pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.11897 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-14 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Sampling-Aware Control Barrier Functions for Safety-Critical and Finite-Time Constrained Control

Shuo Liu , Wei Xiao , Calin A. Belta This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 21:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords control barrier functionssampled-data systemssafety-critical controlfinite-time constraintszero-order holdhigh relative degreeunicycle robot
0
0 comments X

The pith

Sampling-aware control barrier functions guarantee continuous safety and finite-time reachability under zero-order-hold sampling.

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

The paper introduces Sampling-Aware Control Barrier Functions to close the gap between continuous-time safety proofs and their execution on digital controllers that hold inputs constant between updates. Traditional high-order barrier methods can lose safety during those intervals because they ignore how the barrier evolves when the control is frozen. By estimating Taylor-based upper bounds on the worst-case barrier change between samples and folding those bounds into the design, the new functions enforce forward invariance for both safety sets and finite-time reach-and-remain sets. A relaxed version adds slack variables to resolve conflicts among multiple constraints without making the problem infeasible. Readers would care because this lets safety-critical controllers move from theory to hardware without hidden inter-sample violations.

Core claim

SACBFs account for sampling effects and high relative-degree constraints by estimating and incorporating Taylor-based upper bounds on barrier evolution between sampling instants. This guarantees continuous-time forward invariance of safety and finite-time reach-and-remain sets under ZOH control. The relaxed r-SACBF variant introduces slack variables to handle multiple simultaneous constraints realized through time-varying CBFs, improving feasibility where standard methods fail.

What carries the argument

Sampling-Aware Control Barrier Functions (SACBFs) that estimate Taylor-based upper bounds on barrier evolution between sampling instants to enforce invariance under zero-order-hold control.

If this is right

  • Safety sets remain forward invariant in continuous time even though the controller applies constant inputs between updates.
  • Finite-time reach-and-remain requirements can be satisfied at the same time as safety constraints.
  • Multiple conflicting constraints become feasible through the introduction of slack variables in the relaxed formulation.
  • The method succeeds in unicycle robot scenarios where standard high-order CBFs lose safety or become infeasible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same bounding approach could be adapted to variable or event-triggered sampling rates without redesigning the core conditions.
  • Integration with online optimization might further reduce conservatism by tightening the Taylor bounds using real-time state estimates.
  • Hardware experiments with actuator delays would test whether the discrete guarantees translate when the zero-order-hold assumption is only approximate.

Load-bearing premise

The Taylor-based upper bounds on barrier evolution between sampling instants are tight enough to preserve invariance without rendering the control problem infeasible.

What would settle it

A calculation or simulation in which the actual barrier function exceeds the Taylor-derived upper bound between two consecutive samples under the computed control, producing a safety violation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11897 by Calin A. Belta, Shuo Liu, Wei Xiao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time evolution of decision variables under r-SACBF, SACBF, and HOCBF methods when initial heading angle is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Closed-loop trajectories with controllers derived using r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Closed-loop trajectory generated by the r-SACBF method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the SACBF functions. The top plot shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In safety-critical control systems, ensuring both safety and feasibility under sampled-data implementations is crucial for practical deployment. Existing Control Barrier Function (CBF) frameworks, such as High-Order CBFs (HOCBFs), effectively guarantee safety in continuous time but may become unsafe when executed under zero-order-hold (ZOH) controllers due to inter-sampling effects. Moreover, they do not explicitly handle finite-time reach-and-remain requirements or multiple simultaneous constraints, which often lead to conflicts between safety and reach-and-remain objectives, resulting in feasibility issues during control synthesis. This paper introduces Sampling-Aware Control Barrier Functions (SACBFs), a unified framework that accounts for sampling effects and high relative-degree constraints by estimating and incorporating Taylor-based upper bounds on barrier evolution between sampling instants. The proposed method guarantees continuous-time forward invariance of safety and finite-time reach-and-remain sets under ZOH control. To further improve feasibility, a relaxed variant (r-SACBF) introduces slack variables for handling multiple constraints realized through time-varying CBFs. Simulation studies on a unicycle robot demonstrate that SACBFs achieve safe and feasible performance in scenarios where traditional HOCBF methods fail.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Sampling-Aware Control Barrier Functions (SACBFs) that incorporate Taylor-based upper bounds on the evolution of barrier functions between sampling instants. This is intended to guarantee continuous-time forward invariance of both safety sets and finite-time reach-and-remain sets when the resulting controller is implemented under zero-order hold (ZOH). A relaxed variant (r-SACBF) adds slack variables to mitigate feasibility issues arising from multiple simultaneous high-relative-degree constraints. The claims are supported by a unicycle-robot simulation in which SACBFs succeed in cases where standard high-order CBFs (HOCBFs) reportedly fail.

