Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Safety-Critical Optimal Control for Autonomous Systems

  • Published:
Journal of Systems Science and Complexity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the state of the art for safety-critical optimal control of autonomous systems. Optimal control methods are well studied, but become computationally infeasible for real-time applications when there are multiple hard safety constraints involved. To guarantee such safety constraints, it has been shown that optimizing quadratic costs while stabilizing affine control systems to desired (sets of) states subject to state and control constraints can be reduced to a sequence of Quadratic Programs (QPs) by using Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) and Control Lyapunov Functions (CLFs). The CBF method is computationally efficient, and can easily guarantee the satisfaction of nonlinear constraints for nonlinear systems, but its wide applicability still faces several challenges. First, safety is hard to guarantee for systems with high relative degree, and the above mentioned QPs can easily be infeasible if tight or time-varying control bounds are involved. The resulting solution is also sub-optimal due to its myopic solving approach. Finally, this method works conditioned on the system dynamics being accurately identified. The authors discuss recent solutions to these issues and then present a framework that combines Optimal Control with CBFs, hence termed OCBF, to obtain near-optimal solutions while guaranteeing safety constraints even in the presence of noisy dynamics. An application of the OCBF approach is included for autonomous vehicles in traffic networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Emuna R, Borowsky A, and Biess A, Deep reinforcement learning for human-like driving policies in collision avoidance tasks of self-driving cars, arXiv preprint: 2006.04218, 2020.

  2. Xiao W, Mehdipour N, Collin A, et al., Rule-based optimal control for autonomous driving, Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, 2021, 143–154.

  3. Breeden J and Panagou D, Quadratic programs for high relative degree spatial constraints and spatiotemporal specifications with spacecraft applications, 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2020, 1496–1502.

  4. Pepyne D and Cassandras C, Optimal control of hybrid systems in manufacturing, Proceedings of the IEEE, 2000, 88(7): 1108–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. LaValle S M, Kuffner J, and James J, Randomized kinodynamic planning, International Journal of Robotics Research, 2001, 20(5): 378–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hart P E, Nilsson N J, and Raphael B, A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths, IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, 1968, 4(2): 100–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bryson and Ho, Applied Optimal Control, Ginn Blaisdell, Waltham, MA, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Garcia C E and Prett D M, Model predictive control: Theory and practice, Automatica, 1989, 25(3): 335–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mayne D, Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise, Automatica, 2014, 50(12): 2967–2986.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Bemporad A, Borrelli F, and Morari M, Model predictive control based on linear programming, the explicit solution, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2002, 47(12): 1974–1985.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Bertsimas D and Tsitsiklis J N, Introduction to Linear Optimization, Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tee K P, Ge S S, and Tay E H, Barrier Lyapunov functions for the control of output-constrained nonlinear systems, Automatica, 2009, 45(4): 918–927.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Wieland P and Allgower F, Constructive safety using control barrier functions, Proc. of 7th IFAC Symposium on Nonlinear Control System, 2007.

  14. Boyd S P and Vandenberghe L, Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Aubin J P, Viability Theory, Springer, New York, 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Prajna S, Jadbabaie A, and Pappas G J, A framework for worst-case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2007, 52(8): 1415–1428.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Wisniewski R and Sloth C, Converse barrier certificate theorem, Proc. of 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Florence, Italy, 2013, 4713–4718.

  18. Panagou D, Stipanovic D M, and Voulgaris P G, Multi-objective control for multi-agent systems using lyapunov-like barrier functions, Proc. of 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Florence, Italy, 2013, 1478–1483.

  19. Ames A D, Grizzle J W, and Tabuada P, Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control, Proc. of 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2014, 6271–6278.

  20. Glotfelter P, Cortes J, and Egerstedt M, Nonsmooth barrier functions with applications to multirobot systems, IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2017, 1(2): 310–315.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindemann L and Dimarogonas D V, Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks, IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2019, 3(1): 96–101.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Sontag E, A Lyapunov-like characterization of asymptotic controllability, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 1983, 21(3): 462–471.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Artstein Z, Stabilization with relaxed controls, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 1983, 7(11): 1163–1173.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Freeman R A and Kokotovic P V, Robust Nonlinear Control Design, Birkhauser, Berlin, 1996.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Ames A D, Galloway K, and Grizzle J W, Control lyapunov functions and hybrid zero dynamics, Proc. of 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2012, 6837–6842.

