Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Control Barrier Functions via Minkowski Operations for Safe Navigation among Polytopes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The exact signed distance between a polytopic robot and polytopic obstacles has a single analytical gradient across safe, contact, and penetrating states, computed in Minkowski-difference space and used to build nonsmooth control barrier…

desk verdict The exact SDF gradient formula is a genuine advance, but the implemented almost-active set leaves a real gap between the forward-invariance theorem and the controller actually run. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02886 v1 pith:3NEMAWFD submitted 2026-08-03 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Yi-Hsuan Chen , Shuo Liu , Wei Xiao , Calin Belta , Michael Otte This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords SignedDistanceFunctionsNonsmoothControlBarrierMinkowskiOperationsDifferentiableOptimizationPolytopeCollisionAvoidanceSafety-CriticalUnicycleDynamicsLocalMinima
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to remove a persistent compromise in safety-critical robot control: polytopic robot and obstacle shapes are more accurate than spheres or ellipsoids, but their exact signed distance is implicit and nonsmooth, so most control barrier functions approximate the geometry. It claims that this exact signed distance can be computed in Minkowski-difference space by two companion convex programs—a quadratic program for the separated case and a linear program for penetration—and that all three regimes (safe, contact, colliding) share one analytical gradient formula. On that basis the authors construct a nonsmooth control barrier function, the SD-NCBF, whose safety filter uses exact geometry without conservative smoothing and can even recover from an unsafe initial state. If the claim is right, polytope-exact safety filters become practical at real-time rates and reveal a new class of geometry-kinematics deadlocks that earlier approximate gradients hid.

What carries the argument

The central object is the signed distance function in Minkowski-difference space, whose geometric carrier is the configuration obstacle $O^c = O \oplus (-R)$. The argument runs on two companion convex programs: the dist-QP (16), which projects the origin onto the configuration obstacle, and the depth-LP (18), which measures penetration as the distance from the origin to the closest configuration-obstacle hyperplane. The load-bearing identity is the pseudo-QP mapping of Lemma 5, which rescales the depth-LP multiplier by $2s^*$ so that the penetrating branch obeys the same signed stationarity relation $z^* = -\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{sgn}(sd)\,(A^c_I)^\top \lambda^*_I$ as the separated branch; combined with the 2D Minkowski-sum property that every configuration-obstacle edge is a translated edge of either the robot or the obstacle, this single algebraic form yields the closed-form spatial and rotational gradients (35)--(36).

What would settle it

Compare the closed-form gradient (35)--(36) against central finite differences of the exact SDF obtained by solving (16) and (18) on a grid of SE(2) configurations that includes vertex-vertex contacts, skeleton states, and parallel-edge orientations; any mismatch on a set of positive measure would refute the claimed exactness. A separate check on the practical side: run the unicycle filter with a robot whose active-feature geometry satisfies the acute-angle condition $\beta < \pi/2$ and verify that the predicted geometric-kinematic-coupled local minimum actually traps the closed-loop system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a unified exact gradient of the signed distance between a convex polygonal robot and convex polygonal obstacles, valid almost everywhere in the robot's SE(2) configuration. The signed distance is evaluated in Minkowski-difference space, where the robot is shrunk to the origin and the obstacle becomes a configuration obstacle; the separated branch is a quadratic program that projects the origin onto that polytope, and the penetrating branch is a linear program that computes the depth of the origin inside it. A 'pseudo-QP' mapping rescales the penetration LP's dual variable by twice the penetration depth, so the penetrating branch satisfies the same stationarity relation as the distance QP; consequently a single active-constraint gradient formula, obtained by sensitivity analysis of the KKT system, governs safe, contact, and penetration cases. The authors further show that the exact rotational part of this gradient uncovers a previously masked class of local minima in which the robot locks into a parallel-edge configuration because rotating away from the obstacle decreases the signed distance. The claim, if true, replaces conservative smooth-shape CBFs with exact-geometry CBFs at the cost of solving one small convex program per control step.

