Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 17 references

Towards Mitigating Sim2Real Gaps: A Formal Quantitative Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 the sim-to-real gap can be turned into a formal, state-dependent error bound computed from simulator data.

desk verdict A coherent formal framework for bounding sim2real gaps, but the paper's own pendulum numbers contradict the central guarantee—reject as-is, though the idea deserves referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11310 v1 pith:XC5LC5J2 submitted 2024-11-18 eess.SY cs.SY

P Sangeerth , Abolfazl Lavaei , Pushpak Jagtap This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords simulationgapSim2Realtransferdata-drivencontrolformalguaranteessymbolicscenarioconvexprogramLipschitzconstantsboundeddisturbance
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 tries to convert the sim-to-real gap from an informal worry into a computed, provable bound. It defines a simulation-gap function $\gamma(x,u)$ that, for every state $x$ and input $u$, upper-bounds the difference between a simple nominal model's next-state map and a high-fidelity simulator's map. The function is learned from finitely many simulator samples by solving one convex scenario program per state dimension, and a Lipschitz argument extends the sampled bound to the entire state set. Once the gap is known, the simulator can be treated as the nominal model with a bounded, state- and input-dependent disturbance, so controllers synthesized for that disturbed model carry a guarantee that the specification holds in simulation. Because modern simulators are assumed to track reality closely, the paper presents this as a route to controllers that can move from simulation to a real system without losing their formal guarantees.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simulation-gap function $\gamma(x,u) = (\gamma_1(x,u), \dots, \gamma_n(x,u))$, with $\gamma_i(x,u) := q_i^\top p_i(x,u) + L^{(i)}\epsilon$. The coefficient vector $q_i$ is obtained from the scenario convex program (3.5): minimize $\eta_i$ subject to $q_i^\top p_i(x_r,u) \le \eta_i$ and $\left|\hat{f}_i(x_r,u) - f_i(x_r,u)\right| \le q_i^\top p_i(x_r,u)$ on the sampled points $x_r$. The basis functions $p_i(x,u)$ are user-chosen but the program is convex in $q_i$, so it is solvable in practice. The step that gives the result its formal force is the Lipschitz extension in Theorem 4.1: a bound verified on finitely many $\epsilon$-balls around the samples is pushed to all of $X$ at the cost of the additive term $L^{(i)}\epsilon$. On the controller side, the machinery turns the gap into a bounded disturbance by representing the simulator as $f(x,u) + [-\gamma(x,u), \gamma(x,u)]$, a form for which established robust and symbolic control techniques apply.

