Characterizing Safety: Minimal Barrier Functions from Scalar Comparison Systems

Aaron D. Ames; Rohit Konda; Samuel Coogan

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Characterizing Safety: Minimal Barrier Functions from Scalar Comparison Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that positive invariance of a set {x: h(x) ≥ 0} is, under mild regularity assumptions, equivalent to the existence of a minimal function μ satisfying L_f h(x) ≥ −μ(h(x)) for all x in the domain.

desk verdict The paper's central theorem as printed is false because it omits the positive-invariance hypothesis, but the intended result is correct and the rest of the contribution is solid enough to warrant a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09323 v3 pith:3LQKXLE7 submitted 2019-08-25 eess.SY cs.SY

Rohit Konda , Aaron D. Ames , Samuel Coogan This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 34D2093C1093D0593B03

keywords minimalbarrierfunctionssetinvariancecomparisonsystemsdifferentialinequalitiescontrolsafetyverificationpositivenon-Lipschitz

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

This paper claims that the safest way to certify that a system never leaves a prescribed set is to find a scalar comparison function. It defines a minimal barrier function h: the set S = {x : h(x) ≥ 0} is guaranteed invariant if a continuous 'minimal function' μ makes L_f h(x) ≥ −μ(h(x)) hold at every x in the domain, where being a minimal function means the comparison equation \dot w = −μ(w) starting at 0 never lets its smallest solution become negative. Unlike boundary-only conditions, this global flow condition needs no regularity of the boundary of S, so it works for safe sets that are points, limit cycles, subspaces, or sets with corners. The paper goes on to characterize exactly which continuous functions are minimal, and shows that under compactness and smoothness assumptions the condition is also necessary: a locally Lipschitz μ exists whenever S is invariant.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the minimal function μ together with the scalar comparison principle (Proposition 1). A continuous μ is minimal when the minimal solution of the initial value problem \dot w = −μ(w), w(0) = 0 stays nonnegative for all time. That same scalar system acts as a worst-case lower bound: if η(t) satisfies \dot η ≥ −μ(η) and η(0) ≥ 0, then η(t) stays above the minimal solution, so the inequality L_f h(x) ≥ −μ(h(x)) over the whole domain forces h(x(t)) to remain nonnegative. Theorem 2 turns 'minimal' into four explicit local conditions on μ near zero, and Theorem 3 uses the infimum of L_f h over level sets of h to construct a locally Lipschitz μ under regularity assumptions.

What would settle it

The cleanest check is to test the necessity direction: construct a smooth h and locally Lipschitz f such that S is positively invariant, 0 is a regular value, and every strip {x : −δ ≤ h(x) ≤ δ} is compact, then attempt to build μ from the infimum of L_f h over each level set; Theorem 3 asserts this always yields a locally Lipschitz minimal function, so any example where no such μ exists, or where the minimal solution of \dot w = −μ(w) becomes negative, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: positive invariance of S = {x : h(x) ≥ 0} is characterized by the existence of a minimal function μ with L_f h(x) ≥ −μ(h(x)) for all x ∈ D. The comparison system \dot w = −μ(w), w(0) = 0 serves as a worst-case model for the evolution of h along trajectories; if its minimal solution never goes negative, no trajectory of the original system can push h below zero. This condition is sufficient without any boundary regularity of h, and under assumptions of compact level-set strips and 0 as a regular value it is necessary as well, so a locally Lipschitz μ always exists when the set is invariant. The four cases of Theorem 2 give the exact class of admissible μ and include non-Lipschitz examples, showing that the barrier-function framework extends beyond extended class K functions and beyond comparison systems with unique solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the differential inequality L_f h(x) ≥ −μ(h(x)) holds for every x in the whole domain D, including the region where h(x) < 0; if it only holds on the safe set S, a trajectory that starts at the boundary can slip out without being caught by the comparison argument.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any set defined by a smooth h is certifiably invariant as soon as a minimal function μ is found, with no requirement that the gradient of h be nonzero on the boundary; this covers safe sets that are points, limit cycles, subspaces, or sets with corners.
Theorem 2 gives a finite checklist for whether a continuous μ is minimal: μ(0) < 0, or μ(0) = 0 with a left neighborhood where μ ≤ 0, or μ changes sign arbitrarily near 0, or μ ≥ 0 on a left interval with a divergent integral of −1/μ.
Under mild regularity assumptions (h twice differentiable, 0 a regular value, and compact level-set strips), positive invariance and the existence of a minimal barrier function are equivalent, so no information is lost by using this condition.
For control-affine systems, if the set of viable controls K(x) is nonempty and strictly feasible at every state, there exists a continuous controller satisfying the safety constraint, and a quadratic program selecting the closest controller to a nominal one yields a continuous feedback law.

