Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

This paper proposes a convex reformulation of obstacle avoidance, called RCOA, that keeps avoidance constraints active even when obstacles lie outside the MPC prediction horizon, enabling shorter horizons and faster real-time control.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:19 UTC pith:X4X7OZR4

load-bearing objection The paper's central claim of a convex obstacle-avoidance formulation that works outside the prediction horizon is not supported: the proof is circular, the outside-horizon effect is a parameter-dependent artifact, and the simulations never actually test it. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.13836 v3 pith:X4X7OZR4 submitted 2025-12-15 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SYmath.OC

A Convex Obstacle Avoidance Formulation

Ricardo Tapia , Iman Soltani This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.ROcs.SYmath.OC
keywords convex optimizationobstacle avoidancemodel predictive controlmixed-integer programmingbig-M relaxationautonomous drivingnonlinear vehicle dynamicsreal-time control
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.

This paper claims to close the gap between safety and speed in optimization-based obstacle avoidance. Standard formulations either introduce integer variables, making the problem mixed-integer and NP-hard, or use nonconvex distance and ellipse constraints that slow solvers and compromise real-time operation. The authors propose Relaxed Convex Obstacle Avoidance (RCOA), which relaxes the binary 'go above or below' logic of a big-M formulation into continuous variables with a penalty, keeping the entire problem convex. They further claim a distinctive property: the relaxed constraint remains active even when the obstacle sits outside the prediction horizon, so MPC horizons can be shortened without losing avoidance. In simulations with nonlinear vehicle dynamics, RCOA matches or beats representative nonconvex and mixed-integer baselines in runtime and trajectory quality, and stays solvable in near-infeasible configurations where the baselines struggle. The current stage is limited to a two-dimensional point-vehicle model; three-dimensional extension with full vehicle geometry is deferred to later work.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the logical choice of passing an obstacle on one side or the other can be written as a convex constraint set rather than a nonconvex one. Starting from a mixed-integer encoding of 'if the vehicle is between the obstacle's vertical edges, it must be above or below it', the authors relax the binary switches to continuous variables in [0,1] and add a linear penalty w(γ1+γ2) to the cost. The resulting feasible set is convex, and the Lagrangian analysis shows the relaxed variables couple the vehicle's horizontal distance to the obstacle with its vertical bound through the relation Y = y_max - (M3/M1)(x_min - X). This coupling is what keeps avoidance active ahead of t

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the RCOA constraint set: for each rectangular obstacle, two big-M inequalities link the vehicle's X-position to relaxed logical variables γ1, γ2 (with 0≤γi≤1 and γ1+γ2≤1), a third inequality links the Y-coordinate to y_max or y_min through a penalty-scaled combination of those variables, and the objective carries the linear penalty f_obs = w(γ1+γ2). Splitting the choice into two subproblems ('above' or 'below') keeps each subproblem convex, so the global optimum among the two candidate trajectories can be found by solving convex problems in parallel. The derivations hinge on a Lagrangian step that eliminates γ1 and γ2 and leaves the invariant relation Y = y_max - (

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the big-M constants M1, M2, M3 and the penalty weight w are chosen so that the penalty term dominates the cost and the ratio M3/M1 is large enough to drive the vehicle upward as it approaches the obstacle; if those constants are poorly selected, the avoidance constraint becomes trivially satisfied and the outside-horizon property disappears.

What would settle it

Simulate a single-vehicle, single-obstacle RCOA problem from the paper with the obstacle placed just outside the prediction horizon, and sweep the ratio M3/M1 over, say, three orders of magnitude while keeping the penalty weight fixed. If for small M3/M1 the optimal trajectory passes through the obstacle with zero (or negligible) penalty, while for large M3/M1 it deviates upward, then the outside-horizon effect is an artifact of the constant choice rather than a structural property of the formulation. Equivalently, if the minimal distance to the obstacle is not monotonically increasing in M3/M

