Minimizing Conservatism in Safety-Critical Control for Input-Delayed Systems via Adaptive Delay Estimation
Open accessAbstract
Input delays affect systems such as teleoperation and wirelessly autonomous connected vehicles, and may lead to safety violations. One promising way to ensure safety in the presence of delay is to employ control barrier functions (CBFs), and extensions thereof that account for uncertainty: delay adaptive CBFs (DaCBFs). This paper proposes an online adaptive safety control framework for reducing the conservatism of DaCBFs. The main idea is to reduce the maximum delay estimation error bound so that the state prediction error bound is monotonically non-increasing. To this end, we first leverage the estimation error bound of a disturbance observer to bound the state prediction error. Second, we design two nonlinear programs to update the maximum delay estimation error bound satisfying the prediction error bound, and subsequently update the maximum state prediction error bound used in DaCBFs. The proposed method ensures the maximum state prediction error bound is monotonically non-increasing, yielding less conservatism in DaCBFs. We verify the proposed method in an automated connected truck application, showing that the proposed method reduces the conservatism of DaCBFs.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper proposes an online adaptive safety control framework that reduces the conservatism of delay adaptive control barrier functions (DaCBFs) for input-delayed systems by updating the maximum delay estimation error bound. It uses delay estimation and a disturbance observer to make the maximum state prediction error bound monotonically non-increasing, and validates the approach in an automated connected truck simulation.
Key findings
- The proposed method updates the maximum delay estimation error bound online via two nonlinear programs, yielding a monotonically non-increasing maximum state prediction error bound and thus less conservative DaCBFs.
- In an automated connected truck simulation with true input delay \(D = 0.5\) s, the proposed method maintains safety while behaving less conservatively than DaCBFs, as shown by lower positive barrier function values.
- Table I reports average \(h\) values across input delays of 0.1–0.5 s: DaCBFs average \(4.387\), while the proposed method averages \(0.508\); the paper states this corresponds to a \(99.78\%\) decrease in conservatism compared to DaCBFs.
- The paper proves that the updated maximum delay estimation error bound satisfies \(\tilde{D}^{t_j}_{\max} \le \tilde{D}^{t_j-1}_{\max} \le \tilde{D}^0_{\max}\), leading to a less conservative safety condition than prior DaCBFs.
Methods
- The system is a control affine nonlinear system with a constant unknown input delay; the framework combines an input delay estimator, DaCBFs, and a nonlinear disturbance observer.
- The disturbance observer bounds the state prediction error caused by delay estimation error, and two nonlinear programs update the set \(\Xi_{t_j}\) containing the true delay \(D\), from which the maximum delay estimation error bound is computed.
- Evaluation is a simulation of two wirelessly connected trucks maintaining a safe distance, with true delay \(D = 0.5\) s, initial delay estimate zero, and comparisons across input delays of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 s.
Limitations
- The paper states future work should consider time-varying input delay and model uncertainties.
- The safety guarantees rely on assumptions such as constant input delay, bounded states and inputs, bounded input derivative, and bounded disturbance and disturbance derivative.
- Evident from the text: validation is simulation-only, with no hardware experiments; also, the reported \(99.78\%\) conservatism reduction is not directly derivable from the Table I averages (\(4.387\) vs. \(0.508\)), which imply a smaller percentage reduction.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
4 of 14 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Input delays can lead to safety violations.
“However, time delays can often happen in urban application settings such as a connected automated car [5], teleoperationbased controls [6], leading to safety violations; thus, time delays must be incorporated into the CBFs-based control design.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [5] [5] G. M. Tamas, A. Anil, K. K. Adam, D. A. Aaron, and O. G´ abor, 'Input-to-state safety with input delay in longitudinal vehicle control,' IFAC-PapersOnLine , vol. 55, no. 36, pp. 312-317, 2022, 17th IFAC Workshop on Time Delay Systems TDS 2022. - source
- cites [6] [6] N. Emmanuel, B. Luis, O. Romeo, and W. S. Mark, 'Position tracking for non-linear teleoperators with variable time delay,' The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 895910, 2009. - source
- Premisecitation
Input delays can occur in urban application settings such as connected automated cars and teleoperation-based controls.
