Safety Certification in the Latent space using Control Barrier Functions and World Models

Mehul Anand; Shishir Kolathaya

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Safety Certification in the Latent space using Control Barrier Functions and World Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Learning a control barrier certificate in the latent space of a world model lets a visuomotor policy be trained from a small labelled set, with no expert demonstrations.

desk verdict A plausible mix of world models and latent CBFs, but the formal safety claim is contradicted by the paper's own definitions and conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13871 v1 pith:GBS6DLFT submitted 2025-07-18 cs.RO cs.CVcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY

Mehul Anand , Shishir Kolathaya This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.LGcs.SYeess.SY

keywords controlbarriercertificatesworldmodelslatentspacevisuomotorpoliciessemi-supervisedlearningneuralfunctionssafevisiontransformers

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

The paper proposes a semi-supervised method for synthesising safe visuomotor policies without expert demonstrations. It learns a neural control barrier certificate in the latent space of a world model, so that only a small number of images labelled safe or unsafe are needed along with ordinary unlabeled transitions. The central objective is to jointly train a barrier function and a controller such that the barrier value never increases along latent dynamics, which would certify forward invariance of the safe set. The authors demonstrate the approach on an inverted pendulum and a Dubins car, showing safe/unsafe separation and controllers that reach safe behaviour from unsafe starts. The paper itself frames the result as encouragement of safer behaviour rather than a formal guarantee.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the discrete-time control barrier certificate: a function $B$ with $B(x) \leq 0$ on the safe set, $B(x) > 0$ on the unsafe set, and for every state some input with $B(f(x,u)) \leq B(x)$. Non-increase of $B$ along transitions keeps trajectories starting in the safe sublevel set from ever crossing to unsafe values. The paper implements this in latent space with three learned components: a fixed pretrained vision transformer encoder turning images into patch embeddings, a causal transformer transition model $d_\theta$ that predicts the next latent state from a context of past latents, actions, and proprioception, and two small feed-forward networks, one for the barrier $B_\theta$ and one for the controller $\pi_\theta$. The training losses are the barrier separation loss, the Lie monotonicity loss, the synthesis loss $B_\theta(d_\theta(z, \pi_\theta(z), p)) \leq B_\theta(z)$ over unlabeled data, and an optional imitation-loss term toward a reference policy. The synthesis loss is the mechanism that couples the safety certificate to the controller.

What would settle it

Run the trained policy on the actual environment from many initial states drawn from the safe set, encode each real frame with the same encoder, and measure how often $\max(0, B_\theta(z_{t+1}) - B_\theta(z_t))$ is positive on real transitions; if a nontrivial fraction of safe rollouts ever enter the unsafe set or show systematic barrier increases, the latent certificate is not valid for the real system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a neural barrier certificate can be transplanted from the state space into the learned latent space of a visual world model, and that this makes data-efficient safety synthesis practical. The barrier $B_\theta$ maps latent states to scalars, with safe states at non-positive values and unsafe states at non-negative values; a Lie loss enforces monotone decay along safe trajectories and monotone increase along unsafe ones. A synthesis loss then trains the controller so that the predicted next latent state under the learned transition model does not increase $B_\theta$, mirroring the discrete-time control barrier certificate condition $B(f(x,u)) \leq B(x)$. The authors' stated conclusion is that the method effectively separates safe and unsafe regions in latent space and synthesises policies that promote safe behaviour, demonstrated on inverted pendulum and Dubins car without expert demonstrations.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the learned latent transition model $d_\theta$ is not accurate enough: the barrier condition is then enforced on imagined next states, not on the real system, so trajectories can violate safety even though all losses are low.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Safety labels can be scarce: only images from a safe set and an unsafe set are needed, while ordinary unlabeled transitions train the world model and the synthesis loss.
No expert demonstrations are required; a simple reference policy such as a PD or P controller supplies the imitation term, and the final controller improves on it.
Because the barrier certificate lives in a latent space rather than pixel space, the approach avoids the computational cost of pixel-space reconstruction in world-model training.
Trajectories starting from unsafe initial conditions are driven toward the safe region in both testbeds, indicating that the controller and certificate interact as intended.
The same framework is directly portable to other control systems as long as a pretrained visual encoder and a learned latent transition model are available.

Reading between the lines

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

The most direct test of the paper's premise is to audit the barrier condition on real environment transitions; the paper reports visualisations and trajectory outcomes but no quantitative comparison of predicted versus actual next-latent-state error, so such an audit would decide how much of the safety claim transfers to hardware.
A natural extension is to wrap the learned latent dynamics in a verification step, such as interval or conformal bounds on $d_\theta$, to convert the 'promotes safe behaviour' conclusion into a finite-sample safety guarantee.
The reliance on a pretrained visual encoder suggests that the framework's safety margin may degrade when deployment images shift from training images, since fine-tuning the encoder would break the zero-shot property the method exploits.
Because the barrier and policy are trained with a lightweight synthesis loss, the same pipeline could be run continually in the loop, updating the world model as new unlabeled data arrive while keeping the barrier-certificate objective fixed.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, quick take on 2507.13871. The genuinely new thing here is the specific stack: DINO-v2 as a zero-shot encoder, a transformer world model for latent dynamics, and a barrier certificate plus policy learned jointly in that latent space. That combination is not in the cited references, and the authors are right that previous latent-CBF work leaned on autoencoders or GANs that don't model action-conditioned dynamics. The problem they target, synthesizing safe visuomotor policies with limited labels, is real and worth solving.