Load-bearing premise

The practical safety guarantee rests on the assumption that the finite set of nearby distance branches the controller checks (the 'almost-active' set in Remark 7) contains every direction in which the signed distance can become nonsmooth; if a dangerous branch is missed at a skeleton or parallel-edge state, the forward-invariance guarantee could fail even though the theoretical condition is satisfied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A safety filter can be built from the exact polytope-pair signed distance instead of a sphere or ellipsoid surrogate, so trajectories can approach obstacles more closely without clipping them.
  • The same unified gradient formula covers safe, contact, and penetration branches, so a controller that starts inside an obstacle can be steered back to the safe set without switching between different mathematical formulations.
  • The exact rotational gradient exposes a new class of deadlocks—geometric-kinematic-coupled local minima—in which a nonholonomic robot locks into a parallel-edge configuration; shapes whose active normals form an acute angle with the heading are shown to be susceptible.
  • Because the gradient is closed-form and only requires solving a small convex program, the filter runs at real-time control rates (200 Hz in the paper's simulations) and extends naturally to multiple obstacles by imposing one SD-NCBF constraint per obstacle pair.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the same unified-gradient idea could be adapted to 3D, but the paper's Remark 6 indicates the 2D source-based derivation does not carry over directly, so a 3D version would need a different sensitivity decomposition that accounts for edges inherited from neither set.
  • Inference: the almost-active-set implementation in Remark 7 is a gap between the theorem and the code; a testable extension would compute the full generalized gradient at skeleton states and check whether the almost-active constraint set is sufficient for forward invariance.
  • Inference: the GKC local minima suggest that purely reactive safe filters should be paired with a global planner that avoids parallel-edge alignments, or the barrier function should be augmented with a penalty on rotational proximity to those critical angles.
  • Inference: for moving obstacles, one could let the configuration obstacle depend on time and add an explicit time derivative to the sensitivity analysis, yielding a time-varying SD-NCBF for dynamic environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an exact Signed Distance Function (SDF) between a convex polytopic robot and convex polytopic obstacles, evaluated in Minkowski-difference (MD) space via two companion convex programs: a QP for minimum distance (16) in the safe case and an LP for penetration depth (18) in the collision case. The authors derive a unified analytical gradient formula (30) using sensitivity analysis, establish an algebraic correspondence between the two programs via a pseudo-QP mapping (Lemma 5), and integrate the SDF as a nonsmooth Control Barrier Function (SD-NCBF) within a CLF-NCBF-QP safety filter (38). They also identify a class of geometric-kinematic coupled (GKC) local minima revealed by the exact rotational gradient and demonstrate the framework in four simulations, including collision recovery and maze-like multi-obstacle navigation.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a significant contribution by replacing conservative smooth-shape approximations with an exact polytopic geometry for CBF-based safety filters, and by providing closed-form analytical gradients of an implicitly defined SDF over SE(2). The unified treatment of safe, contact, and penetration branches through the pseudo-QP mapping is elegant, and the identification of GKC local minima is a useful insight that could inform future controller design. The derivations are careful and the paper provides detailed proofs, a clear computational pipeline, and comparisons with two baselines. However, the central safety guarantee for the implemented controller is not fully established because of a gap between the theoretical sufficient condition and the active-set strategy used in the implementation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V-C, Remark 7, Eq. (38)] The implemented CLF-NCBF-QP in (38) enforces the NCBF condition over the almost-active set \tilde{A}(x), whereas Corollary 2 requires the condition for every active branch in A(x). The manuscript does not establish that \tilde{A}(x) is a superset of A(x) at all states. At skeleton states x∈X_S, the depth-LP (18) has multiple active constraints; a standard LP/QP solver will return only a subset of the optimal face, so an active branch can be omitted from \tilde{A}(x). If the omitted branch's inequality in (37) is violated, the pointwise condition (7) of Theorem 1 can fail, and the forward-invariance guarantee of Corollary 2 does not apply to the implemented controller. This gap directly affects the paper's central safety claim and requires either a provably exhaustive active-set enumeration procedure or a modified sufficient condition that is robust to the active-subset selection used by the solver.
  2. [Sec. IV-E and Sec. V-B] The unified gradient formulas (30), (35)-(36) and Propositions 2-3 are derived under the assumptions x∉X_S and θ∉Θ*. At the degenerate configurations in X_S and Θ*, the generalized gradient is the convex hull of one-sided branch gradients, but the paper does not specify how these branch gradients are obtained in the implementation. In particular, the almost-active set \tilde{A}(x) described in Remark 7 requires identifying branches whose values are close to h(x), yet no algorithm is given for enumerating these branches in the presence of degeneracies, and the one-sided derivatives needed to compute their gradients are not defined. This is load-bearing because a trajectory can reach or approach these degenerate states and the theoretical guarantee in Theorem 1 covers all x∈X, including X_S. The manuscript should either provide an explicit construction of the generalized gradient at these states or restrict the safety guarantee to trajectories that avoid them, with a supporting argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI] The GKC susceptibility condition (β(n_R)<π/2 and n_R^T n_O<0) is stated informally as a geometric observation; consider stating it as a formal proposition with precise assumptions and a proof sketch, since it is a claimed novel contribution.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. I] The abstract and introduction describe the gradient as 'exact' and 'analytical', but at the nondifferentiable states in X_S the gradient is set-valued and the implementation uses the almost-active heuristic; the paper should consistently qualify these claims as applying to the differentiable region and clearly distinguish the set-valued generalized gradient.