Reading between the lines

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

Nothing in the proof of Theorem 1 uses uniqueness of the original system's solutions, so the same comparison argument should certify invariance for differential inclusions and hybrid systems, a direction the paper only sketches.
Because the four cases of Theorem 2 are stated purely in terms of the local behavior of μ near 0, the minimal-function condition could be checked numerically by sampling μ on small left neighborhoods, suggesting a computational safety-verification procedure.
The global-domain requirement means that when a barrier h is naturally defined only on S, the certificate depends on how h is extended to the rest of the domain; the paper's Example 4 shows that a careless extension can produce a false safety certificate.
The appendix's stability result implies a single scalar comparison function can serve as both a safety certificate and a Lyapunov-like stability certificate, so minimal barrier functions may unify safety and stability analysis for the same set.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here is the read on 1908.09323. The headline is that Theorem 3 as stated is false: it asserts existence of a locally Lipschitz µL with µL(0)≤0 satisfying the barrier inequality under only regularity and compactness hypotheses, but the proof explicitly assumes S is positively invariant and uses that to get µL(0)≤0. The one-dimensional counterexample h(x)=x, f(x)=−1 satisfies every stated hypothesis, and the inequality at x=0 forces µL(0)≥1, contradicting µL(0)≤0. The paper's own Section I-A states the theorem with the "if S is invariant" qualifier, so the omission in Section III is likely a typo, and the intended theorem is correct. But as printed, the necessary direction of Corollary 2 rests on an invalid statement.

What is actually new: minimal barrier functions and the four-case characterization of minimal comparison functions in Theorem 2. The sufficiency direction via the comparison principle is clean and works for non-Lipschitz µ, which is a real advance over prior barrier certificate conditions requiring regular values. The examples are well chosen; Example 4 correctly warns that checking the inequality only on S can falsely certify invariance, a useful caution.

Soft spots beyond the theorem statement: the proof of Theorem 3 also has a sign inconsistency, since µL should equal −Γ on the neighborhood, not Γ, and the proof of Lemma 1 is compressed around the integrability argument. These are minor relative to the missing hypothesis. The paper leans on external ODE uniqueness results, which is normal for this literature.

Who this is for: people working on safety verification and control barrier functions, especially set invariance for non-regular sets like points and limit cycles. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should require the theorem statement and proof sign to be corrected before acceptance.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces "minimal barrier functions" (MBFs) for certifying positive invariance of sets S = {x : h(x) >= 0} for continuous, not necessarily Lipschitz, dynamics. The core idea is to impose a differential inequality Lf h(x) >= -mu(h(x)) for all x in the domain D, where mu is a "minimal function" in the sense that the minimal solution of w_dot = -mu(w), w(0) = 0 stays nonnegative. Theorem 1 establishes sufficiency of this condition. Theorem 2 gives four verifiable necessary-and-sufficient conditions for a continuous function mu to be minimal. Theorem 3 claims that, under regularity conditions (twice differentiability of h, compactness of level sets, 0 a regular value of h, and f locally Lipschitz), a locally Lipschitz minimal function always exists; Corollary 2 then concludes that positive invariance is equivalent to h being a minimal barrier function. The paper also extends the framework to control-affine systems with state-dependent input constraints, gives conditions for existence of continuous controllers, and includes appendices on time-varying systems, Lyapunov stability, and connections to Nagumo-type boundary conditions.