What would settle it

Take a dense grid of state-input pairs that were not used when solving the scenario program, evaluate the simulator and the nominal model at each pair, and check whether $\left|\hat{f}_i(x,u) - f_i(x,u)\right| \le q_i^\top p_i(x,u) + L^{(i)}\epsilon$ holds everywhere; a single violation falsifies Theorem 4.1. A quicker check computes $\sup_{x \in X} \|\nabla_x \gamma_2(x,u)\|$ for the pendulum's reported gap and compares it with the claimed $L^{(2)}_2 = 0.168$; the fitted $\gamma_2$ has gradients with norm up to about $0.43$, which would already contradict the Lipschitz constant used in the bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.1: suppose the pointwise error $\left| \hat{f}_i(x,u) - f_i(x,u)\right|$ and the chosen parametric bound $q_i^\top p_i(x,u)$ are both Lipschitz continuous in $x$ with constants $L^{(i)}_1$ and $L^{(i)}_2$. Then, from the solution of the scenario convex program in (3.5), one obtains for every $x \in X$ and every $u \in U$ the inequality $\left| \hat{f}_i(x,u) - f_i(x,u)\right| \le q_i^\top p_i(x,u) + L^{(i)} \epsilon$, with $L^{(i)} = L^{(i)}_1 + L^{(i)}_2$ and $\epsilon$ the radius of the sample balls that cover $X$. The right-hand side is the simulation-gap function $\gamma_i(x,u)$. The program minimizes the tightest such upper bound over the sampled points, and the Lipschitz term extends that guarantee to the unsampled region. As a consequence, the simulator model is represented as the nominal model plus a bounded, state- and input-dependent disturbance, so a controller that enforces a specification for that disturbed system also enforces it for the simulator; under the paper's Real-to-Sim fidelity assumption, the same controller is then credible for the real system.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee rests on the assumption that the simulator-vs-model error and the fitted gap function both change at a known, finite rate over the entire state region, and that the sampled balls truly cover that region; if the true error changes faster than the estimated rate or a region is left uncovered, the uniform bound can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bound is correct, a controller synthesized for the nominal model with the gap function added satisfies the given specification in the high-fidelity simulator; the pendulum case shows an invariance specification that fails without the gap and holds with it.
  • Smaller sampling radii produce tighter gap functions, at the cost of more simulation data and more computation; the paper's table shows the maximum gap decreasing as $\epsilon$ shrinks.
  • The guarantee is deterministic rather than probabilistic, covering every state and input in the bounded sets, which the paper positions against earlier sim-to-real gap quantities that carried only probabilistic guarantees.
  • The method lets a deliberately crude kinematic model (the Turtlebot unicycle model) absorb unmodeled physics such as mass, friction, and inertia into the gap term, so the same controller meets a reach-while-avoid specification in the Gazebo simulator.
  • If the high-fidelity simulator is a faithful stand-in for the real robot, the same controller can be deployed on the real system with the specification already guaranteed in simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same Lipschitz-extension scheme could certify gap functions from online trajectory data instead of an exhaustive state grid, provided the visited $\epsilon$-balls cover the region of interest; this would make the method applicable when simulator queries are expensive.
  • Editorial inference: the reported Lipschitz constants are numerically checkable against the fitted gap functions; for the pendulum, comparing the supremum of $\nabla_x \gamma_2$ over $X$ with the stated $L^{(2)}_2 = 0.168$ (the fitted $\gamma_2$ has gradients with norm up to roughly $0.43$) would give a direct pre-deployment test of whether the claimed bound can hold.
  • Editorial inference: the gap function could serve as a simulator-fidelity certificate: a simulator is adequate for a given model and specification exactly when the synthesis problem with the gap term remains feasible, and this could be used to select among available simulators.
  • Editorial inference: adapting the argument to stochastic simulators would mean replacing the Lipschitz extension with a probabilistic or robust version, which would soften the 100%-correctness claim; the paper does not take that step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven framework for quantifying the mismatch between a nominal discrete-time model f and a high-fidelity simulator model fhat by constructing a state- and input-dependent simulation-gap function gamma. The main result, Theorem 4.1, gives a Lipschitz-corrected pointwise upper bound on |fhat_i(x,u)-f_i(x,u)| under Assumption 1 and a coverage condition (3.3). This bound is then used in a robust/symbolic controller synthesis problem (5.1). Two case studies are presented: a pendulum in PyBullet and a Turtlebot in Gazebo, for which symbolic controllers are synthesized to enforce invariance and reach-while-avoid specifications, respectively.