“However, time delays can often happen in urban application settings such as a connected automated car [5], teleoperationbased controls [6], leading to safety violations; thus, time delays must be incorporated into the CBFs-based control design.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [5] [5] G. M. Tamas, A. Anil, K. K. Adam, D. A. Aaron, and O. G´ abor, 'Input-to-state safety with input delay in longitudinal vehicle control,' IFAC-PapersOnLine , vol. 55, no. 36, pp. 312-317, 2022, 17th IFAC Workshop on Time Delay Systems TDS 2022. - source
Section 2 (p. 2) identifies input delay from the response time of a connected automated truck, supporting the vehicle-delay example attributed to [5]. The paper does not establish an urban setting or specifically discuss a connected automated car. The teleoperation example is attached to [6], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [6] [6] N. Emmanuel, B. Luis, O. Romeo, and W. S. Mark, 'Position tracking for non-linear teleoperators with variable time delay,' The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 895910, 2009. - source
- Findingcitation
Consider the input delay estimator (6) with D ∈ Ξ0 and disturbance observer (15) with estimation error bound (13). Then D ∈ [D_tj, D_tj] = Ξ_tj for all t_j and Ξ_tj ⊆ Ξ_tj-1 ⊆ Ξ0, where the bounds are obtained by solving optimization problems (19) and (20).
“Then D ∈ [D tj , D tj ] ≜ Ξ tj for all t j and Ξ tj ⊆ Ξ tj -1 ⊆ Ξ 0 , where D tj and D tj are obtained by solving the optimization problems:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [25] [25] M. H. Cohen, C. Belta, and R. Tron, 'Robust control barrier functions for nonlinear control systems with uncertainty: A duality-based approach,' in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 174-179. source
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
The disturbance estimation error is uniformly bounded as ||e_d(t)|| ≤ M_d(t) = sqrt(2ck||e_d(0)||^2 e^{-2kt} + w_1^2(1 - e^{-2kt})/(2ck)).
“Then, the disturbance estimation error is uniformly bounded as [18]: ||e d (t)|| ≤ 2ck||e d (0)|| 2 e -2kt + w 2 1 (1 -e -2kt ) 2ck ≜ M d (t),(13) where k ≜ α h -c 2 , with 0 < c < 2α h .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [18] [18] Y. Wang and X. Xu, 'Disturbance observer-based robust control barrier functions,' in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC) , 2023, pp. 3681-3687. - source
The Disturbance Observer section (p. 2) says equation (11) bounds the estimation error and defines κ = α − ν₁/2, with 0 < ν₁ < 2α. Remark 2 (p. 4) gives the corresponding ultimate bound, ω₁/√[ν₁(2α − ν₁)]. The displayed equation (11) is not decoded in our copy, so the exact time-dependent formula quoted cannot be verified. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
The proposed method has lower positive values of h functions than DaCBFs across all input delay cases (0.1s to 0.5s).
“As indicated in Table.I, the proposed method has lower positive values of h functions than the values of DaCBFs across all cases.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
The proposed method reduces the conservatism of DaCBFs in an automated connected truck application.
“We verify the proposed method in an automated connected truck application, showing that the proposed method reduces the conservatism of DaCBFs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The set Ξ_tj is gradually reduced, including the true delay D.
“the plots show that the set, Ξt j is gradually reduced, including the true delay D.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Under the same assumptions of Proposition 1, e_max(t0 + D + D_tj max) ≤ e_max(t0 + D + D0 max).
“Lemma 3: Under the same assumptions of Proposition 1, let Dtj max be determined from (19) and (20).Then, over sequences, t j , we have: e max (t 0 + D + Dtj max ) ≤ e max (t 0 + D + D0 max ).(24)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Under the same assumptions of Lemma 1, with disturbance d(t) = u(t - D) - u(t - D̂) and observer (15), the state prediction error e_p(D*) is bounded by ||B|| + β∫_0^1 σ_max(g(x_p)) M_d dy.
“Then, the state prediction error is bounded as e p (D * ) ≤ ||B|| + β 1 0 σ max (g( xp ))M d dy,(18)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The proposed method is less conservative than DaCBFs in simulation.
“In contrast, the proposed method is less conservative than DaCBFs as shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
If h is a DaCBF satisfying condition (22) with updated e_tj,max, then system (1) is safe with respect to S for all t ≥ D.
