Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

One outer-loop add-on can make closed-architecture robots track accurately and stay safe, despite a locked, unknown inner-loop controller.

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 18:24 UTC pith:2EBQSDMQ

load-bearing objection Useful extension of the authors' ESO-CBF framework to high relative degree with real hardware, but the formal safety guarantee has an unproved discrete-time link and a circularly estimated disturbance bound. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.05292 v3 pith:2EBQSDMQ submitted 2025-12-04 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Unified Disturbance Aware Safe Kinematic Control for Closed-Architecture Robots

Fan Zhang , Jinfeng Chen , Joseph J. B. Mvogo Ahanda , Hanz Richter , Ge Lv , Bin Hu , Qin Lin This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY MSC 93C85
keywords disturbance rejectionextended state observercontrol barrier functionclosed architecturekinematic controlforward invariancerobotic manipulatorsafe 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.

Commercial robots often ship with an inner-loop torque controller that users cannot touch or inspect; only the outer-loop kinematic command (joint velocity or position) is open. This paper's central claim is that a single add-on at that outer loop can deliver both high-precision tracking and provable safety for the whole robot, using only a nominal second-order model and no knowledge of the inner loop. The trick is to pack all uncertainty—model error, imperfect inner loop, external forces—into one 'total disturbance,' estimate it online with an extended state observer, and feed that estimate both to the tracking controller and to a control-barrier-function safety filter. The theoretical result (Theorem 3) proves forward invariance of a high-order safety set under matched disturbances, and the authors demonstrate the method on a PUMA manipulator at 1 kHz. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns safety-critical control into an easily addable software patch for legacy industrial arms.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that kinematic control of an uncertain closed-architecture robot can be reduced to estimating, per joint, one scalar total disturbance f and using that estimate twice: in a disturbance-rejection term that cancels f at the nominal-model level, and in a robust high-order control-barrier-function constraint that compensates for the remaining estimation error. Theorem 3 states that any controller satisfying the robust CBF constraint (52)—which subtracts a precomputed error bound Γ(ω_o, T_s) from the nominal CBF inequality—keeps the safety set forward invariant for the nonlinear affine system (41), as long as the disturbance derivative is bounded (Assumptio

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is ESOR-QP, a quadratic-program safety filter whose hard constraint is the robust control-barrier-function inequality (52). An extended state observer (ESO) (24) treats each joint's total disturbance as an extra state and estimates it from measured joint velocity. The CBF constraint then uses the estimate together with a deterministic error bound Γ(ω_o, T_s) derived from the observer error dynamics (49)–(51), or equivalently from a Lipschitz bound l_f on the time derivative of the disturbance. That error-bound term is what converts a nominal-model CBF—which would rely on perfect tracking—into a provably safe filter for the full uncertain system.

Load-bearing premise

Assumption 3 (Section IV-E) requires a known constant l_f bounding the rate of change of the total disturbance; in the hardware experiments (Section VI-C1) l_f is obtained from finite differences of the ESO's estimated disturbance, so if the true rate exceeds the estimated l_f, the forward-invariance guarantee of Theorem 3 no longer holds even though the controller keeps running.

What would settle it

Drive the end-effector toward the virtual wall while imposing a disturbance whose |∂f_i/∂t| exceeds the l_f value used to compute Γ; if the safety function h (end-effector distance to the wall) crosses below zero while constraint (52) remains satisfied, the forward-invariance claim is false.