Significance. If the Taylor upper bounds can be shown to be both valid and sufficiently tight, the framework would address a practically important gap between continuous-time CBF theory and sampled-data implementations. The explicit treatment of finite-time reach-and-remain objectives together with sampling effects is a useful extension of existing HOCBF methods and could be relevant for robotic and autonomous-system applications.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4] §4 (Main invariance result): the central guarantee of continuous-time forward invariance under ZOH rests on the Taylor upper bound correctly dominating the barrier trajectory between samples. The manuscript states the bound but does not supply the explicit remainder term, the assumption on the Lipschitz constant of the third derivative, or the condition relating the sampling period h to these quantities; without these, it is impossible to verify that the bound holds for all admissible trajectories.
  2. [§5] §5 (r-SACBF relaxation): the introduction of slack variables restores feasibility when multiple constraints are active, yet the analysis does not establish whether the relaxed constraints still enforce the finite-time reach-and-remain property or merely the safety set. A precise statement of the modified invariance condition and any additional decay requirements on the slack are needed.
  3. [Simulation section] Simulation section: the unicycle example is used to illustrate that SACBFs succeed where HOCBFs fail, but the text does not report the numerical sampling period, the order of the Taylor expansion employed, or quantitative metrics (e.g., maximum barrier violation or fraction of feasible QPs across Monte-Carlo trials). These data are required to assess whether the bounds are tight enough in practice.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Preliminaries] The notation distinguishing the sampling-aware barrier from its continuous-time counterpart could be made more explicit, especially when the time-varying CBF formulation is introduced.
  2. A short discussion of how the Lipschitz constants or derivative bounds are obtained or estimated in practice would help readers implement the method.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which help strengthen the rigor and clarity of the presentation. We address each major comment point by point below. Where the manuscript is missing explicit details or statements, we will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Main invariance result): the central guarantee of continuous-time forward invariance under ZOH rests on the Taylor upper bound correctly dominating the barrier trajectory between samples. The manuscript states the bound but does not supply the explicit remainder term, the assumption on the Lipschitz constant of the third derivative, or the condition relating the sampling period h to these quantities; without these, it is impossible to verify that the bound holds for all admissible trajectories.

    Authors: We agree that the main invariance result in Section 4 requires these supporting details to be fully verifiable. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly include the Lagrange form of the Taylor remainder, state the assumption that the third derivative of the barrier function is Lipschitz continuous with constant L, and derive the explicit upper bound on the sampling period h (in terms of L and uniform bounds on the lower-order derivatives) that guarantees the Taylor upper bound dominates the inter-sample evolution for all admissible trajectories. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (r-SACBF relaxation): the introduction of slack variables restores feasibility when multiple constraints are active, yet the analysis does not establish whether the relaxed constraints still enforce the finite-time reach-and-remain property or merely the safety set. A precise statement of the modified invariance condition and any additional decay requirements on the slack are needed.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. The r-SACBF formulation is intended to preserve both safety invariance and the finite-time reach-and-remain property, but the current text does not make the conditions explicit. In the revision we will add a precise statement of the modified invariance condition and introduce an additional decay requirement on the slack variables (e.g., that each slack decays at a rate strictly faster than the nominal class-K function) under which the finite-time reach-and-remain property continues to hold. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Simulation section] Simulation section: the unicycle example is used to illustrate that SACBFs succeed where HOCBFs fail, but the text does not report the numerical sampling period, the order of the Taylor expansion employed, or quantitative metrics (e.g., maximum barrier violation or fraction of feasible QPs across Monte-Carlo trials). These data are required to assess whether the bounds are tight enough in practice.