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

If this is right

  • Obstacle avoidance becomes embeddable in convex MPC schemes, so controllers inherit global-optimality guarantees and predictable iteration bounds from convex solvers.
  • Prediction horizons can be shortened substantially without sacrificing avoidance, because the active constraint does not require the obstacle to lie inside the horizon; the paper demonstrates horizons of 2 s in the dynamic intersection tests.
  • For each obstacle, two independent convex subproblems can be solved in parallel, and the lower-cost feasible trajectory is a candidate global optimum, avoiding the exponential branch-and-bound search of mixed-integer formulations.
  • In near-infeasible environments, RCOA plus a secondary feasibility-correction pass (fixing relaxed variables to 0/1) solves in about half a second, where the nonconvex ellipse-based baseline required over 10 seconds on the same hardware.
  • The formulation extends to dynamic and irregularly shaped obstacles by replacing the constant rectangle bounds with functions g(z(t)) and h(z(t)) that need not themselves be convex.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The outside-horizon effect's magnitude is governed by the ratio M3/M1, and the paper gives no guidance on choosing these constants. A natural extension is to derive bounds on M3/M1 from the vehicle's braking and steering limits so the claimed property holds uniformly for a given operating envelope.
  • The two-subproblem split suggests a natural parallel architecture: a long-horizon RCOA feasibility monitor running on one core and a short-horizon RCOA controller on another, a separation the paper mentions but does not fully evaluate.
  • Because the relaxation is purely geometric, the same mechanism could apply to non-driving domains — e.g., drone flight around buildings or manipulator planning around obstacles — wherever the obstacle region can be expressed as a logical split into two convex half-spaces.
  • The paper's feasibility-certificate correction implicitly converts the soft constraint back into a hard one for selected nodes; a stronger claim would be to prove that the corrected trajectory can be chosen to remain feasible at all inter-sample points, which the paper leaves open.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a "Relaxed Convex Obstacle Avoidance" (RCOA) formulation, in which the mixed-integer big-M constraints of Schouwenaars-style obstacle avoidance are relaxed by replacing binary variables with continuous variables in [0,1] and adding a penalty term w(γ1+γ2). The authors claim this is the first general convex obstacle avoidance formulation, that it remains effective even when obstacles lie outside the prediction horizon, and that it matches or beats nonconvex and mixed-integer baselines in autonomous-driving simulations. The paper includes an attempted proof of the outside-horizon property, a feasibility-correction procedure, open-loop benchmarks in two cluttered environments, and closed-loop NMPC simulations of a left turn at an intersection with an oncoming vehicle.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, RCOA would be a notable result: a convex obstacle-avoidance formulation with horizon-independent behavior would allow short-horizon real-time MPC without sacrificing safety. The paper also contains a reasonably broad benchmark suite and a nontrivial NMPC implementation, which are useful. However, the key theoretical argument is invalid, the outside-horizon claim is not tested by any experiment, and the formulation is explicitly soft with reported obstacle penetrations. The novelty claim of being "first general convex obstacle avoidance" is also overstated. As a convex relaxation of a mixed-integer formulation, RCOA is a plausible engineering heuristic, but the paper's advertised safety and horizon-independent properties are unsupported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-A, Eq. (14)] The proof derives Eq. (14) by setting L_{λ1}=0 and L_{λ3}=0. For an inequality-constrained convex program, stationarity is ∇_y L=0 plus complementarity; ∂L/∂λ=0 merely restates the primal constraints as equalities. Eq. (14) is therefore not an optimality consequence, only the active-constraint equality. Moreover, as written it gives Y = y_max − (M_3/M_1)(x_min − X), which is a lower bound below y_max for X < x_min; it approaches y_max from below, not "forcing the vehicle above". The outside-horizon conclusion is unsupported.
  2. [§IV-A, Assumptions (I)–(II)] Assumption I ('w is large enough to enforce γ_i→0 when x_min ≤ X ≤ x_max') is the desired avoidance property, not a consequence of the convex relaxation. With a finite penalty, the optimal γ trades off w∥γ∥ against the tracking cost; nothing prevents γ>0 and Y<y_max. No bound on w is supplied. Assumption II similarly assumes the penalty drives γ2 to zero. Both assumptions are imposed on the solution, making the proof circular.
  3. [§IV-A, after Eq. (14); §V-A2] The claimed horizon-independent property is not tested. In §V-A2 the prediction horizon is explicitly chosen to encompass all obstacles, and no experiment places an obstacle beyond the horizon. Eq. (14) at a terminal node with X far from x_min gives an arbitrarily low bound when M_i are chosen 'sufficiently large'; the effect then depends on the uncalibrated ratio M_3/M_1 and on the remaining distance to the obstacle. No M_i values or horizon ablation are reported, so the claimed property is an artifact of parameter choice rather than a property of the formulation.
  4. [§IV-B; Table VIII] The paper concedes that RCOA is 'inherently a soft constraint' and Table VIII reports obstacle penetration for RCOA, e.g., EII SCvx node penetration 0.016 m, inter-sample 0.044 m, and NLP node penetration 0.057 m. The feasibility-correction procedure of §IV-B only enforces γ=0 at selected nodes and still permits inter-sample violations. The abstract's 'reliable collision avoidance' and obstacle-free language is therefore not supported by the presented results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV-A, Eq. (13c)] The Y-constraint uses M_2 in place of the previously defined M_3; this is likely a typo.
  2. [§V-A1, Eq. (31)] The elliptical obstacle-avoidance constraint is written without an inequality sign; it should be 1−(x̄−c_i)^T P_i(x̄−c_i) ≤ 0 (or ≥ 0, whichever is intended).
  3. [§V-A1b] Typo: 'Runga-Kutta' should be 'Runge-Kutta'.
  4. [§IV-A, Eq. (15)] The 'or' between the two Y-constraints is not a convex disjunction in a single problem. The fact that two subproblems per obstacle must be solved should be stated in the formulation itself, not only in the subsequent prose.
  5. [Abstract; Table VI] The abstract claims 'substantially improved computational efficiency relative to conventional nonconvex methods,' but Table VI shows RCOA and EOA are comparable in direct NLP runs (e.g., EI-P1: 0.3139 s vs 0.3047 s). The speed claim needs qualification.
  6. [Introduction] The phrase 'first general convex obstacle avoidance formulation' is too broad given prior convex-decomposition and convex-set approaches cited later (e.g., Refs. [49], [50]). A more precise novelty statement is needed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Central proof is circular: Assumption I builds the obstacle-avoidance property into the premises, and Eq. (14) is derived by writing the inequality constraints as equalities rather than from KKT stationarity.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section IV-A, Proof, Assumption I]
    "Assumptions: In the problem described above, the following apply: I. w is large enough to enforce γ_i → 0 when x_min ≤ X ≤ x_max."