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

If this is right

  • Any commercial robot whose inner-loop controller is unmodifiable can gain tracking and safety guarantees by adding an outer-loop module, without touching firmware.
  • The same ESO estimate serves two purposes—disturbance rejection for accuracy and a robustness margin for safety—so no separate worst-case disturbance bound is required.
  • High-order safety specifications, such as end-effector distance to a virtual wall, can be enforced under matched uncertainty, not just simple first-order constraints.
  • Hardware results on a PUMA 500 demonstrate the add-on runs at 1 kHz and reaches tracking precision comparable to a learning-based adaptive controller, without a neural network or its tuning burden.
  • The proposed method also handles payload changes and external disturbances that would violate a nominal-model CBF, as shown in the reported experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the safety proof hinges on a known l_f, a natural next step is to estimate l_f online or adaptively; the same framework could then self-adjust Γ and preserve the forward-invariance argument under time-varying disturbance rates.
  • The total-disturbance view likely ports to other cascade-control robots (e.g., mobile manipulators or legged systems with firmware-level torque loops) as long as disturbances remain matched and joint velocity is measurable.
  • The explicit discrete-time error bound (49)–(51) may scale more tightly with observer bandwidth than Lyapunov-style bounds, reducing conservatism in safe control; this is an inference from the derivation, not a claim the paper makes.
  • A direct experimental comparison of the proposed ESO-based error bound against a disturbance-observer-based CBF error bound on the same testbed would clarify how much conservatism each observer structure actually saves.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified outer-loop add-on for closed-architecture robotic manipulators. The inner-loop torque controller is assumed to have only a weak structural form (Assumption 1), and the user can command only kinematic quantities. An extended state observer (ESO) estimates a total disturbance that is used both for disturbance-rejection tracking control and for a robust control barrier function (CBF) safety filter. The main theoretical results are: (i) Theorem 1, bounded/asymptotic tracking stability under ESO-based disturbance compensation; (ii) Theorem 2, forward invariance of the safety set when the disturbance is known; and (iii) Theorem 3, the corresponding robust forward-invariance guarantee when only the ESO estimate and a disturbance-derivative bound are available. The manuscript validates the method on a PUMA 500 with hardware experiments including payload variation, external disturbance, and gravity disturbance, and compares tracking with a learning-based adaptive controller and safety with a DOB-CBF.