    Authors: We agree that these implementation and performance details are necessary for assessing practical tightness and reproducibility. In the revised simulation section we will report the numerical sampling period used, the order of the Taylor expansion employed to construct the upper bound, and quantitative metrics including the maximum observed barrier violation and the fraction of feasible QPs across Monte-Carlo trials. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; SACBF bounds derived from standard Taylor expansion without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The derivation relies on applying the Taylor theorem to bound barrier function evolution between samples under ZOH, which is a standard analytic step independent of the invariance claim. No equations redefine a quantity in terms of itself or rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Self-citations to prior CBF work exist but are not load-bearing for the new sampling-aware bounds; the central guarantee follows from the explicit upper-bound inequalities rather than from a self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling. The framework remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as the Taylor remainder theorem.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard control-theoretic assumptions about differentiability and the existence of computable Taylor bounds; no free parameters or new physical entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Barrier functions are sufficiently smooth for Taylor expansions to yield valid upper bounds on inter-sample evolution.
    Invoked to estimate barrier change between sampling instants.
invented entities (1)
  • Sampling-Aware Control Barrier Functions (SACBFs) no independent evidence
    purpose: To enforce safety under sampled-data control.
    New concept defined in the paper to incorporate sampling effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5511 in / 1262 out tokens · 47090 ms · 2026-05-17T21:42:39.599521+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Boyd, S. P. Boyd, and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Barrier Lyapunov functions for the control of output-constrained nonlinear systems,

    K. P. Tee, S. S. Ge, and E. H. Tay, “Barrier Lyapunov functions for the control of output-constrained nonlinear systems,”Automatica, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 918–927, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Aubin, A

    J.-P. Aubin, A. M. Bayen, and P. Saint-Pierre,Viability theory: new directions. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    A framework for worst- case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates,

    S. Prajna, A. Jadbabaie, and G. J. Pappas, “A framework for worst- case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1415–1428, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Safety barrier certificates for collisions-free multirobot systems,

    L. Wang, A. D. Ames, and M. Egerstedt, “Safety barrier certificates for collisions-free multirobot systems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 661–674, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    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

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    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, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Control Lyapunov functions and hybrid zero dynamics,

    A. D. Ames, K. Galloway, and J. W. Grizzle, “Control Lyapunov functions and hybrid zero dynamics,” in2012 IEEE 51st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2012, pp. 6837–6842

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    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 (ACC), 2016, pp. 322–328

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    High-order control barrier functions,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “High-order control barrier functions,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3655–3662, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Zeroing control barrier functions for safe volitional pedaling in a motorized cycle,

    A. Isaly, B. C. Allen, R. G. Sanfelice, and W. E. Dixon, “Zeroing control barrier functions for safe volitional pedaling in a motorized cycle,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 218–223, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Auxiliary-variable adaptive control barrier functions for safety critical systems,

    S. Liu, W. Xiao, and C. A. Belta, “Auxiliary-variable adaptive control barrier functions for safety critical systems,” in2023 62th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Auxiliary-variable adaptive control barrier functions,

    ——, “Auxiliary-variable adaptive control barrier functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15026, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Humanoid self-collision avoidance using whole-body control with control barrier functions,

    C. Khazoom, D. Gonzalez-Diaz, Y . Ding, and S. Kim, “Humanoid self-collision avoidance using whole-body control with control barrier functions,” in2022 IEEE-RAS 21st International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2022, pp. 558–565