    If γ_i→0 whenever X lies in [x_min, x_max], then constraint cI,3 (Y ≥ y_max − M3(γ1+γ2)) reduces, with Assumption II giving γ2=0, to Y ≥ y_max. That is exactly the obstacle-avoidance conditional (8) the proof claims to establish. The later conclusion that the vehicle is 'forced to move above the obstacle' and the outside-horizon property are therefore restatements of this assumption; no argument shows that a finite penalty weight w enforces γ_i→0. The target result is placed directly into the premises.

  2. self definitional [Section IV-A, Proof, Eq. (14)]
    "To study the influence of the first and third constraints, we compute the partial derivatives with respect to λ1 and λ3 ... Lλ1 = x_min − X − M1γ1 = 0; Lλ3 = y_max − Y − M3γ1 = 0. Solving ... yields: Y = y_max − (M3/M1)(x_min − X) (14). This expression shows that as X→x_min, then Y→y_max, thus forcing the vehicle to move above the obstacle."

    ∂L/∂λ1 and ∂L/∂λ3 are the constraint functions cI,1 and cI,3, not KKT stationarity conditions. Setting them to zero asserts that both inequality constraints are active, which is precisely the avoidance behavior that must be proven. Eq. (14) is just the active-set locus obtained by intersecting those two equality constraints, so the 'forcing' conclusion is the assumption used to derive the equation, not a consequence of optimality.

  3. other [Section IV-A, after Eq. (14)]
    "An important attribute of the formulation is revealed from the equation (14): the obstacle need not lie within the prediction horizon for the formulation to remain effective."

    Eq. (14) is a lower bound, Y ≥ y_max − (M3/M1)(x_min − X). For an obstacle outside the horizon, the terminal X remains left of x_min, so this bound lies below y_max and need not constrain the trajectory at all. It only approaches y_max as X approaches x_min. Whether the bound is active depends on the uncalibrated ratio M3/M1 and the remaining distance; with feasible big-M values the constraint can be trivially satisfied. Since no M_i values or horizon ablation are provided, the claimed outside-horizon effectiveness is an artifact of assuming the active case and of the big-M ratio, not a derived property of the convex formulation.

full rationale

The headline claim—that RCOA remains effective when obstacles lie outside the prediction horizon—is supported only by a proof that reduces to its own assumptions. Assumption I states that w is large enough to force γ_i→0 exactly on the interval where avoidance is required, and with cI,3 this immediately gives the desired Y≥y_max condition. The quantitative link, Eq. (14), is obtained by setting ∂L/∂λ1=0 and ∂L/∂λ3=0; these are the constraint functions themselves, not stationarity conditions, so the proof assumes activity of the avoidance constraints and then presents that activity as a derived force. The outside-horizon conclusion also depends on the unexamined big-M ratio M3/M1 and on the distance remaining to the obstacle, so it is parameter-dependent rather than a formulation property. The experimental comparisons with external solvers are not themselves circular, and there are no load-bearing self-citations; but the paper's central theoretical novelty is asserted through the proof's assumptions rather than established independently. The paper's own concessions that RCOA is a soft constraint with nodal and inter-sample penetrations (Sections IV-B, V-A2d) further limit the strength of the safety claim, though those are correctness/robustness concerns rather than additional circularity. Overall, the core 'horizon-independent' derivation is circular, warranting a score of 7.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on tuning parameters (w, M, SCvx settings) whose values are not reported, and on an ad hoc assumption that the penalty is strong enough to enforce the desired avoidance—the very property to be proved. No new physical entities are introduced; the γ variables are auxiliary optimization variables, not new physical objects.

