REVIEW 2 cited by
A Collision Cone Approach for Control Barrier Functions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
This work presents a unified approach for collision avoidance using Collision-Cone Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) in both ground (UGV) and aerial (UAV) unmanned vehicles. We propose a novel CBF formulation inspired by collision cones, to ensure safety by constraining the relative velocity between the vehicle and the obstacle to always point away from each other. The efficacy of this approach is demonstrated through simulations and hardware implementations on the TurtleBot, Stoch-Jeep, and Crazyflie 2.1 quadrotor robot, showcasing its effectiveness in avoiding collisions with dynamic obstacles in both ground and aerial settings. The real-time controller is developed using CBF Quadratic Programs (CBF-QPs). Comparative analysis with the state-of-the-art CBFs highlights the less conservative nature of the proposed approach. Overall, this research contributes to a novel control formation that can give a guarantee for collision avoidance in unmanned vehicles by modifying the control inputs from existing path-planning controllers.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
From Non-Rigid to Rigid: Safe Acquisition of Rigid Communication Graphs under Limited Sensing
A distributed CBF-QP controller with a hierarchical 'splay' geometry acquires rigid communication graphs from non-rigid initial graphs under limited sensing while guaranteeing collision avoidance.
-
Time Shift Governor-Guided MPC with Collision Cone CBFs for Safe Adaptive Cruise Control in Dynamic Environments
A time shift governor combined with MPC-CBF cruise control achieved 100% collision-free performance in 50 simulated dynamic-driving trials, versus 82% for the baseline controller.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.