  3. [Sec. VII-A] The statement that the baseline [13] has 'almost half' the runtime would be more informative with a quantitative comparison, such as mean computation time per control loop on the same hardware.
  4. [Sec. V-A and Appendix A] Proposition 1 is stated without the safe-case assumption, but its proof in Appendix A considers only the safe branch; the proposition statement should explicitly note this, with the penetration branch handled by Theorem 3.
  5. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'apolytopicrobot' should read 'a polytopic robot'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: SDF and gradient derivations are self-contained; the almost-active-set implementation gap is a soundness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No significant circularity. The exact-SDF construction is not an assumption of the conclusion: equation (16) is the standard projection QP for distance, equation (18) is the standard point-depth LP with closed form s* = min_i b_i^c / ||a_i^c||, and the unified gradient (30) is derived from the KKT sensitivity theorem (Theorem 2) rather than being imposed. Lemma 5's pseudo-QP multiplier is an algebraic reparameterization chosen to make the penetration branch match the dist-QP stationarity form; it is a construction, not a circular definition, because the depth-LP's own optimality conditions are used to establish the equality. The paper's self-citations to [24] are not load-bearing: the depth-LP is fully restated and proved here, and the earlier approximate rotational gradient is explicitly replaced by the exact expression (36). The GKC local-minima discussion is an interpretation of the exact rotational gradient, not an input to it; the paper even notes that a previous approximation masked the phenomenon, which is a falsifiable observation rather than a circular claim. The one implementation soundness gap I find is flagged by the paper itself: Corollary 2 requires (37) for every active branch a in A(x), while Sec. V-C and Remark 7 enforce the QP constraint (38) over the almost-active set ~A(x) = A(x) plus near-active branches, with no proof that ~A(x) always contains all branches needed for the generalized gradient. This is a correctness risk for the practical filter, not a circular reduction of the theoretical claim. Other stated limitations (3D extension in Remark 6, GKC deadlocks and hyperparameter sensitivity in Sec. VII-C) are honest scope statements. Score 1 reflects only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation; the central derivation is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central SDF-gradient derivation rests on standard convex optimization, KKT sensitivity theory, and known 2D Minkowski-sum geometry, plus the domain assumption of convex polytopes. No fitted constants enter the SDF or its gradient. The only paper-specific assumption is that the almost-active set preserves the theoretical safety guarantee, which is not proven. The free parameters listed are controller hyperparameters, not fitted data parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • d_safe = 0 in all simulations
    User-defined safety margin in the SD-NCBF (28); set to zero in the experiments, not fitted.
  • gamma = 5, 1, 10 across scenarios
    NCBF class-K gain in QP (38); a hyperparameter chosen by hand; smaller gamma is shown to trigger GKC rotation in Sec VI-B.
  • kappa = 2, 1.5, 2 across scenarios
    CLF convergence rate in QP (38); chosen by hand per scenario.
  • p = 8, 1, 8, 10 across scenarios
    Penalty weight on CLF relaxation in QP (38); chosen by hand per scenario.
  • epsilon = 0 or 0.2
    Safety recovery margin in QP (38); set to 0.2 only in the collision-recovery scenario.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Robot and obstacles are compact convex polytopes with nonempty interior, minimal H-reps, and C1 state-parameterized H-rep functions (Assumptions 1-4, Sec III).
    The convexity and minimality are required for the CO to be a convex polygon and for the companion QP/LP formulations to be exact.
  • standard math In 2D, every edge of the configuration obstacle is a translated edge from either the robot or the obstacle (Lemma 2).
    This geometric fact underpins the source-based rotational gradient derivation in Proposition 3.
  • standard math KKT sensitivity analysis and value-function differentiation apply under LICQ, strict complementarity, and second-order conditions (Theorem 2, adapted from [37]).
    The unified gradient formula (30) relies on this parametric optimization result.
  • standard math The nonsmooth CBF forward-invariance condition (Theorem 1, from [30], [33]) is valid for locally Lipschitz barrier functions with Filippov solutions.
    This is the theoretical basis for using the SDF-based NCBF in the QP safety filter.
  • ad hoc to paper The almost-active set ~A(x) used in the implementation suffices for enforcing the NCBF condition in QP (38).
    Remark 7 states that the implementation enforces constraints over almost-active branches, but no proof is given that this preserves the full forward-invariance guarantee of Corollary 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Control Barrier Functions via Minkowski Operations for Safe Navigation among Polytopes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NEMAWFD