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Learning- enabled iterative convex optimization for safety-critical model predictive control,

    S. Liu, Z. Huang, J. Zeng, K. Sreenath, and C. A. Belta, “Learning- enabled iterative convex optimization for safety-critical model predictive control,”IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Safety-critical planning and control for dynamic obstacle avoidance using control barrier functions,

    S. Liu, Y . Mao, and C. A. Belta, “Safety-critical planning and control for dynamic obstacle avoidance using control barrier functions,” in 2025 American Control Conference (ACC), 2025, pp. 348–354

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks,

    L. Lindemann and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks,”IEEE control systems letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 96–101, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    High order control Lyapunov-barrier functions for temporal logic specifications,

    W. Xiao, C. A. Belta, and C. G. Cassandras, “High order control Lyapunov-barrier functions for temporal logic specifications,” in2021 American Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 4886–4891

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Control-lyapunov and control-barrier functions based quadratic program for spatio-temporal specifications,

    K. Garg and D. Panagou, “Control-lyapunov and control-barrier functions based quadratic program for spatio-temporal specifications,” in2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1422–1429

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Auxiliary-variable adaptive control lyapunov barrier functions for spatio-temporally constrained safety- critical applications,

    S. Liu, W. Xiao, and C. A. Belta, “Auxiliary-variable adaptive control lyapunov barrier functions for spatio-temporally constrained safety- critical applications,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2024, pp. 8098–8104

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to bipedal robotic walking,

    S.-C. Hsu, X. Xu, and A. D. Ames, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to bipedal robotic walking,” in 2015 American Control Conference (ACC), 2015, pp. 4542–4548

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Continuous-time signal temporal logic planning with control barrier functions,

    G. Yang, C. Belta, and R. Tron, “Continuous-time signal temporal logic planning with control barrier functions,” in2020 American Control Conference (ACC), 2020, pp. 4612–4618

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Control barrier functions for mechanical systems: Theory and application to robotic grasping,

    W. S. Cortez, D. Oetomo, C. Manzie, and P. Choong, “Control barrier functions for mechanical systems: Theory and application to robotic grasping,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 530–545, 2019

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Self-triggered control for safety critical systems using control barrier functions,

    G. Yang, C. Belta, and R. Tron, “Self-triggered control for safety critical systems using control barrier functions,” in2019 American control conference (ACC), 2019, pp. 4454–4459

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Control barrier functions in sampled-data systems,

    J. Breeden, K. Garg, and D. Panagou, “Control barrier functions in sampled-data systems,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 367– 372, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Safety of sampled-data systems with control barrier functions via approximate discrete time models,

    A. J. Taylor, V . D. Dorobantu, R. K. Cosner, Y . Yue, and A. D. Ames, “Safety of sampled-data systems with control barrier functions via approximate discrete time models,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2022, pp. 7127–7134

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Sampling and quantization-aware control barrier functions for safety-critical control of cyber-physical systems,

    L. Niu, B. Ramasubramanian, A. Clark, and R. Poovendran, “Sampling and quantization-aware control barrier functions for safety-critical control of cyber-physical systems,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2024, pp. 1637–1644

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    R. T. Rockafellar and R. J. Wets,Variational analysis. Springer, 1998

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    H. K. Khalil,Nonlinear systems; 3rd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2002, the book can be consulted by contacting: PH-AID: Wallet, Lionel. [Online]. Available: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1173048

    work page arXiv 2002

  30. [30]

    Control barrier functions for sampled-data systems with input delays,

    A. Singletary, Y . Chen, and A. D. Ames, “Control barrier functions for sampled-data systems with input delays,” in2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2020, pp. 804–809

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Rudin,Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed

    W. Rudin,Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 1976

    work page 1976

  32. [32]

    Numerical recipes 3rd edition,

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, “Numerical recipes 3rd edition,”Cambridge: New York, 2007

    work page 2007