Significance. If the theoretical claims hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it addresses a relevant closed-architecture scenario with minimal knowledge of the inner loop, a simple add-on structure, and a formal safety framework. The extension of the prior ESO-based robust CBF from relative degree one to arbitrary relative degree is significant, and the hardware implementation at 1 kHz with comparisons to both a learned adaptive controller and a DOB-CBF is a strength. The assumptions on the inner-loop controller are among the weakest in the literature, and the nominal-model formulation allows easy integration. However, the central safety theorem is not fully established as stated: the continuous-time error bound used in Theorem 3 is imported from a discrete-time analysis without proof, and the experimental estimate of the required bound is obtained from the same runs used to demonstrate safety. These are load-bearing issues, but they are fixable by providing a rigorous continuous-time/sampled-data analysis and an a priori bound or independent verification of the disturbance-derivative constant.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-E, Eq. (51)–(53), Theorem 3] The forward-invariance proof of Theorem 3 requires the scalar inequality |f_i(t)−f̂_i(t)| ≤ Γ_i(ω_o,T_s) to hold for all continuous t. However, Eq. (51) is explicitly stated as a discrete-time convolution result imported from [35], and the paper's only justification for the continuous-time validity is the sentence 'the disturbance estimation error bound obtained from it is still the same as that from the continuous-time domain.' No intersample analysis or proof is given. The subsequent comment that 'T_s should be small, such as 0.1 ms' is a heuristic, and it conflicts with the stated 1 kHz hardware sampling rate. Without a continuous-time bound, inequality (53) does not follow, so Theorem 3 is not proven. Please either derive a genuine continuous-time bound, or reformulate Theorem 3 in an explicit sampled-data setting with sampled-data safety verification.
  2. [§VI-C1, Fig. 12b; Assumption 3] Assumption 3 requires a known positive constant l_f such that |∂f_i/∂t| ≤ l_f. In the hardware experiments, l_f is not known a priori: the text states that finite differences of the ESO's estimated f̂ are computed and their maximum is used as the bound. This is circular with respect to the safety demonstration: the estimated disturbance derivative can be smaller than the true derivative, and a finite maximum over one experiment is not a guaranteed upper bound. If l_f is underestimated, Γ in (51) is too small and the key inequality in (53) fails, so the forward-invariance claim collapses. The paper acknowledges at the end of VI-C1 only that 'the disturbance rate of change be carefully estimated,' which is practical tuning advice, not a verified condition. Please provide an a priori, physical or model-based bound for l_f, or state explicitly that the hardware results are heuristic and not
  3. [§IV-E, Eq. (50)–(51), Appendix A] The discrete-time quantities in Eq. (50) are not fully defined in this manuscript: r_i is the relative degree of q̇_i with respect to f_i, and ω_oi is a discrete-time pole, but the precise discretization and the relationship between the continuous-time observer (24) and the discrete-time error formula (49) are left to reference [35]. Since the reader cannot verify the applicability of this bound to the system (41) and the ESO (24), please state the exact mapping from continuous observer gains to discrete-domain parameters and include the relevant derivation or a self-contained statement of the result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-E, after Eq. (51)] The sentence 'T_s should be small, such as 0.1 ms, in our experiment setting' is inconsistent with the 1 kHz sampling stated in §VI and the computational-complexity paragraph. Please clarify which sampling time is used for the error-bound calculation and for the real-time implementation.
  2. [§VI-B2 and Fig. 10] The text repeatedly uses 'ANOV A' where 'ANOVA' is intended. Please correct this typo throughout.
  3. [§VI-C1, Fig. 12] The notation y0 = [y1, −0.1, y3]^T for a virtual wall is confusing; it appears to define a plane with a y-axis bound, not a vector point. Please use standard plane or half-space notation.
  4. [Table I] The table uses check marks and dashes that are explained only in the footnote; please make the meaning of the dashes clear directly in the table to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [§IV-E, Eq. (56)] The QP constraint uses strict inequalities h_i(x(0)) > 0, i = 0,1,2, while the safety sets (43) are defined with ≥. This is standard in CBF practice, but please state that the strict inequalities are a mild initial-condition requirement rather than part of the forward-invariance condition.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Theorem 3's safety guarantee relies on a self-cited discrete-time error bound and an l_f estimated from the same experimental data; the core tracking and CBF derivations are otherwise independent.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV-E, Eq. (49)-(51) and Theorem 3/Proof 3]
    "Readers are referred to our previous work [35] for a complete proof of this error bound, while a brief proof demonstrating that the sum of the series in (50) is bounded is provided in Appendix A. ... As mentioned in [11], although (51) is derived in the discrete-time domain, the disturbance estimation error bound obtained from it is still the same as that from the continuous-time domain."

    Theorem 3 is a continuous-time forward-invariance claim, but its quantitative ingredient Gamma_i(omega_o,T_s) comes from a discrete-time convolution error bound whose complete proof is outsourced to [35], by overlapping authors. The identification of the discrete bound with the continuous-time bound is justified only by a pointer to [11], also by the same group. The robust CBF constraint (52) therefore rests on self-citation rather than on an independently verified argument. This is load-bearing for the safety claim, although the underlying CBF iteration in Theorem 2 and the Lyapunov stability analysis are standard and independent.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section VI-C1, Fig. 12b; Assumption 3 and Eq. (51)-(53)]
    "We collect experimental data for the estimated ˆbe(x, d)and ˆffrom the DOB and ESO, respectively. Their finite differences are computed to obtain the maximum values, which serve as bounds on their rates of change. Fig. 12b illustrates the resultinghvalues after incorporating the estimation error bounds of the two approaches."

    Assumption 3 requires a known positive l_f with |∂f_i/∂t| ≤ l_f for all time, and this l_f feeds Gamma_i in (51) and the robust constraint in (52)-(53). In the hardware experiment, l_f is obtained as the maximum finite difference of the ESO estimate hat f from the same runs that are then declared safe. A finite-time maximum of hat f differences is not a guaranteed upper bound on the true derivative of f, so the error bound can be too small and the key inequality (53) need not hold. The positive h values in Fig. 12b are thus produced by the same fitted bound the theorem requires, making the experimental safety demonstration self-confirming. The authors acknowledge this only as tuning advice ('it is crucial that the disturbance rate of change be carefully estimated').