@misc{pith2026260802886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Control Barrier Functions via Minkowski Operations for Safe Navigation among Polytopes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NEMAWFD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02886}
}
read the original abstract

Safely navigating polytopic environments while respecting the dynamics, control, and exact geometry of the underlying system is a challenge in robotics. Control barrier functions (CBFs) synthesize safe control policies by rendering the safe set forward invariant, but many existing CBF-based methods approximate polytopes using conservative smooth shapes, such as spheres or ellipsoids, to obtain explicit differentiable distance functions. In this article, we propose an exact Signed Distance Function (SDF) formulation for a {\it polytopic} robot and {\it polytopic} obstacles and integrate it with nonsmooth CBFs. Leveraging Minkowski operations, the proposed method computes the exact SDF via companion convex programs in both the collision-free (positive-sign) and in-collision (negative-sign) cases. Furthermore, by exploiting the convenient geometric properties of 2D Minkowski operations and the optimality conditions of the two companion convex programs, we derive a unified analytical expression for the gradient of the exact SDF via sensitivity analysis. The exact rotational gradient further reveals a previously masked class of local minima induced by the coupling between geometry and nonholonomic kinematics. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework through a pure-translation case and three scenarios with unicycle models involving recovery from an unsafe initialization and single- and multiple-obstacle avoidance. Comparisons with baseline methods highlight how the proposed framework enables non-conservative maneuvers and safety recovery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Taxonomy of existing methods based on the exactness of the SDF and its gradient. Our work differs from related work [12], [15], [16], [18], [21], [20] in two important ways. First, we compute the exact SDF via convex optimization with COs in “Minkowski￾difference-space”1 , denoted by MD-space. Second, we com￾pute the exact gradient of the exact SDF via differentiable op￾timization (diffOpt). Table I provides a conce… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distances between disjoint (Top) and intersecting (Bottom) convex sets R and O in W-space (Left), and the corresponding equivalent distances in MD-space (Right). In MD-space, the origin 0 lies outside or inside of the CO if the signed distance is positive or negative, respectively. Dashed lines denote the active constraint(s) associated with the witness point z ∗. The exactness of (20) follows from Lemma 4 in the sa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Computational pipeline of the proposed SDF. The framework unifies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of non-differentiable and critical points. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The order of edges of the CO is directly determined by collecting the inward edge normals of R (i.e., outward normals of −R) together with the outward edge normals of O, and sorting them around S 1 [27]. V. SDF-BASED NCBF FRAMEWORK IN MD-SPACE This section presents our…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mapping between the closest feature pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Rotational sensitivity depends on geometric source. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Demonstration of GKC local minimum with three different shapes of unicycle robots. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The effect of the SD-NCBF hyperparameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top-Left: Snapshots show the blue (ours) and purple ([13]) robots avoiding the obstacle (red) with a tighter trajectory (green) than the baseline (dashed magenta). Top-Right: The corresponding right-to-left motion of our CO (green) in MD-space. Bottom: Control inputs …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Left: Our SD-NCBF (blue) vs. the duality-MDF-CBF (yellow) [18] under unicycle dynamics. For the 4-gon obstacle (Top), our robot follows a less conservative trajectory (green) and reaches the goal faster; for the 6-gon obstacle (Bottom) involving more optimal feature s…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: The robot starts in collision with the obstacle in W-space (left), and the CO contains the origin in MD-space (right). The robot successfully resolves the collision using our SD-NCBF by time t = 2.5. Bottom-Left: Control inputs u(t) satisfy actuator limits. Botto…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spatial planning: A configuration space ap- proach,

    T. Lozano-Perezet al., “Spatial planning: A configuration space ap- proach,”IEEE Trans. Computers, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 108–120, 1983

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    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,” inEuropean Control Conference, pp. 3420–3431, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    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,” inAmerican Control Conference, pp. 322–328, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    High-order control barrier functions,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “High-order control barrier functions,”IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3655–3662, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Auxiliary-variable adaptive control barrier functions,