free parameters (5)
  • Penalty weight w (w2 in the NMPC cost) = not specified
    In f_obs = w(γ1+γ2) and (33a), w balances avoidance against path tracking. Assumption I requires w to be 'large enough' to enforce the desired γ→0 behavior, but no value or scheduling is given.
  • Big-M constants M1..M5 = not specified
    Chosen 'sufficiently large' (Assumption V). The outside-horizon slope in Eq. (14) is M3/M1, so their relative magnitude controls the claimed effect; no values or bounds are reported.
  • SCvx trust-region and elastic parameters = ε=0.02; others not specified
    The paper states SCvx results are sensitive to initial trust region, elastic weights, and exit tolerances, but gives only the ε value. These affect runtime and convergence.
  • NMPC cost weights w1..w5 = not specified
    Used in the closed-loop OCPs (33a) and (35); values are not listed, so simulation results depend on undisclosed tuning.
  • Temporal node counts N = 30, 34, or 75 depending on environment
    Node counts are chosen by hand to balance integration error and obstacle resolution. EOA uses 75 nodes vs RCOA's 30 in EI, which affects the runtime comparison.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The rest of the OCP is convex: f0 is convex and cE is affine.
    The convexity claim requires this. In P1 the nonlinear vehicle dynamics are nonconvex, and even P2 retains a nonconvex rotation term f2(xL), so the tested problems are not actually convex.
  • domain assumption Obstacles are axis-aligned rectangles and the vehicle is a point; only above/below escape directions are used.
    Eqs. (8)-(11) and all experiments assume this. The paper explicitly defers 3D and full vehicle geometry to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption I: penalty weight w is large enough to force γ_i→0 when X is in the obstacle's x-interval.
    Introduced in the proof in Section IV-A. This is the desired avoidance property placed in the assumptions rather than derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Big-M constants are sufficiently large to preserve feasibility.
    Assumption V in Section IV-A. No values are given, and the outside-horizon behavior depends on the ratio M3/M1.
  • domain assumption The dynamic obstacle has constant velocity with horizontal component only.
    Section V-B1a simplifies the closed-loop scenario: Xo, Yo evolve at constant Uo. This limits the generality of the claimed dynamic-obstacle results.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27556 in / 15556 out tokens · 133999 ms · 2026-08-03T16:19:40.298456+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Autonomous driving requires reliable collision avoidance in dynamic environments. Nonlinear Model Predictive Controllers (NMPCs) are suitable for this task, but struggle in time-critical scenarios requiring high frequency. To meet this demand, optimization problems are often simplified via linearization, narrowing the horizon window, or reduced temporal nodes, each compromising accuracy or reliability. This work presents the first general convex obstacle avoidance formulation, enabled by a novel approach to integrating logic. This facilitates the incorporation of an obstacle avoidance formulation into convex MPC schemes, enabling a convex optimization framework with substantially improved computational efficiency relative to conventional nonconvex methods. A key property of the formulation is that obstacle avoidance remains effective even when obstacles lie outside the prediction horizon, allowing shorter horizons for real-time deployment. In scenarios where nonconvex formulations are unavoidable, the proposed method meets or exceeds the performance of representative nonconvex alternatives. The method is evaluated in autonomous vehicle applications, where system dynamics are highly nonlinear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13836 by Iman Soltani, Ricardo Tapia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Initial RCOA trajectory when an obstacle-free trajec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Free-body diagram of single-track bicycle model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Path error kinematics: {E} is the inertial frame, {FS} is the FrenetSerret frame along the path s(t), and {B} is the vehicle body-fixed frame. is defined in one of the subsequent sections. The following section describes modifications made to the SCvx algorithm that were deemed necessary. 1) Successive Algorithms: The SCvx algorithm relies on the elastic problem [23] and is constrained by a trust region (∆… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cluttered environment I, obstacle definition and refer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cluttered environment II, obstacle definition and ref [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Environment I, resulting trajectories for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Corrected RCOA Trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left-maneuver at a four-way intersection with oncom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Simulation 2, (top) vehicle and obstacle trajectory, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Simulation 2, longitudinal (vx) [4] M. Pivtoraiko, R. A. Knepper, and A. Kelly, “Differentially constrained mobile robot motion planning in state lattices,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 26, no. 3, 2009, ISSN: 15564959. DOI: 10.1002/rob. 20285 [5] S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–8… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. RCOA Extension and Applications

    eess.SY 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    3D multi-point RCOA enables real-time NMPC UAV obstacle avoidance with short horizons and competitive latency versus ellipsoidal and dual-set methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Real-Time Obstacle Avoidance for Manipulators and Mobile Robots,

    O. Khatib, “Real-Time Obstacle Avoidance for Manipulators and Mobile Robots,” inProceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, Apr. 1985, pp. 500–505.DOI: 10. 1109/ROBOT.1985.1087247

    arXiv 1985

  2. [2]

    Real-time obstacle avoidance for fast mobile robots in cluttered environments,

    J. Borenstein and Y . Koren, “Real-time obstacle avoidance for fast mobile robots in cluttered environments,” inProceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Jun. 1990, pp. 572–577,ISBN: 0-8186-9061-5.DOI: 10 . 1109 / ROBOT . 1990 . 126042

    1990

  3. [3]

    Rapidly-Exploring Random Trees: Progress and Prospects,

    S. M. LaValle and J. J. Kuffner, “Rapidly-Exploring Random Trees: Progress and Prospects,” inAlgorithmic and Computational Robotics, 2020.DOI: 10.1201/9781439864135-43 0 10 20 30 X [m] 0 5 10Y [m] 0 7 14 14 21 21 28 28 35 35 42 42 4949 56 14 15 16 17 18 19 X [m] 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5Y [m] 30313233 35363738394041 42 43 44 45 46 Fig. 12: Simulation 2, (to...

    work page doi:10.1201/9781439864135-43 2020

  4. [4]

    Differentially constrained mobile robot motion planning in state lattices,

    M. Pivtoraiko, R. A. Knepper, and A. Kelly, “Differentially constrained mobile robot motion planning in state lattices,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 26, no. 3, 2009,ISSN: 15564959.DOI: 10.1002/rob. 20285

    doi:10.1002/rob 2009

  5. [5]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011.DOI: 10.1177/0278364911406761 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364911406761

    doi:10.1177/0278364911406761 2011

  6. [6]

    Marcucci, M

    T. Marcucci, M. Petersen, D. von Wrangel, and R. Tedrake,Motion Planning around Obstacles with Convex Optimization, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.04422