“If h is a DaCBF and there exists an input u ∈ U satisfying (22), then the system (1) is safe w.r.t S such that ∀t ≥ D.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] [13] Y. Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, 'Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,' in 2024 22nd European Control Conference (ECC) (Accepted) , 2024. - source
- Interpretationreasoning
Using the updated maximum bound in (22) is less conservative than using the constant bound proposed by [13].
“implying that using ( 25) in ( 22) is less conservative than using (26) proposed by [13].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] [13] Y. Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, 'Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,' in 2024 22nd European Control Conference (ECC) (Accepted) , 2024. - source
- Premisenone given
The DaCBF controller is too conservative.
“Nevertheless, the proposed controller is too conservative.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] [13] Y. Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, 'Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,' in 2024 22nd European Control Conference (ECC) (Accepted) , 2024. - source
- Premisecitation
If h is a DaCBF satisfying condition (10), then system (1) is safe with respect to S for all t ≥ D.
“Then, if h is a DaCBF and there exists an input u ∈ U satisfying (10), then the system (1) is safe with respect to S, for all t ≥ D.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] [13] Y. Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, 'Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,' in 2024 22nd European Control Conference (ECC) (Accepted) , 2024. - source
- Interpretationreasoning
A disturbance observer can be used in the time-delayed system (1) to estimate the disturbance caused by the unknown input delay.
“We show how a disturbance observer can be used in the time-delayed system (1) in order to estimate the disturbance caused by the unknown input delay.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The proposed method ensures the maximum state prediction error bound with delay estimation is monotonically non-increasing over time if u(t) is not constant.
“The proposed method ensures the maximum state prediction error bound with the delay estimation is monotonically nonincreasing, yielding less conservatism in DaCBFs.”
- Also stated in: another passage · plain
“et j ,max is updated and then used in the robust condition in DaCBFs, monotonically non-increasing over time if u(t) is not constant.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: another passage · plain
- Interpretationreasoning
The proposed method yields less conservatism in DaCBFs.
“The proposed method ensures less conservative than the previous work, DaCBFs [13].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] [13] Y. Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, 'Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,' in 2024 22nd European Control Conference (ECC) (Accepted) , 2024. - source
- Premisecitation
For systems with input delay D and D̂, under bounded input and input difference, the error e(t) = x(t) - y(t) is bounded by e_max(t) = ∫ e^{a(t-τ)} ||g(y(τ))|| dτ.
“Then, the error e(t) = x(t) -y(t) on the interval t ∈ [t 1 , t 2 ], 0 ≤ t 1 < t 2 , is also bounded as ||e(t)|| ≤ ϵ max t2 t1 e a(t-τ ) ||g(y(τ ))||dτ ≜ e max (t)(7) where a ≜ L f + L g (u max + ϵ max ).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] [13] Y. Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, 'Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,' in 2024 22nd European Control Conference (ECC) (Accepted) , 2024. - source
- May combine two claims. 5
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 2
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe proposed method adapts to the unknown input delay and decreases conservatism online compared to DaCBFs in a connected automated vehicle simulation.
“We demonstrate that the proposed method adapts to the unknown input delay and decreases conservatism online, compared to DaCBFs in a connected automated vehicle simulation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn simulation, DaCBFs ensure safety but behave conservatively, maintaining a long distance to the lead truck and high positive h values.
“It is observed that DaCBFs ensure safety but behave conservatively, as shown in Fig. 2(a) since a long distance to the lead truck is maintained.The conservatism is observed in the high positive h function values as shown in Fig. 2(b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe average of h functions in all cases is quantitatively lower than DaCBFs when using the proposed method, showing that conservatism is decreased by 99.78% compared to DaCBFs.
“Furthermore, the average of h functions in all cases is quantitatively lower than DaCBFs when using the proposed method, showing that the conservatism is decreased by 99.78% compared to DaCBFs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationDaCBFs combine delay estimation and CBFs to achieve robustness against worst-case uncertainties in state prediction and unknown input delay.
“The recent work, delay adaptive CBFs (DaCBFs) [13] combine delay estimation and CBFs to achieve robustness against worst-case uncertainties in state prediction and unknown input delay.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] [13] Y. Kim, J. Kim, A. D. Ames, and C. Sloth, 'Robust safety-critical control for input-delayed system with delay estimation,' in 2024 22nd European Control Conference (ECC) (Accepted) , 2024. - source
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe proposed method updates the input delay bound and the maximum delay estimation error bound online, and consequently the maximum state prediction error bound in (23) is gradually reduced.