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is not circular in the sense of being equivalent to its inputs. The stability theorem (Theorem 1) follows from the ESO error dynamics and a Lyapunov argument, the higher-order CBF construction (Theorem 2) is a standard iterative forward-invariance argument, and Theorem 3 states a conditional guarantee under Assumption 3. The tracking controller and the robust CBF constraint are derived from stated assumptions rather than fitted to the target tracking or safety outcomes. However, two load-bearing steps weaken the safety claim. First, the error bound Gamma_i that makes Theorem 3 quantitative is a discrete-time result imported from the authors' own prior work [35], and the discrete-to-continuous identification is imported from their own [11]; no independent proof or external verification is supplied. Second, in the hardware safety experiments, the crucial l_f/Γ term is estimated from the same experimental data used to demonstrate safety, so the observed forward invariance is partly self-confirming rather than an independent validation. These issues raise the circularity score to 4 but do not make the central derivation circular: the mathematical statements remain conditional on assumptions, and the core CBF and stability proofs are independent of the fitted l_f value.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim relies on explicit structural assumptions on the inner-loop controller (Assumption 1), known kinematics (Assumption 2), and a known bound on the total disturbance derivative (Assumption 3). The safety proof further imports the ESO error-bound formula from the authors' prior work [35] and assumes its continuous-time validity. Tracking and safety theorems otherwise use standard Lyapunov/Nagumo arguments. Tuning parameters ω_o, γ, k_p/k_d, nominal gains, and l_f are chosen or estimated by hand/data.

free parameters (6)
  • observer bandwidth ω_o = 80 rad/s
    Chosen by hand for simulation and hardware; determines the ESO error bound Γ.
  • CBF gain γ = 10
    Controls conservatism; set to 10 in all safety experiments.
  • tracking gains k_p, k_d = not stated explicitly
    Used in u0; Theorem 1 says 'appropriate tuned' gains.
  • nominal inner-loop gain \bar{K}_d = diag([1,1,1])
    Nominal value set equal to the true K_d in experiments; central to b0.
  • nominal voltage gain \bar{B} = diag([20,40,10])
    Estimated through open-loop testing and fine-tuned in hardware.
  • disturbance derivative bound l_f / error bound Γ = estimated from finite differences of ESO output
    Computed from the same experimental data used to demonstrate safety; used in Theorem 3.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: inner-loop controller has structure τ = -K_d(qdot - qdot_d) + Ψ(·) with unknown Ψ
    Justifies expressing the system as (3); weak but unverifiable.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: robot kinematics are known
    Needed for task-space safety functions.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3: known bound l_f on |∂f_i/∂t|
    The safety guarantee depends on it; in experiments it is estimated from data, not known a priori.
  • domain assumption Nominal model (14) with \bar{C}=\bar{G}=0
    Used in all experiments; treats gravity/Coriolis as disturbance.
  • domain assumption ESO error-bound result from [35]
    Formulas (49)-(51) are imported; continuous-time equivalence asserted via [11].
  • standard math Nagumo's theorem and Lyapunov stability arguments
    Used in proofs of Theorems 1-3.
  • domain assumption Relative degree of h w.r.t. u and f both equal r
    For the virtual-wall h=y-y0, r=2; must hold for general safety functions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23538 in / 16883 out tokens · 144919 ms · 2026-08-03T18:24:24.451585+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In commercial robotic systems, it is common to encounter a closed inner-loop torque controller that is not user-modifiable. However, the outer-loop controller, which sends kinematic commands such as position or velocity for the inner-loop controller to track, is typically exposed to users. In this work, we focus on the development of an easily integrated add-on at the outer-loop layer by combining disturbance rejection control and robust control barrier function for high-performance tracking and safe control of the whole dynamic system of an industrial manipulator. This is particularly beneficial when 1) the inner-loop controller is imperfect, unmodifiable, and uncertain; and 2) the dynamic model exhibits significant uncertainty. Stability analysis, formal safety guarantee proof, and hardware experiments with a PUMA robotic manipulator are presented. Our solution demonstrates superior performance in terms of simplicity of implementation, robustness, tracking precision, and safety compared to the state of the art. A demonstration video is available at https://youtu.be/e0palGVU_50.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.05292 by Bin Hu, Fan Zhang, Ge Lv, Hanz Richter, Jinfeng Chen, Joseph J. B. Mvogo Ahanda, Qin Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Trajectory tracking of the PUMA 500 for an infinity-shaped reference. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The proposed framework in this paper, is marked as the Outer-loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PUMA 500 robot used as a testbed in our research. The figure is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The comparison of control bounds projected into each state with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Poor inner-loop PD controller’s performance for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of tracking errors with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparative tracking precision analysis: (a) Root Mean squared error (RMSE) in joint space: Proposed ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Inner-loop control command comparison for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experimental setup for robustness testing. Payloads of 1 kg (left), 1.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 3) Our approach has a shorter transient time, as shown in the trajectories and control signals during the first second in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Steady-state tracking error comparison with different payloads. (a) ANOVA analysis of the proposed method. (b) ANOVA analysis of the learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Safety boundary: y0 = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Safety boundary: y0 = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Safety boundary: y0 = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Safety boundary: y0 = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.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