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    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,” in2021 Ameri- can Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 3882–3889.DOI: 10.23919/ ACC50511.2021.9483029

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Shortest Paths in Graphs of Convex Sets,

    T. Marcucci, J. Umenberger, P. Parrilo, and R. Tedrake, “Shortest Paths in Graphs of Convex Sets,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 507–532, 2024.DOI: 10.1137/22M1523790 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1523790

    doi:10.1137/22m1523790 2024

  9. [9]

    Fast direct multiple shooting algorithms for optimal robot control,

    M. Diehl, H. Bock, H. Diedam, and P.-B. Wieber, “Fast direct multiple shooting algorithms for optimal robot control,” inFast Motions in Biomechanics and Robotics: Optimization and Feedback Control, M. Diehl and K. Mombaur, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 65–93,ISBN: 978-3-540-36119-0.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-36119- 0 4 [Online]. Available: https:...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-36119- 2006

  10. [10]

    A simple and efficient algorithm for nonlinear model predictive control,

    L. Stella, A. Themelis, P. Sopasakis, and P. Patrinos, “A simple and efficient algorithm for nonlinear model predictive control,” in2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2017, pp. 1939–1944.DOI: 10.1109/CDC.2017.8263933 17

    arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    Vanroye, A

    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, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2303.16746

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Ma57 - a code for the solution of sparse symmetric definite and indefinite systems,

    I. S. Duff, “Ma57 - a code for the solution of sparse symmetric definite and indefinite systems,”ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, vol. 30, 2 2004,ISSN: 00983500.DOI: 10.1145/992200.992202

    arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    Gurobi optimizer,

    Gurobi Optimization, “Gurobi optimizer,”Gurobi Optimization, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Successive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence proper- ties,

    Y . Mao, M. Szmuk, and B. Ac ¸ikmese, “Successive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence proper- ties,”2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 3636–3641, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:1457699

    2016

  15. [15]

    R. N. Jazar,Vehicle dynamics: Theory and applications, 3rd ed. Springer Cham, Aug. 2018,ISBN: 978-3-319-53440-4.DOI: 10.1007/ 978-3-319-53441-1

    2018

  16. [16]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2014,ISBN: 978-0-521-83378-3.DOI: 10 . 1017 / CBO9780511804441 [Online]. Available: https: // web. stanford. edu/ %7Eboyd/cvxbook/

    2014

  17. [17]

    Interior point methods 25 years later,

    J. Gondzio, “Interior point methods 25 years later,”European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 218, no. 3, pp. 587–601, 2012,ISSN: 0377-2217.DOI: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . ejor . 2011 . 09 . 017 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0377221711008204

    2012

  18. [18]

    Superlinear convergence of an interior-point method for monotone variational inequalities,

    D. Ralph and S. Wright, “Superlinear convergence of an interior-point method for monotone variational inequalities,” Argonne National Lab., IL (United States). Mathematics and Computer Science Div., Jan. 1996. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/220597

    1996

  19. [19]

    Numerical optimization,

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, “Numerical optimization,” inSpringer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering, 2006.DOI: 10.1201/b19115-11

    work page doi:10.1201/b19115-11 2006

  20. [20]

    Line Search Filter Methods for Nonlinear Programming: Motivation and Global Convergence,

    A. W ¨achter and L. T. Biegler, “Line Search Filter Methods for Nonlinear Programming: Motivation and Global Convergence,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–31, 2005.DOI: 10 . 1137 / S1052623403426556 [Online]. Available: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1137/S1052623403426556

    2005

  21. [21]

    A globally convergent primal-dual interior-point filter method for nonlinear programming,

    M. Ulbrich, S. Ulbrich, and L. N. Vicente, “A globally convergent primal-dual interior-point filter method for nonlinear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 379–410, 2004,ISSN: 1436-4646.DOI: 10.1007/s10107- 003- 0477- 4 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-003-0477-4

    doi:10.1007/s10107- 2004

  22. [22]

    On the Local Behavior of an Inte- rior Point Method for Nonlinear Programming,

    R. H. Byrd, G. Lui, and J. Nocedal, “On the Local Behavior of an Inte- rior Point Method for Nonlinear Programming,” English, inNumerical Analysis, Addison-Wesley, 1997, pp. 37–56. [Online]. Available: https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18330431

    1997

  23. [23]

    Sequential Quadratic Programming Methods,

    P. E. Gill and E. Wong, “Sequential Quadratic Programming Methods,” inMixed Integer Nonlinear Programming, J. Lee and S. Leyffer, Eds., New York, NY: Springer New York, 2012, pp. 147–224,ISBN: 978- 1-4614-1927-3

    2012

  24. [24]

    Integer Programming,

    M. Conforti, G. Cornu ´ejols, and G. Zambelli, “Integer Programming,”

  25. [25]

    Branch and bound algorithm for computing the minimum stability degree of parameter-dependent linear systems,

    V . Balakrishnan, S. Boyd, and S. Balemi, “Branch and bound algorithm for computing the minimum stability degree of parameter-dependent linear systems,”International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Con- trol, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 295–317, 1991.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ rnc.4590010404 [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/abs/10.1002/...

    work page doi:10.1002/rnc.4590010404 1991

  26. [26]