“This is because the proposed method updates the input delay bound and the maximum delay estimation error bound in an online fashion, as shown in Fig. 2(c) and (d), and consequently, the maximum bound of the state prediction error bound in (23) is gradually reduced.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenThe set Ξ_tj remains constant if u(t) is constant.
“We remark that the set, Ξ tj , remains constant if (e.g.) u(t) is constant.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationIf x(t), u(t), and u̇(t) are uniformly bounded, and the initial estimation error |D̃(0)| < Dmax, then there exists H such that |ρ_D(t)| ≤ H and D̃(t)ρ_D(t) ≥ 0, ensuring the delay estimation error is monotonically non-increasing.
“Lemma 1 ( [21]): If x(t), u(t), and u(t) are uniformly bounded, and the initial estimation error D(0) = D -D(0), where D(t) ≜ D -D(t), is bounded by | D(0)| < Dmax , then there exists a parameter H ∈ R + such that |ρ D (t)| ≤ H, and the estimation error D(t) satisfies: D(t)ρ D (t) ≥ 0, which ensures that the delay estimation error is monotonically non-increasing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [21] [21] A. Bertino, P. Naseradinmousavi, and M. Krsti´ c, 'Delay-adaptive control of a 7-dof robot manipulator: Design and experiments,' IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 25062521, 2022. - source
The authors state this as an assumption.
The input delay D is constant.
“Consider the following control affine nonlinear system with a constant input delay, denoted as D:”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The disturbance d(t) and its derivative are bounded by known constants w0, w1 > 0.
“such that the disturbance and its derivative are bounded by some known constants w 0 , w 1 > 0 as ||d(t)|| ≤ w 0 , || ḋ(t)|| ≤ w 1 .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The initial delay estimation error is bounded by |D̃(0)| < Dmax.
“the initial estimation error D(0) = D -D(0), where D(t) ≜ D -D(t), is bounded by | D(0)| < Dmax”
The paper relies on this without support.
The true delay satisfies the state prediction error bound.
“Note that the true delay must satisfy the following state prediction error bound, but since we do not know the true delay here, we define the state prediction error with the candidate true delay, D * to be enforced into nonlinear programs.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The initial maximum delay estimation error bound Dmax is 2 in the simulation.
“Note that the update algorithm initiates after 2 seconds because we assume that the initial Dmax is 2.”
Cites
Control Barrier Function Based Quadratic Programs for Safety Critical Systems
Ames, A. D., Xu, X., Grizzle, J. W., & Tabuada, P. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2016.2638961 · Cited by 2,682 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Control barrier functions (CBFs) [1] are a promising method to accomplish safety, and they have recently been extended to robust [2], data-driven [3] approaches in the context of delay-free systems, showing high scalability and computational efficiency when realized as a safety-filter [4] framed as…”
Self-citationControl Barrier Functions: Theory and Applications
Ames, A. D., Coogan, S., Egerstedt, M., Notomista, G., Sreenath, K., & Tabuada, P. (2019) · European Control Conference (ECC) · doi:10.23919/ecc.2019.8796030 · Cited by 2,032 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…(CBFs) [1] are a promising method to accomplish safety, and they have recently been extended to robust [2], data-driven [3] approaches in the context of delay-free systems, showing high scalability and computational efficiency when realized as a safety-filter [4] framed as a quadratic program (QP).”
Self-citationDisturbance Observer Based Control for Nonlinear Systems
Chen, W. (2004) · IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics · doi:10.1109/tmech.2004.839034 · Cited by 1,463 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To estimate d , [23] proposes a nonlinear disturbance observer with the following structure: where ˆ d ∈ R m , is the estimated disturbance, z ∈ R m is an auxiliary variable, α h is a non-negative tuning parameter, and P ( x ) is an estimation gain function satisfying ∂P ( x ) ∂ x = L d ( x ) , and…”
Position Tracking for Non-linear Teleoperators with Variable Time Delay
Nuño, E., Basañez, L., Ortega, R., & Spong, M. W. (2009) · The International Journal of Robotics Research · doi:10.1177/0278364908099461 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Adaptive control scheme for uncertain time-delay systems
Bresch‐Pietri, D., Chauvin, J., & Petit, N. (2012) · Automatica · doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2012.05.056 · Cited by 197 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Estimation of input delays can be accomplished with a gradient descent algorithm similar to [20], [21] based on the state prediction error.”