Significance. The conceptual idea of treating the sim-to-real gap as a formally bounded, state/input-dependent disturbance is appealing and potentially useful for combining data-driven modeling with established robust and symbolic control techniques. The proof of Theorem 4.1 is concise and valid under its assumptions, and the convex scenario program in (3.5) is practical. The authors also report all fitted coefficients explicitly, which is good practice and makes independent arithmetic checks possible. However, the central numerical support is currently invalid: the reported pendulum gap function gamma_2 is negative on part of the state space, directly contradicting Theorem 4.1, and the key assumptions of the theorem (coverage of X by epsilon-balls and valid global Lipschitz constants) are not verified. The contribution can be considered significant only after these issues are resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Eq. (4.1)] The reported pendulum gap function gamma_2 is negative at x=(-0.2,0.5), which lies in X=[-0.2,0.2]x[-0.5,0.5]. Using the coefficients reported in Section 6.1, gamma_2(-0.2,0.5) = -0.5657(0.04) - 0.0139(0.25) - 0.0482(-0.1) + 0.1809(-0.2) - 0.0022(0.5) + 0.0495, which evaluates to approximately -0.0091. Since the left-hand side of (4.1) is an absolute value and hence nonnegative, an upper bound that is negative cannot hold. This is an internal contradiction with Theorem 4.1, and it follows from the authors' own reported numbers. The origin is that the SCP in (3.5) enforces q_i^T p_i(x,u) only at sampled points and provides no mechanism to keep the extrapolated expression, after adding L^(i) epsilon, nonnegative over the whole box X. This invalidates the claimed formal guarantee for the pendulum case study.
  2. [Section 4, Assumption 1 and Eq. (3.3)] The proof of Theorem 4.1 depends critically on the coverage condition X subset of union of X_r from (3.3) and on L1_i and L2_i being valid Lipschitz constants. Neither is verified in the manuscript. The Lipschitz constants are reported as outputs of Algorithm 1 of [NZ23], but no argument establishes that they are true global upper bounds. In the pendulum example, the reported L2_2 = 0.168 is inconsistent with the fitted quadratic q_2^T p_2, whose gradient has norm close to 0.4 at points in X; a valid global Lipschitz constant must be at least the maximum gradient norm. If the Lipschitz constants are underestimated, the L^(i) epsilon correction in (4.1) is not valid. Similarly, no evidence is shown that the epsilon-balls around the N sampled points actually cover the full state set X. The authors should provide certificates for both conditions, or the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1 are not established.
  3. [Section 5 and Section 6.1] The controller synthesis in (5.1) treats gamma as a deterministic, state- and input-dependent disturbance bound. Because the reported gamma_2 is negative on part of X for the pendulum, the invariance satisfaction shown in Fig. 2 is not a consequence of the claimed formal bound; at best it demonstrates the behavior on particular trajectories. The paper's central claim that the simulator mismatch is formally quantified therefore lacks at least one valid complete example. A revision should include a case study in which the reported gamma is nonnegative on the entire state space and in which Assumption 1 and the coverage condition are explicitly verified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1] The constant term in gamma_2 is reported as 0.0495, whereas the listed q_2^(7) = 0.0081 plus L^(2) epsilon, with L^(2) = 7.2331 + 0.1680 and epsilon = 0.0022, gives about 0.0244; this numerical inconsistency should be clarified.
  2. [Section 6.2 / Fig. 5] The caption of Fig. 5 refers to the 'Pybullet model' hitting obstacles, but the Turtlebot experiment is carried out in Gazebo; this should be corrected.
  3. [Problem 2.2] In item (ii), the text says 'high-fidelity simulator Sigma', but Sigma is the nominal model; the intended symbol is probably RhatSigma.
  4. [Section 3] The basis functions p_i^{(l)} are not formally defined in the optimization formulation; although the reported gamma functions let the reader infer them for the examples, a precise definition would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typographical inconsistencies, including 'Algorithm-1' for 'Algorithm 1', and inconsistent capitalization of PyBullet/Pybullet.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 4.1 is a Lipschitz-extension certificate, not a restatement of the fitted data.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The simulation-gap bound in (4.1) is not simply the SCP fit restated: Theorem 4.1 starts from the sample-wise constraints in (3.5) and uses Assumption 1 (Lipschitz continuity of the true difference and of the chosen basis expression) to propagate the bound to every x in X, adding the term L^(i)epsilon. This is a genuine extrapolation/certificate argument rather than a definitional identity. The q_i parameters are fitted to the data, but the theorem's conclusion is a formal consequence of the stated assumptions; it does not rename the fitted values as a prediction. The case studies use the computed gamma in controller synthesis as an application, not as evidence for the theorem. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [NLJ+23], [SAZL24]) appear only in the literature review and are not load-bearing; the Lipschitz-estimation step cites external [WZ96] and non-author [NZ23] work. The unverified coverage condition (3.3) and the apparent negativity of the reported gamma_2 on part of X are correctness/soundness concerns—the latter would falsify Theorem 4.1 under the paper's own data—but they do not make the derivation circular. No fitted quantity is renamed as an independent prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central bound is obtained by fitting the coefficients q_i to data via SCP, then using Lipschitz constants to extend the bound from samples to the whole state space. The experiment further assumes the simulator faithfully represents reality and that the chosen polynomial bases are flexible enough to capture the true gap. The reported implementation does not certify the Lipschitz constants and returns a gap function that is negative on part of X.

