Multiple Control Barrier Functions: An Application to Reactive Obstacle Avoidance for a Multi-steering Tractor-trailer System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Control barrier functions (CBFs) recently introduced a systematic way to guarantee the system’s safety through set invariance. Together with a nominal control method, it establishes a safety-critical control mechanism. The resulting safety constraints can be enforced as hard constraints in quadratic programming (QP) optimization, which rectifies the nominal control law based on the set of safe inputs. In this work, we introduce a multiple CBFs scheme which enforces several safety constraints with high relative degrees. This control structure is essential in many challenging robotic applications that need to meet several safety criteria simultaneously. In order to illustrate the capabilities of the proposed method, we have addressed the problem of reactive obstacle avoidance for a class of tractor-trailer systems. Safety is one of the fundamental issues in autonomous tractor-trailer systems design. The lack of fast response due to poor maneuverability makes reactive obstacle avoidance difficult for these systems. We develop a control structure based on a multiple CBFs scheme for a multi-steering tractor-trailer system to ensure a collision-free maneuver for both the tractor and trailer in the presence of several obstacles. Model predictive control is selected as the nominal tracking controller, and the proposed control strategy is tested in several challenging scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".