Significance. If the central characterization is corrected, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it enlarges the class of comparison functions beyond extended class K and locally Lipschitz functions while retaining a simple sufficient condition, and it provides explicit, checkable conditions for the comparison function (Theorem 2). The paper correctly emphasizes that the differential inequality must hold on the whole domain D, not only on S, and Example 4 shows that violating this leads to false invariance certificates. The extension to control barrier functions with state-dependent input constraints is also useful. However, the main necessary-and-sufficient claim currently rests on Theorem 3, whose printed statement is false; the intended fix is clear and local, so the contribution is salvageable with a major revision.

major comments (2)

[Section III, Theorem 3, and Appendix D, Proposition 6] The statement of Theorem 3 is false as printed because it omits the positive-invariance assumption that the proof explicitly uses. The proof concludes "Since S is assumed to be invariant..." but positive invariance of S is not among the hypotheses. A one-dimensional counterexample satisfies every stated hypothesis: take D = R, h(x) = x, f(x) = -1. Then h is twice differentiable, Lambda_delta = [-delta, delta] is compact, 0 is a regular value of h, and f is locally Lipschitz. But Lf h(0) = -1, so the claimed inequality Lf h(x) >= -mu_L(h(x)) at x = 0 requires -1 >= -mu_L(0), i.e., mu_L(0) >= 1, contradicting the claimed mu_L(0) <= 0. Thus no admissible mu_L exists. The same omission occurs in Proposition 6 of Appendix D, whose proof also invokes "Since S is assumed to be invariant" without this being a hypothesis. Because Corollary 2's necessity direction relies on Theorem 3, the theorem statement must be corrected by adding "if S is positively invariant" to the hypotheses, exactly as the proof and Corollary 2 use it, and Proposition 6 should be corrected in the same way.
[Section III, proof of Theorem 3] The proof contains a sign inconsistency in the construction of mu_L. The text states that "mu_L restricted to U' is equal to Gamma", but the barrier inequality Lf h(x) >= Gamma(h(x)) >= -mu_L(h(x)) and the subsequent conclusion mu_L(0) = -Gamma(0) are compatible only if mu_L equals -Gamma on U'. Please correct the sign so that the construction matches the intended inequality and the concluding line.

minor comments (5)

[Section II, Lemma 1] The comparison of reciprocals in the proof is not fully justified: the inequality 1/mu(h(x)) <= -1/Gamma(h(x)) a.e. requires that -Gamma(h(x)) > 0 a.e. on the relevant interval, but the proof only establishes mu >= -Gamma and asserts Gamma != 0 a.e. Please justify this step or restate the argument.
[Section II, Theorem 2, Case 4] The condition "mu(w) >= 0 on [-epsilon, 0]" should be stated as "mu(w) > 0 a.e. on [-epsilon, 0]" so that the reciprocal -1/mu(w) is defined almost everywhere and the nonintegrability condition is meaningful.
[Section II, proof of Proposition 1, Eq. (10)] In the limit equation after Cauchy convergence, the integrand should be g(r(s)) rather than g(r_n(s)); the subscript n is a leftover from the approximation sequence.
[Section III, proof of Theorem 3] In the Lipschitz estimate, the notation "Lf(x1)" should be "Lf h(x1)" to match the Lie derivative notation used throughout the paper.
[Section IV, Example 6] The sentence "Notice all of the assumptions for Proposition 5 are satisfied" should refer to Theorem 5, which is the result on continuity of the quadratic-program controller, rather than to Proposition 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; comparison argument is self-contained, but Theorem 3 has a missing-invariance correctness flaw.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Theorem 1's sufficiency is a direct application of the external comparison principle (Proposition 1, attributed to [17] with a proof included in the paper), not an assumption of invariance; it assumes the MBF differential inequality (12) over all of D and compares h(x(t)) with the minimal solution of w˙ = −μ(w) with w(0)=0. Theorem 2's characterization of minimal functions is proved from uniqueness/nonuniqueness criteria [18], not from the MBF theorem. Lemma 1 and the construction in Theorem 3 derive comparison functions from Γ(w)=inf_{x:h(x)=w} L_f h(x); the proofs use Lyusternik's theorem, compactness, and semicontinuity arguments, not the target invariance conclusion. The one genuinely load-bearing defect is in Theorem 3: its proof uses the sentence 'Since S is assumed to be invariant, Lf h(x) ≥ 0 for all x∈h−1(0), so μL(0)=−Γ(0)≤0,' but positive invariance is not stated as a hypothesis of Theorem 3, and the skeptic's one-dimensional example shows the printed statement is false as stated. That is a missing-hypothesis/correctness flaw in the necessity argument for Corollary 2, not a circular reduction: the theorem's conclusion is not identical to an input assumption, and the missing hypothesis is recoverable from the proof. The paper's self-citations ([3], [22], which overlap with the authors) are used for context, motivation, and comparison with zeroing barrier functions, not as the engine of Theorems 1–2; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no specific circular step is identified; the score of 2 reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citation, not a circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no physical or empirical entities. It relies on standard ODE theory, comparison principles, and selection theorems, all cited to external texts. The new objects, minimal functions and minimal barrier functions, are definitions rather than postulated entities; their validity is established by Theorem 2 and Theorem 1. The main domain assumptions are the regularity conditions in Theorem 3 and the quasiconvexity of input constraints in Section IV.