    An algorithm for integer solutions to linear programs,

    R. E. Gomory, “An algorithm for integer solutions to linear programs,”

  27. [27]

    Lee and S

    J. Lee and S. Leyffer,Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming, 1st ed. Springer New York, Dec. 2011,ISBN: 9781461419273, 1461419271

    2011

  28. [28]

    On convergence in mixed integer pro- gramming,

    A. Del Pia and R. Weismantel, “On convergence in mixed integer pro- gramming,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 397–412, 2012,ISSN: 1436-4646.DOI: 10.1007/s10107-011-0476-9 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-011-0476-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10107-011-0476-9 2012

  29. [29]

    Mixed-integer nonlinear optimization,

    P. Belotti, C. Kirches, S. Leyffer, J. Linderoth, J. Luedtke, and A. Mahajan, “Mixed-integer nonlinear optimization,”Acta Numerica, vol. 22, May 2013.DOI: 10.1017/S0962492913000032

    doi:10.1017/s0962492913000032 2013

  30. [30]

    Branch and Bound Experiments in Convex Nonlinear Integer Programming,

    O. K. Gupta and A. Ravindran, “Branch and Bound Experiments in Convex Nonlinear Integer Programming,”Management Science, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1533–1546, 1985,ISSN: 00251909, 15265501. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631793

    arXiv 1985

  31. [31]

    An LP/NLP based branch and bound algorithm for convex MINLP optimization problems,

    I. Quesada and I. E. Grossmann, “An LP/NLP based branch and bound algorithm for convex MINLP optimization problems,”Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 937–947, 1992,ISSN: 0098-1354.DOI: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / 0098 - 1354(92 ) 80028 - 8 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 0098135492800288

    1992

  32. [32]

    Introduction to Global Optimization,

    L. Liberti, “Introduction to Global Optimization,” LIX, Ecole Polytech- nique, Palaiseau, Tech. Rep., Feb. 2008. [Online]. Available: https : / / citeseerx . ist . psu . edu / document ? repid = rep1 & type = pdf & doi = 57811bfeae8b74dd81ca59970afc0d3e28c9741b

    2008

  33. [33]

    An algorithmic framework for convex mixed integer nonlinear programs,

    P. Bonami et al., “An algorithmic framework for convex mixed integer nonlinear programs,”Discrete Optimization, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2008,ISSN: 1572-5286.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disopt.2006. 10.011 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1572528607000448

    work page doi:10.1016/j.disopt.2006 2008

  34. [34]

    Knitro: An Integrated Package for Nonlinear Optimization,

    R. H. Byrd, J. Nocedal, and R. A. Waltz, “Knitro: An Integrated Package for Nonlinear Optimization,” inLarge-Scale Nonlinear Opti- mization, G. Di Pillo and M. Roma, Eds., Boston, MA: Springer US, 2006, pp. 35–59,ISBN: 978-0-387-30065-8.DOI: 10 . 1007 / 0 - 387 - 30065-1 4 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-30065- 1 4

    work page doi:10.1007/0-387-30065- 2006

  35. [35]

    Global optimization of nonconvex NLPs and MINLPs with applications in process design,

    H. S. Ryoo and N. V . Sahinidis, “Global optimization of nonconvex NLPs and MINLPs with applications in process design,”Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 551–566, 1995,ISSN: 0098-1354.DOI: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / 0098 - 1354(94 ) 00097 - 2 [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 0098135494000972

    1995

  36. [36]

    Integrating SQP and Branch-and-Bound for Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming,

    S. Leyffer, “Integrating SQP and Branch-and-Bound for Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming,” Tech. Rep., 2001, pp. 295–309

    2001

  37. [37]

    A comparative study of SQP-type algorithms for nonlinear and nonconvex mixed-integer optimization,

    O. Exler, T. Lehmann, and K. Schittkowski, “A comparative study of SQP-type algorithms for nonlinear and nonconvex mixed-integer optimization,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 383–412, 2012,ISSN: 1867-2957.DOI: 10.1007/s12532-012-0045- 0 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12532-012-0045-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s12532-012-0045- 2012

  38. [38]

    Optimisation of the operation of gas transmission systems,

    K. F. Pratt and J. G. Wilson, “Optimisation of the operation of gas transmission systems,”Transactions of the Institute of Measurement & Control, vol. 6, no. 4, 1984,ISSN: 01423312.DOI: 10 . 1177 / 014233128400600411

    1984

  39. [39]

    A twist on slp algorithms for nlp and minlp problems: An application to gas transmission networks,

    ´A. M. Gonz ´alez Rueda, J. Gonz ´alez D ´ıaz, and M. P. Fern ´andez de C ´ordoba, “A twist on slp algorithms for nlp and minlp problems: An application to gas transmission networks,”Optimization and Engi- neering, vol. 20, no. 2, 2019,ISSN: 1573-2924.DOI: 10.1007/s11081- 018-9407-4

    doi:10.1007/s11081- 2019

  40. [40]

    Differential Games. A Mathematical Theory with Ap- plications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control and Optimization,

    R. Isaacs, “Differential Games. A Mathematical Theory with Ap- plications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control and Optimization,”The Mathematical Gazette, vol. 51, no. 375, 1965,ISSN: 0025-5572.DOI: 10.2307/3613661

    work page doi:10.2307/3613661 1965

  41. [41]