Robust Adaptive Control Barrier Functions: An Adaptive and Data-Driven Approach to Safety
Lopez, B. T., Slotine, J.-J. E., & How, J. P. (2020) · IEEE Control Systems Letters · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2020.3005923 · Cited by 186 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Control barrier functions (CBFs) [1] are a promising method to accomplish safety, and they have recently been extended to robust [2], data-driven [3] approaches in the context of delay-free systems, showing high scalability and computational efficiency when realized as a safety-filter [4] framed as…”
Predictor Feedback for Delay Systems: Implementations and Approximations
Karafyllis, I., & Krstic, M. (2017) · Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42378-4 · Cited by 135 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To address the impact of delays on safety, recent works extend CBFs to input-delayed linear [7] and nonlinear systems [8], [9] using state prediction-based feedback controller [10].”
Nonlinear Disturbance Observers: Design and Applications to Euler?Lagrange Systems
Mohammadi, A., Marquez, H. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2017) · IEEE Control Systems · doi:10.1109/mcs.2017.2696760 · Cited by 116 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…estimated disturbance, z ∈ R m is an auxiliary variable, α h is a non-negative tuning parameter, and P ( x ) is an estimation gain function satisfying ∂P ( x ) ∂ x = L d ( x ) , and L d ( x ) is the designed gain function [24] satisfying: , where e d ≜ d − ˆ d is the disturbance estimation error.”
Sliding control of non-linear systems containing time-varying uncertainties with unknown bounds
Huang, A., & Kuo, Y.-S. (2001) · International Journal of Control · doi:10.1080/00207170010003441 · Cited by 112 · cited 1× · see citing works
“An estimation error quantified observer, the general version of state observers, is combined with a function approximation [14] and CBFs to ensure safety in the presence of the state uncertainty [15].”
Safety-Critical Control With Input Delay in Dynamic Environment
Molnar, T. G., Kiss, A. K., Ames, A. D., & Orosz, G. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology · doi:10.1109/tcst.2022.3227451 · Cited by 83 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To address the impact of delays on safety, recent works extend CBFs to input-delayed linear [7] and nonlinear systems [8], [9] using state prediction-based feedback controller [10].”
Self-citationDisturbance Observers for Robust Safety-Critical Control With Control Barrier Functions
Alan, A., Molnár, T. G., Daş, E., et al. (2022) · IEEE Control Systems Letters · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2022.3232059 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citationRobust Safe Control Synthesis with Disturbance Observer-Based Control Barrier Functions
Daş, E., & Murray, R. M. (2022) · IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) · doi:10.1109/cdc51059.2022.9993032 · Cited by 66 · cited 2× · see citing works
“A high-gain disturbance observer is also designed to estimate the impacts of Lie derivatives on unknown disturbances with an exponentially decreasing error bound, which is used to achieve safety in a CBF-based controller [16].”
Self-citationDisturbance Observer-based Robust Control Barrier Functions
Wang, Y., & Xu, X. (2023) · 2023 American Control Conference (ACC) · doi:10.23919/acc55779.2023.10156095 · Cited by 64 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In [18], a nonlinear disturbance observer proposed by [19] is integrated with a robust CBF, which reduces the conservatism.”
Control Barrier Functions for Sampled-Data Systems with Input Delays
Singletary, A., Chen, Y., & Ames, A. D. (2020) · Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, including the Symposium on Adaptive Processes · doi:10.1109/cdc42340.2020.9304281 · Cited by 47 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To address the impact of delays on safety, recent works extend CBFs to input-delayed linear [7] and nonlinear systems [8], [9] using state prediction-based feedback controller [10].”
Self-citationControl Barrier Functions for Constrained Control of Linear Systems with Input Delay
Janković, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the ... American Control Conference/Proceedings of the American Control Conference · doi:10.23919/acc.2018.8430747 · Cited by 46 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To address the impact of delays on safety, recent works extend CBFs to input-delayed linear [7] and nonlinear systems [8], [9] using state prediction-based feedback controller [10].”
Control Barrier Functions With Unmodeled Input Dynamics Using Integral Quadratic Constraints
Seiler, P. J., Janković, M., & Hellström, E. (2021) · IEEE Control Systems Letters · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2021.3130782 · Cited by 41 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For unknown input delay, integral quadratic constraints techniques to bound the disturbances caused by the delay are integrated with a CBFs-based controller [11], which is extended to a tube-based CBF to establish robustness with respect to the unknown input delays [12].”