assumptions (8)

standard math Continuous f on an open domain D guarantees local existence, but not uniqueness, of solutions to xdot=f(x).
Cauchy-Peano theorem; used in Section II to define maximal solutions and in Theorem 1.
standard math For continuous scalar g, the initial value problem wdot=g(w), w(0)=w0 has a unique minimal solution on its maximal interval.
Invoked in Section II-A and Proposition 1; cited to Lakshmikantham and Leela [16, Thm 1.3.2].
standard math Comparison lemma [17, Thm 6.3]: if eta dot >= g(eta) and eta(0) >= w0, then eta is bounded below by the minimal solution of the comparison system.
Proposition 1 restates and proves this lemma; it is the mechanism behind Theorem 1.
standard math Scalar ODE uniqueness and non-uniqueness criteria from Agarwal and Lakshmikantham [18], including integrability of -1/mu in deciding whether solutions reach zero.
Used to prove Theorem 2's four-case characterization and Corollary 1.
standard math Lyusternik's theorem: for h in C^2 with nonzero gradient on h^{-1}(0), distance to the level set h^{-1}(w) is bounded by a constant times |h(x')-w| locally.
Used in Theorem 3 to prove that Gamma is Lipschitz near 0; cited to Dmitruk et al. [24].
domain assumption h is twice continuously differentiable, the sublevel sets Lambda_delta are compact for all delta >= 0, and 0 is a regular value of h.
These are the assumptions of Theorem 3 and Corollary 2 under which invariance implies existence of a locally Lipschitz minimal function.
standard math Michael's selection theorem: a lower semicontinuous set-valued map with nonempty closed convex values admits a continuous selection.
Used in Proposition 3 to obtain a continuous controller; cited to Michael [27].
domain assumption Input constraint sets U(x) are described by continuous strictly quasiconvex inequalities e_i(x,u) <= 0.
Assumed in Section IV to give K(x) closed convex values and continuity of the QP solution in Theorem 5.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterizing Safety: Minimal Barrier Functions from Scalar Comparison Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3LQKXLE7

@misc{pith2026190809323,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterizing Safety: Minimal Barrier Functions from Scalar Comparison Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3LQKXLE7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09323}
}

read the original abstract

Verifying set invariance has classical solutions stemming from the seminal work by Nagumo, and defining sets via a smooth barrier function constraint inequality results in computable flow conditions for guaranteeing set invariance. While a majority of these historic results on set invariance consider flow conditions on the boundary, recent results on control barrier functions extended these conditions to the entire set, although they required regularity conditions on the barrier function. This paper fully characterizes set invariance through \emph{minimal barrier functions} by directly appealing to a comparison result to define a flow condition over the entire domain of the system. A considerable benefit of this approach is the removal of regularity assumptions of the barrier function. This paper also outlines necessary and sufficient conditions for a valid differential inequality condition, giving the minimum conditions for this type of approach. We also show when minimal barrier functions are necessary and sufficient for set invariance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Blanchini and S

F. Blanchini and S. Miani, Set-theoretic methods in control . Springer, 2008

2008
[2]

Control barrie r function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive crui se control,

A. D. Ames, J. W. Grizzle, and P . Tabuada, “Control barrie r function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive crui se control,” in 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 6271–6278, IEEE, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,

A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P . Tabuada, “Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017

2017
[4]

¨Uber die lage der integralkurven gew¨ ohnlicher differ- entialgleichungen,

M. Nagumo, “ ¨Uber die lage der integralkurven gew¨ ohnlicher differ- entialgleichungen,” Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series , vol. 24, pp. 551–559, 1942

work page 1942
[5]

Principe du maximum, in´ egalit´ e de harnac k et unicit´ e du probleme de cauchy pour les op´ erateurs elliptiques d´ eg ´ en´ er´ es,