    S. Liu, W. Xiao, and C. A. Belta, “Auxiliary-variable adaptive control barrier functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15026, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Obstacle avoidance for low-speed autonomous vehicles with barrier function,

    Y . Chen, H. Peng, and J. Grizzle, “Obstacle avoidance for low-speed autonomous vehicles with barrier function,”IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 194–206, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Closed-form barrier functions for multi-agent ellipsoidal systems with uncertain lagrangian dynamics,

    C. K. Verginis and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Closed-form barrier functions for multi-agent ellipsoidal systems with uncertain lagrangian dynamics,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 727–732, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Collision avoidance for ellipsoidal rigid bodies with control barrier functions designed from rotating supporting hyperplanes,

    R. Funada, K. Nishimoto, T. Ibuki, and M. Sampei, “Collision avoidance for ellipsoidal rigid bodies with control barrier functions designed from rotating supporting hyperplanes,”IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 148–164, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    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,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 286–292, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Iterative convex optimization with control barrier functions for obstacle avoidance among polytopes,

    S. Liu, Z. Huang, and C. A. Belta, “Iterative convex optimization with control barrier functions for obstacle avoidance among polytopes,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.05916, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Safe polytope-in-polytope motion planning and control with control barrier functions,

    A. Gonzalez-Garcia, D. Dirckx, J. Swevers, and W. Decr ´e, “Safe polytope-in-polytope motion planning and control with control barrier functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.09719, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Safe bipedal path planning via control barrier functions for polynomial shape obstacles estimated using logistic regression,

    C. Peng, O. Donca, G. Castillo, and A. Hereid, “Safe bipedal path planning via control barrier functions for polynomial shape obstacles estimated using logistic regression,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3649–3655, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Navigating polytopes with safety: A control barrier function approach,

    T. G. Molnar, “Navigating polytopes with safety: A control barrier function approach,” in2025 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA), pp. 179–184, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Safety for time-varying parameterized sets using control barrier function methods,

    J. Usevitch and J. Sahleen, “Safety for time-varying parameterized sets using control barrier function methods,” in2025 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 267–274, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Optimization- free smooth control barrier function for polygonal collision avoidance,

    S. Wu, Y . Fang, N. Sun, B. Lu, X. Liang, and Y . Zhao, “Optimization- free smooth control barrier function for polygonal collision avoidance,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Collision avoidance for convex primitives via differ- entiable optimization-based high-order control barrier functions,

    S. Wei, R. Khorrambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, V . Mariano Gonc ¸alves, and F. Khorrami, “Collision avoidance for convex primitives via differ- entiable optimization-based high-order control barrier functions,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2026

    2026

  9. [17]

    De Berg,Computational geometry: algorithms and applications

    M. De Berg,Computational geometry: algorithms and applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2000

    2000

  10. [18]

    Duality-based convex optimization for real-time obstacle avoidance between polytopes with control barrier functions,

    A. Thirugnanam, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Duality-based convex optimization for real-time obstacle avoidance between polytopes with control barrier functions,” inAmerican Control Conference, pp. 2239– 2246, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Optimization-based collision avoidance,

    X. Zhang, A. Liniger, and F. Borrelli, “Optimization-based collision avoidance,”IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 972–983, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Safety-critical manipulation for collision-free food preparation,

    A. Singletary, W. Guffey, T. G. Molnar, R. Sinnet, and A. D. Ames, “Safety-critical manipulation for collision-free food preparation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10954–10961, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Nonsmooth control barrier functions for obstacle avoidance between convex regions,

    A. Thirugnanam, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Nonsmooth control barrier functions for obstacle avoidance between convex regions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13259, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Safe navigation and obstacle avoidance using differ- entiable optimization based control barrier functions,

    B. Dai, R. Khorrambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, V . Gonc ¸alves, A. Tzes, and F. Khorrami, “Safe navigation and obstacle avoidance using differ- entiable optimization based control barrier functions,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5376–5383, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Collision detection accelerated: An optimization perspective,

    L. Montaut, Q. Le Lidec, V . Petrik, J. Sivic, and J. Carpentier, “Collision detection accelerated: An optimization perspective,” inRobotics: Science and Systems, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Control barrier functions via minkowski operations for safe navigation among polytopic sets,