    Distance functions and their application to robot path planning in the presence of obstacles,

    E. Gilbert and D. Johnson, “Distance functions and their application to robot path planning in the presence of obstacles,”IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, pp. 21–30, 1 1985.DOI: 10.1109/ JRA.1985.1087003

    arXiv 1985

  42. [42]

    Real-Time Quad-Rotor Path Planning Using Convex Op- timization and Compound State-Triggered Constraints,

    M. Szmuk, D. Malyuta, T. P. Reynolds, M. S. Mceowen, and B. Acikmese, “Real-Time Quad-Rotor Path Planning Using Convex Op- timization and Compound State-Triggered Constraints,” Feb. 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09149

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    An improved sequential convex programming obstacle avoidance algorithm for autonomous vehicles,

    H. Tan, J. Diao, and Y .-H. Ni, “An improved sequential convex programming obstacle avoidance algorithm for autonomous vehicles,” in2024 14th Asian Control Conference (ASCC), 2024, pp. 356–361

    2024

  44. [44]

    Mixed integer programming for multi-vehicle path planning,

    T. Schouwenaars, B. De Moor, E. Feron, and J. How, “Mixed integer programming for multi-vehicle path planning,” in2001 European Control Conference, ECC 2001, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2001, pp. 2603–2608,ISBN: 9783952417362.DOI: 10. 23919/ecc.2001.7076321

    arXiv 2001

  45. [45]

    Constrained iterative LQR for on-road autonomous driving motion planning,

    J. Chen, W. Zhan, and M. Tomizuka, “Constrained iterative LQR for on-road autonomous driving motion planning,” in2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2017, pp. 1–7.DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2017.8317745

    arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Mixed- integer Programming in Motion Planning,

    D. Ioan, I. Prodan, S. Olaru, F. Stoican, and S.-I. Niculescu, “Mixed- integer Programming in Motion Planning,” Tech. Rep., 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

    2020

  47. [47]

    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, 2021.DOI: 10.1109/TCST.2019.2949540

    arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    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,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 286–292.DOI: 10.1109/ICRA46639. 2022.9812334 18

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    FASTER: Fast and Safe Trajectory Planner for Navigation in Unknown Environ- ments,

    J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, M. Everett, and J. P. How, “FASTER: Fast and Safe Trajectory Planner for Navigation in Unknown Environ- ments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 922–938, 2022,ISSN: 1941-0468.DOI: 10.1109/TRO.2021.3100142

    arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Computing Large Convex Regions of Obstacle-Free Space Through Semidefinite Programming,

    R. Deits and R. Tedrake, “Computing Large Convex Regions of Obstacle-Free Space Through Semidefinite Programming,” inAlgorith- mic Foundations of Robotics XI: Selected Contributions of the Eleventh International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, H. L. Akin, N. M. Amato, V . Isler, and A. F. van der Stappen, Eds., Cham: Springer Internat...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0 2015

  51. [51]

    Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,

    A. Bemporad and M. Morari, “Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,”Automatica, vol. 35, pp. 407–427, 1999

    1999

  52. [52]

    Centralized non- convex model predictive control for cooperative collision avoidance of networked vehicles,

    B. Alrifaee, M. G. Mamaghani, and D. Abel, “Centralized non- convex model predictive control for cooperative collision avoidance of networked vehicles,” in2014 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control (ISIC), 2014, pp. 1583–1588,ISBN: 2158-9879. DOI: 10.1109/ISIC.2014.6967623

    arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    On the use of mixed-integer linear programming for predictive control with avoidance constraints,

    M. H. Maia and R. K. H. Galv ˜ao, “On the use of mixed-integer linear programming for predictive control with avoidance constraints,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 822–828, May 2009,ISSN: 1049-8923.DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1002/rnc.1341 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.1341

    work page doi:10.1002/rnc.1341 2009

  54. [54]

    Inter-sample avoidance in trajectory optimizers using mixed-integer linear programming,

    A. Richards and O. Turnbull, “Inter-sample avoidance in trajectory optimizers using mixed-integer linear programming,”International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 521–526, Mar. 2015,ISSN: 1049-8923.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.3101 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.3101

    work page doi:10.1002/rnc.3101 2015

  55. [55]

    Embedded nonlinear model predictive control for obstacle avoidance using PANOC,

    A. Sathya, P. Sopasakis, R. Van Parys, A. Themelis, G. Pipeleers, and P. Patrinos, “Embedded nonlinear model predictive control for obstacle avoidance using PANOC,” in2018 European Control Conference, ECC 2018, 2018.DOI: 10.23919/ECC.2018.8550253

    arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    D. P. Bertsekas,Nonlinear Programming. Athena Scientific, 1999

    1999

  57. [57]

    Trajectory planning for Bertha A local, continuous method,

    J. Ziegler, P. Bender, T. Dang, and C. Stiller, “Trajectory planning for Bertha A local, continuous method,” in2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Proceedings, 2014, pp. 450–457,ISBN: 1931-0587.DOI: 10.1109/IVS.2014.6856581

    arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Shared Steering Control Using Safe Envelopes for Obstacle Avoidance and Vehicle Stability,