J.-M. Bony, “Principe du maximum, in´ egalit´ e de harnac k et unicit´ e du probleme de cauchy pour les op´ erateurs elliptiques d´ eg ´ en´ er´ es,” in Annales de l’institut F ourier , vol. 19, pp. 277–304, 1969

work page 1969
[6]

On a characterization of ﬂow-invariant sets ,

H. Brezis, “On a characterization of ﬂow-invariant sets ,” Communica- tions on Pure and Applied Mathematics , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 261–263, 1970

work page 1970
[7]

On ﬂow-invariant sets.,

G. Ladde, V . Lakshmikantham, et al., “On ﬂow-invariant sets.,” Paciﬁc Journal of Mathematics , vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 215–220, 1974

work page 1974
[8]

The theorems of bony and brezis on ﬂow-inv ariant sets,

R. Redheffer, “The theorems of bony and brezis on ﬂow-inv ariant sets,” The American Mathematical Monthly , vol. 79, no. 7, pp. 740– 747, 1972

work page 1972

Show all 35 references

[9]

Safety veriﬁcation of hybri d systems us- ing barrier certiﬁcates,

S. Prajna and A. Jadbabaie, “Safety veriﬁcation of hybri d systems us- ing barrier certiﬁcates,” in International W orkshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control , pp. 477–492, Springer, 2004

2004
[10]

A framework f or worst- case and stochastic safety veriﬁcation using barrier certi ﬁcates,

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

2007
[11]

Converse barrier certiﬁca te theorems,

R. Wisniewski and C. Sloth, “Converse barrier certiﬁca te theorems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1356– 1361, 2015

2015
[12]

Aubin, Viability theory

J.-P . Aubin, Viability theory . Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

2009
[13]

Exponentia l- condition-based barrier certiﬁcate generation for safety veriﬁcation of hybrid systems,

H. Kong, F. He, X. Song, W. N. Hung, and M. Gu, “Exponentia l- condition-based barrier certiﬁcate generation for safety veriﬁcation of hybrid systems,” in International Conference on Computer Aided V eriﬁcation, pp. 242–257, Springer, 2013

2013
[14]

Ordinary differential equations,

P . Hartman, “Ordinary differential equations,” 1964

1964
[15]

Pachpatte, Inequalities for differential and integral equations , vol

B. Pachpatte, Inequalities for differential and integral equations , vol. 197. Elsevier, 1997

1997
[16]

Lakshmikantham and S

V . Lakshmikantham and S. Leela, Differential and Integral Inequali- ties: Theory and Applications: V olume I: Ordinary Differen tial Equa- tions. Academic press, 1969

1969
[17]

D. D. Bainov and P . S. Simeonov, Integral inequalities and applica- tions, vol. 57. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013
[18]

R. P . Agarwal and V . Lakshmikantham, Uniqueness and nonunique- ness criteria for ordinary differential equations , vol. 6. World Scientiﬁc Publishing Company, 1993

1993
[19]

Characterizations of safety in hybrid inclusions via barrier functions,

M. Maghenem and R. G. Sanfelice, “Characterizations of safety in hybrid inclusions via barrier functions,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computati on and Control, pp. 109–118, ACM, 2019

2019
[20]

Sufﬁcient conditions for forward invariance and contractivity in hybrid inclusions using ba rrier func- tions,

M. Maghenem and R. G. Sanfelice, “Sufﬁcient conditions for forward invariance and contractivity in hybrid inclusions using ba rrier func- tions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.03980 , 2019

1908 arXiv
[21]

Flow-invariant sets and differential inequalities in normed spaces,

R. M. Redheffer and W. Walter, “Flow-invariant sets and differential inequalities in normed spaces,” Applicable Analysis , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 149–161, 1975

1975
[22]

Control barrier functions: Theory and appl ications,

A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sre enath, and P . Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and appl ications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11199 , 2019

1903 arXiv
[23]

Berge, Topological Spaces: including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces, and convexity

C. Berge, Topological Spaces: including a treatment of multi-valued functions, vector spaces, and convexity . Courier Corporation, 1997

1997
[24]

Ly usternik’s theorem and the theory of extrema,

A. V . Dmitruk, A. A. Milyutin, and N. P . Osmolovskii, “Ly usternik’s theorem and the theory of extrema,” Russian Mathematical Surveys , vol. 35, no. 6, p. 11, 1980