45 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Dynamic modularity approach to adaptive control of robotic systems with closed architecture,

    H. Wang, W. Ren, C. C. Cheah, Y . Xie, and S. Lyu, “Dynamic modularity approach to adaptive control of robotic systems with closed architecture,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 2760–2767, 2019

    2019

  2. [2]

    Adaptive tracking control for industrial robot ma- nipulators with unknown inner loop architecture,

    J. J.-B. M. Ahanda, A. Melingui, O. Lakhal, B. E. Zobo, H. Kadri, and R. Merzouki, “Adaptive tracking control for industrial robot ma- nipulators with unknown inner loop architecture,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2022, pp. 9860–9866

    2022

  3. [3]

    Task-space control for industrial robot manipulators with unknown inner loop control architecture,

    J. J.-B. M. Ahanda, C. M. Aba, A. Melingui, B. E. Zobo, and R. Merzouki, “Task-space control for industrial robot manipulators with unknown inner loop control architecture,”Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 359, no. 12, pp. 6286–6310, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Control of robot manipulators with uncertain closed architecture using neural networks,

    G. D. Khan, “Control of robot manipulators with uncertain closed architecture using neural networks,”Intelligent Service Robotics, pp. 1–13, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Advancements in accuracy decline mechanisms and accuracy retention approaches of CNC machine tools: a review,

    W. Liu, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Y . Xia, J. Wang, and Y . Sun, “Advancements in accuracy decline mechanisms and accuracy retention approaches of CNC machine tools: a review,”The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 121, no. 11, pp. 7087–7115, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    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 Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    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,” in2019 18th European Control Conference, 2019, pp. 3420–3431

    2019

  8. [8]

    Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,

    T. G. Molnar, R. K. Cosner, A. W. Singletary, W. Ubellacker, and A. D. Ames, “Model-free safety-critical control for robotic systems,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 944–951, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    Safety-critical kinematic control of robotic systems,

    A. Singletary, S. Kolathaya, and A. D. Ames, “Safety-critical kinematic control of robotic systems,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 139–144, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    Safety-critical control with bounded inputs via reduced order models,

    T. G. Molnar and A. D. Ames, “Safety-critical control with bounded inputs via reduced order models,” in2023 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1414–1421

    2023

  11. [11]