    S. M. Erlien, S. Fujita, and J. C. Gerdes, “Shared Steering Control Using Safe Envelopes for Obstacle Avoidance and Vehicle Stability,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 441–451, 2016.DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2015.2453404

    arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Staying within the nullcline boundary for vehicle envelope control using a sliding surface,

    C. G. Bobier and J. C. Gerdes, “Staying within the nullcline boundary for vehicle envelope control using a sliding surface,”Vehicle System Dynamics, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 199–217, Feb. 2013,ISSN: 0042-3114. DOI: 10.1080/00423114.2012.720377 [Online]. Available: https://doi. org/10.1080/00423114.2012.720377

    arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    H. B. Pacejka,Tire and Vehicle Dynamics. 2012,ISBN: 978-0-08- 097016-5.DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-6918-4.X5000-X

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-6918-4.x5000-x 2012

  61. [61]

    Path Tracking Controllers for Fast Skidding Rover,

    M. Krid, Z. Zamzami, and F. Benamar, “Path Tracking Controllers for Fast Skidding Rover,” inInformatics in Control, Automation and Robotics 12th International Conference, ICINCO 2015 Colmar, France, July 21-23, 2015 Revised Selected Papers, J. Filipe, K. Madani, O. Gusikhin, and J. Sasiadek, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 29–47,I...

    2015

  62. [62]

    S. Fu, C. Zhang, W. Zhang, and X. Niu,Design and Simulation of Tracked Mobile Robot Path Planning. Jul. 2021, pp. 86–90.DOI: 10. 1109/BDAI52447.2021.9515251

    arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Robust H∞output-feedback control for path following of autonomous ground vehicles,

    H. Jing, C. Hu, F. Yan, M. Chadli, R. Wang, and N. Chen, “Robust H∞output-feedback control for path following of autonomous ground vehicles,” in2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2015, pp. 1515–1520.DOI: 10.1109/CDC.2015.7402425

    arXiv 2015

  64. [64]

    Trajectory tracking for two-steering- wheels mobile robots,

    A. Micaelli and C. Samson, “Trajectory tracking for two-steering- wheels mobile robots,”IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 27, no. 14, pp. 249–256, Sep. 1994,ISSN: 1474-6670.DOI: 10 . 1016 / S1474 - 6670(17)47322-8

    1994

  65. [65]

    Model Predic- tive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor Flight,

    A. Romero, S. Sun, P. Foehn, and D. Scaramuzza, “Model Predic- tive Contouring Control for Time-Optimal Quadrotor Flight,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 6, 2022,ISSN: 19410468.DOI: 10.1109/TRO.2022.3173711

    arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    Principles of guidance-based path following in 2d and 3d,

    M. Breivik and T. I. Fossen, “Principles of guidance-based path following in 2d and 3d,” inProceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2005, pp. 627–634.DOI: 10 . 1109 / CDC . 2005.1582226

    arXiv 2005

  67. [67]

    Nonlinear maneuvering and control of ships,

    R. Skjetne and T. I. Fossen, “Nonlinear maneuvering and control of ships,” inOceans Conference Record (IEEE), vol. 3, 2001, pp. 1808– 1815.DOI: 10.1109/oceans.2001.968121

    arXiv 2001

  68. [68]

    Nonlinear programming without a penalty function,

    R. Fletcher and S. Leyffer, “Nonlinear programming without a penalty function,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 239–269, 2002,ISSN: 1436-4646.DOI: 10 . 1007 / s101070100244 [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s101070100244

    doi:10.1007/s101070100244 2002

  69. [69]

    Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajectories Reliably and Efficiently,

    D. Malyuta et al., “Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajectories Reliably and Efficiently,”IEEE Control Systems, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 40–113, Oct. 2022,ISSN: 1941000X.DOI: 10.1109/MCS.2022.3187542

    arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, “CVXPY: A Python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 17, no. 83, pp. 1–5, 2016

    2016

  71. [71]

    CasADi - A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi - A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,”Mathematical Programming Computation, 2018

    2018

  72. [72]

    On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,

    A. W ¨achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear program- ming,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 25–57, 2006, ISSN: 1436-4646.DOI: 10 . 1007 / s10107 - 004 - 0559 - y [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y

    doi:10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y 2006

  73. [73]

    Traffic safety facts - 2021 data: Motorcy- cles,

    N. H. T. S. Administration, “Traffic safety facts - 2021 data: Motorcy- cles,” U.S. Department of Transportation, Technical Report, Jun. 2023, Revised edition. [Online]. Available: https://www.nhtsa.gov

    2021

  74. [74]

    Advanced slip ratio for ensuring numerical stability of low-speed driving simulation: Part IIlateral slip ratio,

    T. Y . Kim, S. Jung, and W. S. Yoo, “Advanced slip ratio for ensuring numerical stability of low-speed driving simulation: Part IIlateral slip ratio,”Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 233, no. 11, pp. 2903–2911, Sep. 2019,ISSN: 20412991.DOI: 10.1177/0954407018807040 Tapia, Ricardo(membe...

    doi:10.1177/0954407018807040 2019

  75. [1958]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 116324171

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 116324171

  76. [2014]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 41752617

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 41752617