. K. Fourlas, “Control barrier function based visual servoing for mobile manipula- tor systems under functional limitations,”IAS Robot. Auton. Syst., p. 104813, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Control barrier functions in dynamic UA Vs for kinematic obstacle avoidance: A colli- sion cone approach,

    M. Tayal, R. Singh, J. Keshavan, and S. Kolathaya, “Control barrier functions in dynamic UA Vs for kinematic obstacle avoidance: A colli- sion cone approach,” inProc. IEEE Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), 2024, pp. 3722–3727. TABLE II OVERHEADCRANESIMULATIONPARAMETERS mc (kg) 1 kp 2 xmin (m) −1.2 pmax (m) 1.2 mp (kg) 0.5 kd 0.1 xmax (m) 1.2 x(0)(-) 0 L(m) 0.7 k...

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Reference and com- mand governors for systems with constraints: A survey on theory and applications,

    E. Garone, S. Di Cairano, and I. Kolmanovsky, “Reference and com- mand governors for systems with constraints: A survey on theory and applications,”Automatica, vol. 75, pp. 306–328, 2017

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    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,” inProc. IEEE Eur. Control Conf. (ECC), 2019, pp. 3420–3431

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control (TAC), vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, Aug. 2017

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,

    Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,” inProc. IEEE Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), 2016, pp. 322–328

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    High relative degree control barrier functions under input constraints,

    J. Breeden and D. Panagou, “High relative degree control barrier functions under input constraints,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (CDC), 2021, pp. 6119–6124

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Constrained control of input–output linearizable systems using control sharing barrier functions,

    X. Xu, “Constrained control of input–output linearizable systems using control sharing barrier functions,”Automatica, vol. 87, pp. 195–201, Jan. 2018

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    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.” inProc. Robot.: Sci. Syst. (RSS), vol. 13, 2017, pp. 1–10

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Control barrier function meets interval analysis: Safety-critical control with measurement and actuation uncertainties,

    Y . Zhang, S. Walters, and X. Xu, “Control barrier function meets interval analysis: Safety-critical control with measurement and actuation uncertainties,” inProc. IEEE Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), 2022, pp. 3814–3819

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Robust control barrier functions for constrained stabiliza- tion of nonlinear systems,

    M. Jankovic, “Robust control barrier functions for constrained stabiliza- tion of nonlinear systems,”Automatica, vol. 96, pp. 359–367, 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Robust control barrier functions with sector-bounded uncertainties,

    J. Buch, S.-C. Liao, and P. Seiler, “Robust control barrier functions with sector-bounded uncertainties,”IEEE Control Syst. Lett. (LCSS), vol. 6, pp. 1994–1999, 2021

    work page 1994

  23. [23]

    A semi-algebraic framework for verification and synthesis of control barrier functions,

    A. Clark, “A semi-algebraic framework for verification and synthesis of control barrier functions,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control (TAC), 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Convex synthesis and verification of control- Lyapunov and barrier functions with input constraints,

    H. Dai and F. Permenter, “Convex synthesis and verification of control- Lyapunov and barrier functions with input constraints,” inProc. IEEE Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), 2023, pp. 4116–4123

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Safety-critical control using optimal-decay control barrier function with guaranteed point-wise feasibility,

    J. Zeng, B. Zhang, Z. Li, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical control using optimal-decay control barrier function with guaranteed point-wise feasibility,” inProc. IEEE Amer. Control Conf. (ACC), 2021, pp. 3856– 3863

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Robust control barrier–value functions for safety-critical control,

    J. J. Choi, D. Lee, K. Sreenath, C. J. Tomlin, and S. L. Herbert, “Robust control barrier–value functions for safety-critical control,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (CDC), 2021, pp. 6814–6821

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Safe control for navigation in cluttered space using multiple Lyapunov-based control barrier functions,

    I. Jang and H. J. Kim, “Safe control for navigation in cluttered space using multiple Lyapunov-based control barrier functions,”IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. (RA-L), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2056–2063, 2024

    work page 2056

  28. [28]

    Safe-by-design control for Euler– Lagrange systems,

    W. S. Cortez and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Safe-by-design control for Euler– Lagrange systems,”Automatica, vol. 146, p. 110620, Dec. 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Learning barrier functions for constrained motion planning with dynamical systems,

    M. Saveriano and D. Lee, “Learning barrier functions for constrained motion planning with dynamical systems,” inProc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS), 2019, pp. 112–119

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Learning a better control barrier function,

    B. Dai, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khorrami, “Learning a better control barrier function,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (CDC), 2022, pp. 945–950

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Backup control barrier functions: Formulation and comparative study,

    Y . Chen, M. Jankovic, M. Santillo, and A. D. Ames, “Backup control barrier functions: Formulation and comparative study,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (CDC), 2021, pp. 6835–6841

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Systematic design of discrete-time control barrier functions using maximal output admissible sets,