  26. Galloway K, Sreenath K, Ames A D, et al., Torque saturation in bipedal robotic walking through control Lyapunov function based quadratic programs, IEEE Access, 2015, 3: 323–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xiao W, Cassandras C G, and Belta C, Bridging the gap between optimal trajectory planning and safety-critical control with applications to autonomous vehicles, Automatica, 2021, 129.109592.

  28. Khalil H K, Nonlinear Systems, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2002.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen Q and Sreenath K, Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints, Proc. of the American Control Conference, 2016, 322–328.

  30. Hsu S C, Xu X, and Ames A D, Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to bipedal robotic walking, Proc. of the American Control Conference, 2015, 4542–4548.

  31. Wu G and Sreenath K, Safety-critical and constrained geometric control synthesis using control Lyapunov and control barrier functions for systems evolving on manifolds, Proc. of the American Control Conference, 2015, 2038–2044.

  32. Xu X, Constrained control of inputoutput linearizable systems using control sharing barrier functions, Automatica, 2018, 87: 195–201.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Ames A D, Xu X, Grizzle J W, et al., Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2017, 62(8): 3861–3876.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Xiao W and Belta C, Control barrier functions for systems with high relative degree, Proc. of 58th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Nice, France, 2019, 474–479.

  35. Xiao W, Belta C, and Cassandras C G, Feasibility guided learning for constrained optimal control problems, Proc. of 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2020, 1896–1901.

  36. Xiao W, Balta C, and Cassandras C G, Sufficient conditions for feasibility of optimal control problems using control barrier functions, Automatica (in print), arXiv: 2011.08248, 2021.

  37. Taylor A J and Ames A D, Adaptive safety with control barrier functions, Proc. of the American Control Conference, 2020, 1399–1405.

  38. Lopez B T, Slotine J J E, and How J P, Robust adaptive control barrier functions: An adaptive and data-driven approach to safety, IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2020, 5(3): 1031–1036.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Fan D D, Nguyen J, Thakker R, et al., Bayesian learning-based adaptive control for safety critical systems, 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2020, 4093–4099.

  40. Khojasteh M J, Dhiman V, Franceschetti M, et al., Probabilistic safety constraints for learned high relative degree system dynamics, Learning for Dynamics and Control, 2020, 781–792.

  41. Xiao W, Belta C, and Cassandras C G, Adaptive control barrier functions, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2021, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2021.3074895.

  42. Taylor A J, Singletary A, Yue Y, et al., Learning for safety-critical control with control barrier functions, Proc. of Conf. on Learning for Dynamics and Control, 2020, 708–717.

  43. Sadraddini S and Belta C, Formal guarantees in data-driven model identification and control synthesis, Proc. of the 21st Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 2018, 147–156.

  44. Xiao W, Belta C, and Cassandras C G, Event-triggered safety-critical control for systems with unknown dynamics, Proc. of 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, preprint arXiv: 2103.15874, 2021.

  45. Xiao W and Cassandras C G, Decentralized optimal merging control for connected and automated vehicles with safety constraint guarantees, Automatica, 2021, 123(5): 109333.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  46. Vogel K, A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2003, 35(3): 427–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lindemann L and Dimarogonas D V, Control barrier functions for multi-agent systems under conflicting local signal temporal logic tasks, IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2019, 3(3): 757–762.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Xiao, G. Christos Cassandras or Calin Belta.

Additional information

This work was supported in part by NSF under Grant Nos. ECCS-1931600, DMS-1664644, CNS-1645681, IIS-1723995, and IIS-2024606, by ARPAE Under Grant No. DE-AR0001282 and by Its NEXTCAR Program Under Grant DE-AR0000796, by AFOSR Under Grant No. FA9550-19-1-0158, and by the MathWorks and by NPRP Grant (12S-0228-190177) from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of the Qatar Foundation).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xiao, W., Cassandras, G.C. & Belta, C. Safety-Critical Optimal Control for Autonomous Systems. J Syst Sci Complex 34, 1723–1742 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-021-1230-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-021-1230-x

Keywords

Navigation