    Y .-H. Chen, S. Liu, W. Xiao, C. Belta, and M. Otte, “Control barrier functions via minkowski operations for safe navigation among polytopic sets,” in2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 4481–4488, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Proximity queries and penetration depth compu- tation on 3d game objects,

    G. Van Den Bergen, “Proximity queries and penetration depth compu- tation on 3d game objects,” inGame Developers Conference, vol. 170, p. 209, 2001

    2001

  18. [26]

    Ericson,Real-time collision detection

    C. Ericson,Real-time collision detection. Crc Press, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    S. M. LaValle,Planning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    N. M. Patrikalakis and T. Maekawa,Shape interrogation for computer aided design and manufacturing, vol. 15. Springer, 2002

    2002

  21. [29]

    Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces,

    S. Osher, R. Fedkiw, and K. Piechor, “Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces,”Appl. Mech. Rev., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. B15–B15, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Nonsmooth barrier functions with applications to multi-robot systems,

    P. Glotfelter, J. Cort ´es, and M. Egerstedt, “Nonsmooth barrier functions with applications to multi-robot systems,”IEEE control systems letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 310–315, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Generalized gradients and applications,

    F. H. Clarke, “Generalized gradients and applications,”Trans. of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 205, pp. 247–262, 1975

    1975

  24. [32]

    Discontinuous dynamical systems,

    J. Cortes, “Discontinuous dynamical systems,”IEEE Control systems magazine, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 36–73, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Boolean composability of constraints and control synthesis for multi-robot systems via nonsmooth control barrier functions,

    P. Glotfelter, J. Cort ´es, and M. Egerstedt, “Boolean composability of constraints and control synthesis for multi-robot systems via nonsmooth control barrier functions,” in2018 IEEE Conference on Control Tech- nology and Applications (CCTA), pp. 897–902, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    H. K. Khalil and J. W. Grizzle,Nonlinear systems, vol. 3. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002

    2002

  27. [35]

    Sensitivity and stability analysis for nonlinear programming,

    A. V . Fiacco and Y . Ishizuka, “Sensitivity and stability analysis for nonlinear programming,”Annals of Operations Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 215–235, 1990

    1990

  28. [36]

    OptNet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,

    B. Amos and J. Z. Kolter, “OptNet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 136–145, PMLR, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Lectures on parametric optimization: An introduction,

    G. Still, “Lectures on parametric optimization: An introduction,”Opti- mization Online, vol. 29, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2004

    2004

  31. [39]

    Bertsekas,Convex optimization theory, vol

    D. Bertsekas,Convex optimization theory, vol. 1. Athena Scientific, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Long- horizon geometry-aware navigation among polytopes via MILP-MPC and Minkowski-based CBFs,

    Y .-H. Chen, S. Ghori, A. Adil, E. Feron, and C. Belta, “Long- horizon geometry-aware navigation among polytopes via MILP-MPC and Minkowski-based CBFs,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00162, 2026

    2026

  33. [41]

    Convex body collision detection using the signed distance function,

    P. L.-A. Fern ´andez-Layos and L. F. Merchante, “Convex body collision detection using the signed distance function,”Computer-Aided Design, vol. 170, p. 103685, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Cannarsa and C

    P. Cannarsa and C. Sinestrari,Semiconcave Functions, Hamil- ton—Jacobi Equations, and Optimal Control. Springer, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    Exploiting block triangular subma- trices in KKT systems,

    R. Parker, M. Garcia, and R. Bent, “Exploiting block triangular subma- trices in KKT systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17968, 2026

    2026

  36. [44]

    Finite-time convergent control barrier functions with feasibility guarantees,

    A. Li, Y . Chen, C. G. Cassandras, and W. Xiao, “Finite-time convergent control barrier functions with feasibility guarantees,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22445, 2026

    2026

  37. [45]

    Control barrier function- based quadratic programs introduce undesirable asymptotically stable equilibria,

    M. F. Reis, A. P. Aguiar, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function- based quadratic programs introduce undesirable asymptotically stable equilibria,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 731–736, 2021. 16 Yi-Hsuan Chen(Student Member, IEEE) received her B.Sc. degre...

    2021

  38. [2003]

    His research focuses on dynamics and control theory, with particular emphasis on cyber- physical systems, formal methods, and applications to robotics and systems biology

    He is currently the Brendan Iribe Endowed Professor of electrical and computer engineering and computer science at the University of Maryland, College Park. His research focuses on dynamics and control theory, with particular emphasis on cyber- physical systems, formal methods...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.