    Robust control barrier functions for safe control under uncertainty using extended state observer and output measurement,

    J. Chen, Z. Gao, and Q. Lin, “Robust control barrier functions for safe control under uncertainty using extended state observer and output measurement,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2023, pp. 8477–8482

    2023

  12. [12]

    On the adaptive control of robot manipula- tors,

    J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, “On the adaptive control of robot manipula- tors,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 49–59, 1987

    1987

  13. [13]

    The robust control of robot manipulators,

    J.-J. E. Slotine, “The robust control of robot manipulators,”The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 49–64, 1985

    1985

  14. [14]

    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

    2018

  15. [15]

    Input-to-state safety with control barrier functions,

    S. Kolathaya and A. D. Ames, “Input-to-state safety with control barrier functions,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 108–113, 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    Safe controller synthesis with tunable input-to-state safe control barrier functions,

    A. Alan, A. J. Taylor, C. R. He, G. Orosz, and A. D. Ames, “Safe controller synthesis with tunable input-to-state safe control barrier functions,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 908–913, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    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 Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 1994–1999, 2022

    1994

  18. [18]

    Robust safety-critical control for dynamic robotics,

    Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Robust safety-critical control for dynamic robotics,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1073–1088, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    Parameterized barrier functions to guarantee safety under uncertainty,

    A. Alan, T. G. Molnar, A. D. Ames, and G. Orosz, “Parameterized barrier functions to guarantee safety under uncertainty,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 2077–2082, 2023

    2077

  20. [20]

    Disturbance observer-based robust control barrier functions,

    Y . Wang and X. Xu, “Disturbance observer-based robust control barrier functions,” in2023 American Control Conference, 2023, pp. 3681–3687

    2023

  21. [21]

    Robust safe control synthesis with dis- turbance observer-based control barrier functions,

    E. Das ¸ and R. M. Murray, “Robust safe control synthesis with dis- turbance observer-based control barrier functions,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2022, pp. 5566–5573

    2022

  22. [22]

    Distur- bance observers for robust safety-critical control with control barrier functions,

    A. Alan, T. G. Molnar, E. Das ¸, A. D. Ames, and G. Orosz, “Distur- bance observers for robust safety-critical control with control barrier functions,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 1123–1128, 2023

    2023

  23. [23]

    Adaptive robust quadratic programs using control Lyapunov and barrier functions,

    P. Zhao, Y . Mao, C. Tao, N. Hovakimyan, and X. Wang, “Adaptive robust quadratic programs using control Lyapunov and barrier functions,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2020, pp. 3353–3358

    2020

  24. [24]

    Safety-critical control with control barrier function based on disturbance observer,

    J. Sun, J. Yang, and Z. Zeng, “Safety-critical control with control barrier function based on disturbance observer,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 4750–4756, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Robust control barrier functions using uncer- tainty estimation with application to mobile robots,

    E. Das ¸ and J. W. Burdick, “Robust control barrier functions using uncer- tainty estimation with application to mobile robots,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (Early Access), 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Safety-critical disturbance rejection control of nonlinear systems with unmatched disturbances,

    X. Wang, J. Yang, C. Liu, Y . Yan, and S. Li, “Safety-critical disturbance rejection control of nonlinear systems with unmatched disturbances,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (Early Access), 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Safety-critical generalized predictive control for speed regulation of PMSM drives based on dynamic robust control barrier function,

    Z. Cao, J. Mao, C. Zhang, C. Cui, and J. Yang, “Safety-critical generalized predictive control for speed regulation of PMSM drives based on dynamic robust control barrier function,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 1881–1891, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    ESO-based safety-critical control for robotic systems with unmeasured velocity and input delay,

    S. Zhang, D.-H. Zhai, J. Lin, Y . Xiong, Y . Xia, and M. Wei, “ESO-based safety-critical control for robotic systems with unmeasured velocity and input delay,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 13 053–13 063, 2024

    2024

  29. [29]