1980
[25]

Aubin and I

J.-P . Aubin and I. Ekeland, Applied nonlinear analysis . Courier Corporation, 2006

2006
[26]

Stability in nonlinear prog ramming,

J. P . Evans and F. J. Gould, “Stability in nonlinear prog ramming,” Operations Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 107–118, 1970

1970
[27]

Continuous selections. i,

E. Michael, “Continuous selections. i,” Annals of mathematics , pp. 361–382, 1956

1956
[28]

Point-to-set maps in mathematical progra mming,

W. W. Hogan, “Point-to-set maps in mathematical progra mming,” SIAM review, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 591–603, 1973

1973
[29]

Aubin and A

J.-P . Aubin and A. Cellina, Differential inclusions: set-valued maps and viability theory , vol. 264. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

2012
[31]

Continuity an d smooth- ness properties of nonlinear optimization-based feedback controllers,

B. J. Morris, M. J. Powell, and A. D. Ames, “Continuity an d smooth- ness properties of nonlinear optimization-based feedback controllers,” in 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pp. 151–158, IEEE, 2015

2015
[32]

Control barrier fu nctions for signal temporal logic tasks,

L. Lindemann and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Control barrier fu nctions for signal temporal logic tasks,” IEEE control systems letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 96–101, 2019

2019
[33]

N. P . Bhatia and G. P . Szeg¨ o, Dynamical systems: stability theory and applications, vol. 35. Springer, 2006

2006
[34]

Robustn ess of con- trol barrier functions for safety critical control,

X. Xu, P . Tabuada, J. W. Grizzle, and A. D. Ames, “Robustn ess of con- trol barrier functions for safety critical control,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 27, pp. 54–61, 2015

2015
[35]

Extensions of the Evans-Gould stability theorems for mathematical programs,

H. J. Greenberg and W. P . Pierskalla, “Extensions of the Evans-Gould stability theorems for mathematical programs,” Operations Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 143–153, 1972. APPENDIX A EXTENDING TO TIME -VARYING BARRIER FUNCTIONS In this appendix, we extend the above results to...

1972
[36]

Therefore, minimal barrier functions can be regarded as a direct extension of Lyapunov functions. APPENDIX C COMPARISON BETWEEN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS In this appendix, we recall a few versions of results from Nagumo’s theorem and we then compare minimal barrier functions with th...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Blanchini and S

F. Blanchini and S. Miani, Set-theoretic methods in control . Springer, 2008

2008

[2] [2]

Control barrie r function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive crui se control,

A. D. Ames, J. W. Grizzle, and P . Tabuada, “Control barrie r function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive crui se control,” in 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pp. 6271–6278, IEEE, 2014

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,

A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P . Tabuada, “Control b arrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical syst ems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017

2017

[4] [4]

¨Uber die lage der integralkurven gew¨ ohnlicher differ- entialgleichungen,

M. Nagumo, “ ¨Uber die lage der integralkurven gew¨ ohnlicher differ- entialgleichungen,” Proceedings of the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series , vol. 24, pp. 551–559, 1942

work page 1942

[5] [5]

Principe du maximum, in´ egalit´ e de harnac k et unicit´ e du probleme de cauchy pour les op´ erateurs elliptiques d´ eg ´ en´ er´ es,

J.-M. Bony, “Principe du maximum, in´ egalit´ e de harnac k et unicit´ e du probleme de cauchy pour les op´ erateurs elliptiques d´ eg ´ en´ er´ es,” in Annales de l’institut F ourier , vol. 19, pp. 277–304, 1969

work page 1969

[6] [6]

On a characterization of ﬂow-invariant sets ,

H. Brezis, “On a characterization of ﬂow-invariant sets ,” Communica- tions on Pure and Applied Mathematics , vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 261–263, 1970

work page 1970

[7] [7]

On ﬂow-invariant sets.,

G. Ladde, V . Lakshmikantham, et al., “On ﬂow-invariant sets.,” Paciﬁc Journal of Mathematics , vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 215–220, 1974

work page 1974

[8] [8]

The theorems of bony and brezis on ﬂow-inv ariant sets,

R. Redheffer, “The theorems of bony and brezis on ﬂow-inv ariant sets,” The American Mathematical Monthly , vol. 79, no. 7, pp. 740– 747, 1972

work page 1972