Delay-Adaptive Control of a 7-DOF Robot Manipulator: Design and Experiments
Bertino, A., Naseradinmousavi, P., & Krstic, M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology · doi:10.1109/tcst.2022.3152363 · Cited by 33 · cited 6× · see citing works
“…with the initial condition given by x ( t − β ) , where β > 0 is a design parameter, using an estimated input delay, ˆ D [21]: where δ ∈ [0 , 1] is a distribution variable, and f 0 ( · , · ) takes form, We utilize property (3) to formulate the cost function [21]: where ˆ D = D is a minimizer of J .”
InfluentialObserver-based Control Barrier Functions for Safety Critical Systems
Wang, Y., & Xu, X. (2022) · Proceedings of the ... American Control Conference/Proceedings of the American Control Conference · doi:10.23919/acc53348.2022.9867262 · Cited by 29 · cited 1× · see citing works
“An estimation error quantified observer, the general version of state observers, is combined with a function approximation [14] and CBFs to ensure safety in the presence of the state uncertainty [15].”
Cohen, M. H., Belta, C., & Tron, R. (2022) · 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) · doi:10.1109/cdc51059.2022.9992667 · Cited by 29 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Then D ∈ [ D t j , D t j ] ≜ Ξ t j for all t j and Ξ t j ⊆ Ξ t j − 1 ⊆ Ξ 0 , where D t j and D t j are obtained by solving the optimization problems: Proof: The proof follows [25] (Lemma 4).”
Input-to-State Safety with Input Delay in Longitudinal Vehicle Control
Molnar, T. G., Alan, A., Kiss, A. K., Ames, A. D., & Orosz, G. (2022) · IFAC-PapersOnLine · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.11.376 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citationSafe robust adaptive control under both parametric and nonparametric uncertainty
Kim, Y., Iturrate, I., Langaa, J., et al. (2024) · Advanced Robotics · doi:10.1080/01691864.2024.2315067 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationTube-Based Control Barrier Function With Integral Quadratic Constraints for Unknown Input Delay
Quan, Y. S., Kim, J. S., Lee, S.-H., et al. (2023) · IEEE Control Systems Letters · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2023.3278688 · Cited by 6 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For unknown input delay, integral quadratic constraints techniques to bound the disturbances caused by the delay are integrated with a CBFs-based controller [11], which is extended to a tube-based CBF to establish robustness with respect to the unknown input delays [12].”
Self-citationRobust Safety-Critical Control for Input-Delayed System with Delay Estimation
Kim, Y., Kim, J., Ames, A. D., & Sloth, C. (2024) · 2024 European Control Conference (ECC) · doi:10.23919/ecc64448.2024.10591073 · Cited by 5 · cited 10× · see citing works
“To this end, we extend our previous framework, DaCBFs [13], while ensuring gradually non-increasing maximum state prediction error by using delay estimation and a disturbance observer, thereby reducing conservatism.”
InfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [22][22] C. B. Elijah Polak, Optimization: Algorithms Consistent Approximations . Springer, 2012. -
- [23][23] W.-H. Chen, 'Disturbance observer based control for nonlinear systems,' IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 706-710, 2004. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Integral Control Barrier Functions With Input Delay: Prediction, Feasibility, and Robustness
Kiss, A. K., Das, E., Molnar, T. G., & Ames, A. D. (2026) · IEEE Control Systems Letters · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2026.3715118
“Robustness to this error can be achieved through integral quadratic constraints [9], [10], input-to-state safety [11], or robust CBFs [12], [13], while online delay estimation may further reduce conservatism [14].”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kim, Y., Das, E., Kim, J., Ames, A. D., Burdick, J. W., & Sloth, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 2102-2107
- arXiv
- 2411.17277
- OpenAlex
- W4415179783
- Semantic Scholar
- a6d5443f47fd9495b0e3b2a1e01dddc61045d49c
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 2.29
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- European Control Conference (ECC) (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Stability and Control of Uncertain Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Advanced Control Systems Optimization
- Keywords
- control barrier functions, input delay, time delay estimation, estimation error bounds, conservatism reduction, disturbance observer, safety-critical control, online adaptive control, autonomous vehicles, nonlinear programming
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-15.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-15.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