free parameters (5)
  • q_i coefficients for pendulum gamma_1 = [0, 0.0012, 0.0003, 0, 0, 0, 0.0008]
    Fitted via SCP (3.5) to minimize the bound on sampled data; the reported gamma_1 adds the L1 epsilon term to the constant.
  • q_i coefficients for pendulum gamma_2 = [-0.5657, -0.0139, -0.0482, 0.1809, 0.0022, 0, 0.0081]
    Fitted via SCP (3.5); the reported gamma_2 formula combines these coefficients with the L2 epsilon term, but the resulting expression is negative on part of X.
  • q_i coefficients for Turtlebot gamma_1, gamma_2, gamma_3 = gamma_1=(0,0,0.0632,0.0038,-0.0028), gamma_2=(0,0,0.0632,0.0058,-0.0004), gamma_3=(0,0,0.2059,0.0031,-0.0035)
    Fitted via SCP (3.5) with affine basis functions in x and u; only the final constants and input-dependent terms are reported.
  • Lipschitz constants L1_i and L2_i for pendulum = L1_1=1.2087, L2_1=0.0013, L1_2=7.2331, L2_2=0.1680
    Estimated from data using Algorithm-1 of [NZ23]; no confidence intervals or verification are provided, and L2_2 appears to under-bound the gradient of the chosen basis over X.
  • State-space discretization epsilon = 0.0022 (pendulum), 0.0087 (Turtlebot)
    Chosen by the user; smaller epsilon gives a tighter bound but requires more data, as noted in Remark 4.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: |fhat_i - f_i| and q_i^T p_i are Lipschitz continuous with finite constants L1_i and L2_i.
    Section 4, Assumption 1; the theorem depends on it, and the paper estimates the constants from data rather than proving them.
  • domain assumption The high-fidelity simulator is a faithful proxy for the real system (Real-to-Sim validity).
    Abstract and Section 1; the Sim2Real conclusion inherits this assumption, and the paper does not provide hardware validation.
  • domain assumption State-space coverage: the balls X_r of radius epsilon centered at sampled states cover X.
    Equation (3.3); the theorem requires X subset of union of X_r, but the paper does not report N or verify coverage.
  • standard math The nominal discretized model f is known and locally Lipschitz continuous.
    Section 2.1, citing Khalil; this guarantees existence and uniqueness of solutions for the nominal model.
  • ad hoc to paper The parametric form of gamma_i is chosen a priori (quadratic for pendulum, affine for Turtlebot).
    Section 3 and 6; the tightness and validity of the bound depend on this user choice, which is not justified from first principles.
invented entities (1)
  • simulation-gap function gamma(x,u)
    purpose: To convert the unknown simulator mismatch into a state/input dependent disturbance interval for robust control synthesis.
    The function is defined via the SCP fit and is not independently measured or falsifiable outside the fitted data; it is the paper's central construct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Mitigating Sim2Real Gaps: A Formal Quantitative Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XC5LC5J2

@misc{pith2026241111310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Mitigating Sim2Real Gaps: A Formal Quantitative Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XC5LC5J2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11310}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce the notion of simulation-gap functions to formally quantify the potential gap between an approximate nominal mathematical model and the high-fidelity simulator representation of a real system. Given a nominal mathematical model alongside a quantified simulation gap, the system can be conceptualized as one characterized by bounded states and input-dependent disturbances. This allows us to leverage the existing powerful model-based control algorithms effectively, ensuring the enforcement of desired specifications while guaranteeing a seamless transition from simulation to real-world application. To provide a formal guarantee for quantifying the simulation gap, we develop a data-driven approach. In particular, we collect data using high-fidelity simulators, leveraging recent advancements in Real-to-Sim transfer to ensure close alignment with reality. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method through experiments conducted on a nonlinear pendulum system and a nonlinear Turtlebot model in simulators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11310 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pendulum model in the Py-Bullet simulator. rod length. The pendulum model is simulated in the high-fidelity simulator PyBullet, depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The state trajectory x1 for both the mathematical system (red) and the PyBullet model (blue) is shown. The invariance specification is violated in PyBullet when the controller is synthesized without considering γ(x, u) (top). The state-space invariance specification is satisfied in PyBullet when the controller is synthesized considering γ(x, u) (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The red points represent the region of invariance obtained by synthesizing the controller for the mathematical model without γ(x, u). The blue points represent the region of invariance obtained by synthesizing after incorporating γ(x, u) into the mathematical model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The state and finite input sets are, respectively, considered as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: State trajectories of both the mathematical model (red) and the Gazebo model (blue). The black regions represent the obstacles, while the yellow one represents the target. When the controller is synthesized for the reach-while-avoid specification without incorpo￾rating…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    From data to control: A formal compositional framework for large-scale interconnected networks

    [ANL24] Omid Akbarzadeh, Amy Nejati, and Abolfazl Lavaei. From data to control: A formal compositional framework for large-scale interconnected networks. arXiv: 2409.12469 ,

    arXiv

  2. [12]

    Data-driven control of large-scale networks with formal guarantees: A small-gain free approach

    [SNL24] Behrad Samari, Amy Nejati, and Abolfazl Lavaei. Data-driven control of large-scale networks with formal guarantees: A small-gain free approach. arXiv: 2411.06743 ,

    arXiv

  3. [13]

    Autodrive simulator: A simulator for scaled autonomous vehicle research and education

    [SSX21] Tanmay Vilas Samak, Chinmay Vilas Samak, and Ming Xie. Autodrive simulator: A simulator for scaled autonomous vehicle research and education. In Proceedings of the 2021 2nd International Conference on Control, Robotics and Intelligent System , pages 1–5,

    work page 2021

  4. [14]

    MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control

    [TET12] Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 5026–5033,

    work page 2012

  5. [1976]