    A composite control framework of safety satisfaction and uncertainties compensation for constrained time-varying nonlinear MIMO systems,

    H. Wang, J. Peng, F. Zhang, and Y . Wang, “A composite control framework of safety satisfaction and uncertainties compensation for constrained time-varying nonlinear MIMO systems,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 7864– 7875, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Disturbance observer-based robust control and its applications: 35th anniversary overview,

    E. Sariyildiz, R. Oboe, and K. Ohnishi, “Disturbance observer-based robust control and its applications: 35th anniversary overview,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 2042–2053, 2020

    2042

  31. [31]

    Task-space control of robot manipulators with null-space compliance,

    H. Sadeghian, L. Villani, M. Keshmiri, and B. Siciliano, “Task-space control of robot manipulators with null-space compliance,”IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 493–506, 2013

    2013

  32. [32]

    Kelly, V

    R. Kelly, V . Santib ´a˜nez, and A. Lor ´ıa,Control of robot manipulators in joint space. Springer, 2005, vol. 693

    2005

  33. [33]

    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,” in2016 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2016, pp. 322–328

    2016

  34. [34]

    Control barrier functions for systems with high relative degree,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “Control barrier functions for systems with high relative degree,” in2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2019, pp. 474–479

    2019

  35. [35]

    A general model-based ex- tended state observer with built-in zero dynamics,

    J. Chen, Z. Gao, Y . Hu, and S. Shao, “A general model-based ex- tended state observer with built-in zero dynamics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12314, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Scaling and bandwidth-parameterization based controller tun- ing,

    Z. Gao, “Scaling and bandwidth-parameterization based controller tun- ing,” in2003 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2003, pp. 4989– 4996

    2003

  37. [37]

    Perko,Differential equations and dynamical systems

    L. Perko,Differential equations and dynamical systems. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013, vol. 7

    2013

  38. [38]

    Blanchini, S

    F. Blanchini, S. Mianiet al.,Set-theoretic methods in control. Springer, 2008, vol. 78

    2008

  39. [39]

    Dynamic model identifi- cation for industrial robots,

    J. Swevers, W. Verdonck, and J. De Schutter, “Dynamic model identifi- cation for industrial robots,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 58–71, 2007

    2007

  40. [40]

    An iterative approach for accurate dynamic model identification of industrial robots,

    Y . Han, J. Wu, C. Liu, and Z. Xiong, “An iterative approach for accurate dynamic model identification of industrial robots,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1577–1594, 2020

    2020

  41. [41]

    Modeling and system identification of a life-size brake-actuated manipulator,

    B. Dellon and Y . Matsuoka, “Modeling and system identification of a life-size brake-actuated manipulator,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 481–491, 2009

    2009

  42. [42]

    The Pinocchio C++ library: A fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,

    J. Carpentier, G. Saurel, G. Buondonno, J. Mirabel, F. Lamiraux, O. Stasse, and N. Mansard, “The Pinocchio C++ library: A fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives,” in2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII). IEEE, 2019, pp. 614–619

    2019

  43. [43]

    Performance analysis of active disturbance rejection tracking control for a class of uncertain LTI systems,

    W. Xue and Y . Huang, “Performance analysis of active disturbance rejection tracking control for a class of uncertain LTI systems,”ISA Transactions, vol. 58, pp. 133–154, 2015

    2015

  44. [44]

    Trajectory optimization of robots with regenerative drive systems: Numerical and experimental results,

    P. Khalaf and H. Richter, “Trajectory optimization of robots with regenerative drive systems: Numerical and experimental results,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 501–516, 2019

    2019

  45. [45]

    Quadrotor fault-tolerant control at high speed: A model-based extended state observer for mismatched disturbance rejection approach,

    J. Chen, F. Zhang, B. Hu, and Q. Lin, “Quadrotor fault-tolerant control at high speed: A model-based extended state observer for mismatched disturbance rejection approach,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2024

    2024