    V . Freire and M. M. Nicotra, “Systematic design of discrete-time control barrier functions using maximal output admissible sets,”IEEE Control Syst. Lett. (LCSS), vol. 7, pp. 1891–1896, 2023

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    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 Syst. Mag., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 89–107, Aug. 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    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, p. 110996, 2023

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Nonlinear control of constrained linear systems via predictive reference management,

    A. Bemporad, A. Casavola, and E. Mosca, “Nonlinear control of constrained linear systems via predictive reference management,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control (TAC), vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 340–349, 1997

    work page 1997

  36. [36]

    Set invariance in control,

    F. Blanchini, “Set invariance in control,”Automatica, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1747–1767, 1999

    work page 1999

  37. [37]

    Aubin,Viability theory

    J. Aubin,Viability theory. Birh ¨auser, Boston, 1991

    work page 1991

  38. [38]

    ¨Uber die lage der integralkurven gew ¨ohnlicher differen- tialgleichungen,

    M. Nagumo, “ ¨Uber die lage der integralkurven gew ¨ohnlicher differen- tialgleichungen,” inProc. Phys.-Math. Soc. Jpn., vol. 24, 1942, pp. 551– 559

    work page 1942

  39. [39]

    Aubin and H

    J.-P. Aubin and H. Frankowska,Set-Valued Analysis. Springer, 2009

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    Berge,Topological spaces: Including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces and convexity

    C. Berge,Topological spaces: Including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces and convexity. Oliver & Boyd, 1963

    work page 1963

  41. [41]

    Control of Euler-Lagrange systems subject to constraints: An explicit reference governor approach,

    M. M. Nicotra and E. Garone, “Control of Euler-Lagrange systems subject to constraints: An explicit reference governor approach,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (CDC), Dec. 2015, pp. 1154–1159

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Explicit reference governor for linear systems,

    E. Garone, M. Nicotra, and L. Ntogramatzidis, “Explicit reference governor for linear systems,”Int. J. Control, vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 1415– 1430, 2018

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Explicit reference governor for the constrained control of linear time- delay systems,

    M. M. Nicotra, T. W. Nguyen, E. Garone, and I. V . Kolmanovsky, “Explicit reference governor for the constrained control of linear time- delay systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control (TAC), vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 2883–2889, Jul. 2019

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Fast and safe path-following control using a state-dependent directional metric,

    Z. Li, ¨O. Arslan, and N. Atanasov, “Fast and safe path-following control using a state-dependent directional metric,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), 2020, pp. 6176–6182

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Reference dependent invariant sets: Sum of squares based computation and applications in constrained control,

    A. Cotorruelo, M. Hosseinzadeh, D. R. Ramirez, D. Limon, and E. Garone, “Reference dependent invariant sets: Sum of squares based computation and applications in constrained control,”Automatica, vol. 129, p. 109614, 2021

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    H. K. Khalil,Nonlinear Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 2002

    work page 2002

  47. [47]

    The construction of analytic diffeo- morphisms for exact robot navigation on star worlds,

    E. Rimon and D. E. Koditschek, “The construction of analytic diffeo- morphisms for exact robot navigation on star worlds,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), May 1989, pp. 21–26

    work page 1989

  48. [48]

    Sufficient conditions for the lipschitz continuity of qp-based multi-objective control of humanoid robots,

    B. Morris, M. J. Powell, and A. D. Ames, “Sufficient conditions for the lipschitz continuity of qp-based multi-objective control of humanoid robots,”Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control (CDC), pp. 2920–2926, 2013

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    Regularity properties of optimization-based controllers,

    P. Mestres, A. Allibhoy, and J. Cort ´es, “Regularity properties of optimization-based controllers,”Eur. J. Control, vol. 81, p. 101098, 2025

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Designing control barrier functions using a dynamic backup policy,

    V . Freire and M. M. Nicotra, “Designing control barrier functions using a dynamic backup policy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09810, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Designing control barrier functions for underactuated Euler–Lagrange systems using dynamic safety margins,

    V . Freire, S. Debarshi, and M. M. Nicotra, “Designing control barrier functions for underactuated Euler–Lagrange systems using dynamic safety margins,”IEEE Control Syst. Lett. (LCSS), 2025

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    ApS,The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual

    M. ApS,The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 10.1.28., Copenhagen, Denmark, 2024

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Nonlinear coupling control laws for an overhead crane system,

    Y . Fang, E. Zergeroglu, W. Dixon, and D. Dawson, “Nonlinear coupling control laws for an overhead crane system,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control Appl. (CCA), Sep. 2001, pp. 639–644

    work page 2001

  54. [54]

    Ortega, A

    R. Ortega, A. Loria, P. J. Nicklasson, and H. Sira-Ramirez,Euler– Lagrange systems. Springer, 1998. Victor Freirereceived the B.S. and M.S. de- grees in mechanical engineering from Univer- sity of Wisconsin-Madison, in 2020 and 2022, respectively. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree from the Department of Electrical, Com- puter & Energy Engineering at...

    work page 1998