    Pybullet, a python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning

    [CB21] Erwin Coumans and Yunfei Bai. Pybullet, a python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning. http://pybullet.org, 2016–2021. [CLG+22] Yiwen Chen, Xue Li, Sheng Guo, Xian Yao Ng, and Marcelo H Ang. Real2sim or sim2real: Robotics visual inser- tion using deep reinforcement learning and real2sim policy adaptation. In Intern...

    work page 2016

  6. [1996]

    Design of reward functions based on the ddqn algorithm

    [XZJW22] Qianhao Xiao, Xin Zhang, Li Jiang, and Manman Wang. Design of reward functions based on the ddqn algorithm. In 2022 14th International Conference on Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation (ICMTMA) , pages 600–604, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [2012]

    Sim-to-real: Learning agile locomotion for quadruped robots

    [TZC+18] Jie Tan, Tingnan Zhang, Erwin Coumans, Atil Iscen, Yunfei Bai, Danijar Hafner, Steven Bohez, and Vincent Van- houcke. Sim-to-real: Learning agile locomotion for quadruped robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10332 ,

    arXiv

  8. [2013]

    Lgsvl simulator: A high fidelity simulator for autonomous driving

    [RST+20] Guodong Rong, Byung Hyun Shin, Hadi Tabatabaee, Qiang Lu, Steve Lemke, M¯ arti¸ nˇ s Moˇ zeiko, Eric Boise, Geehoon Uhm, Mark Gerow, and Shalin Mehta. Lgsvl simulator: A high fidelity simulator for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.03778,

    arXiv 2005

Show all 17 references
  1. [2016]

    From a single trajectory to safety controller synthesis of discrete-time nonlinear polynomial systems

    [SAZL24] Behrad Samari, Omid Akbarzadeh, Mahdieh Zaker, and Abolfazl Lavaei. From a single trajectory to safety controller synthesis of discrete-time nonlinear polynomial systems. arXiv: 2409.10026 ,

    arXiv

  2. [2017]

    Unreal engine 4.22.1

    [Epi] Epic Games. Unreal engine 4.22.1. https://www.unrealengine.com. P Sangeerth, Abolfazl Lavaei, Pushpak Jagtap 13 [FZG23] Andrew Farley, Mohsen Zand, and Michael Greenspan. Diffusion dataset generation: Towards closing the sim2real gap for pedestrian detection. In 2023 20t...

    2023

  3. [2018]

    Learning a formally verified control barrier function in stochastic environment

    [TZJ+24] Manan Tayal, Hongchao Zhang, Pushpak Jagtap, Andrew Clark, and Shishir Kolathaya. Learning a formally verified control barrier function in stochastic environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19332 ,

    arXiv

  4. [2019]

    Koenig and A

    [KH04] N. Koenig and A. Howard. Design and use paradigms for Gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator. In 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , volume 3, pages 2149–2154,

    2004

  5. [2020]

    Control barrier functions for unknown nonlinear systems using Gaussian processes

    [JPZ20] Pushpak Jagtap, George J Pappas, and Majid Zamani. Control barrier functions for unknown nonlinear systems using Gaussian processes. In 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 3699–3704. IEEE,

    2020

  6. [2021]

    Formal controller synthesis for continuous-space MDPs via model-free reinforcement learning

    [LSS+20] Abolfazl Lavaei, Fabio Somenzi, Sadegh Soudjani, Ashutosh Trivedi, and Majid Zamani. Formal controller synthesis for continuous-space MDPs via model-free reinforcement learning. In 2020 ACM/IEEE 11th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS) , pages 98–107,

    2020

  7. [2022]

    Data-driven control of nonlinear systems: Beyond polynomial dynamics

    [SBA21] Robin Str¨ asser, Julian Berberich, and Frank Allg¨ ower. Data-driven control of nonlinear systems: Beyond polynomial dynamics. In 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 4344–4351,

    2021

  8. [2023]

    Reinforcement learning for temporal logic control synthesis with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees

    [HKA+19] Mohammadhosein Hasanbeig, Yiannis Kantaros, Alessandro Abate, Daniel Kroening, George J Pappas, and Insup Lee. Reinforcement learning for temporal logic control synthesis with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees. In 2019 IEEE 58th conference on decision and control ...

    2019

  9. [2024]

    Safety-critical controller verification via sim2real gap quan- tification

    [AUA23] Prithvi Akella, Wyatt Ubellacker, and Aaron D Ames. Safety-critical controller verification via sim2real gap quan- tification. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 10539–10545. IEEE,

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.