What the paper does well: it's short, readable, and the qualitative figures do show clean separation of safe and unsafe regions in PCA projections of the DINO-v2 latent space. Using a pretrained foundation-model encoder is a sensible move and makes the pipeline partly reproducible even without code, since DINO-v2 is public.

The soft spots are not minor. Definition 1 defines B : X → R+_0, nonnegative, then defines the safe set as B(x) ≤ 0 (Eq. 2). That forces the safe set to be only the zero level set, which makes the whole formulation degenerate. This looks like a typo (the text later assumes negative values), but in a paper about formal safety it matters. More seriously, Section II-C says the algorithm synthesizes a 'provably correct' certificate satisfying condition (4) over the entire latent space, but Section V explicitly says the framework 'does not provide formal safety guarantees.' That's a direct contradiction, not a stylistic mismatch. The only mechanism for enforcing (4) is Lsyn (Eq. 10), a finite-sample hinge loss evaluated on states predicted by the learned transition model dθ. If dθ is wrong, the barrier condition is enforced on imagined states, not the real system. There is no error bound, no Lipschitz or statistical certificate, and no quantitative evaluation of dθ's prediction error. The Lie loss (Eq. 9) is a heuristic monotonicity penalty, not a certificate. The experiments are two environments with no baselines, no metrics, no code, and only qualitative trajectory plots. That is not enough to support the phrase 'safety certification.'

If I were to place this, it's a pipeline sketch with a promising ingredient list but a load-bearing gap between the loss and the guarantee. The right move is to reject in current form and tell the authors to either drop the 'provably' language or add real verification (e.g., over-approximations or conformal guarantees) and to fix the Definition 1 codomain. With that work, it could become a competent short paper or workshop contribution. Until then, I wouldn't cite it as a safety-certification method.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-supervised framework for synthesizing safe visuomotor policies by jointly learning a neural control barrier certificate and a controller in the latent space of a world model. The world model uses DINO-v2 image features and a transformer transition model; the barrier and policy are trained with a combination of a barrier-separation loss, a monotonicity ('Lie') loss, a dynamics-based synthesis loss, and an imitation loss toward a reference policy. Experiments are presented for an inverted pendulum and a Dubins car, with qualitative figures showing barrier separation and sample trajectories. The conclusion explicitly states that the framework does not provide formal safety guarantees.

Significance. If the central claim of a provably correct latent-space barrier certificate were fully established, the paper would make a useful step toward scalable, data-efficient safe visuomotor control. The use of a pre-trained visual encoder with a learned transition model is a sensible design choice, and the paper is commendably transparent in Section V about the absence of formal guarantees. As submitted, however, the paper does not deliver a safety certificate: the only evidence is two qualitative case studies, no quantitative safety metrics or baselines are reported, and the conclusion contradicts the 'provably correct' phrasing in Section II-C. The contribution is therefore best described as a heuristic safety-promoting training method rather than a certified safety framework.

major comments (4)

[Section II-C vs Section V] Section II-C states that the objective is to jointly synthesise a 'provably correct parameterised barrier certificate' satisfying condition (4) over the entire latent space, but Section V states that 'the current framework does not provide formal safety guarantees; it instead encourages safer behaviour.' These statements are incompatible. Condition (4) is a universal quantification over latent states, and minimizing the finite-sample losses (8)-(10) cannot establish it without additional assumptions or a verification argument. The authors must either remove the provable-correctness claim and reframe the contribution as heuristic safety encouragement, or supply a rigorous certificate, for example via Lipschitz bounds on B_θ and d_θ, reachability analysis, or a statistical guarantee such as conformal prediction.
[Definition 1 and Eqs. (2)-(3)] Definition 1 defines B : X → R+0 with nonnegative codomain, while Eq. (2) defines the safe set as {x : B(x) ≤ 0}; with a nonnegative codomain this forces B(x)=0 on the entire safe set, making the safe set a single level set. The training loss in Eq. (8) explicitly requires safe states to map to 'non-positive' values, which includes negative values, so the sign conventions in the formal definition and in the loss are inconsistent. The codomain should be R, or the sign convention in the safe/unsafe set definitions should be changed consistently.
[Eq. (10), Section III-C] The synthesis loss L_syn replaces the true next latent state with the learned transition model d_θ(z_t, π_θ(z_t), p_t) in enforcing the barrier condition. This substitution is load-bearing but never validated: the paper reports no prediction error of d_θ on held-out transitions, no Lipschitz or reachability bound that would lift a finite-sample check to a universal guarantee, and no statistical certificate. If d_θ is inaccurate, the barrier condition is enforced on imagined states rather than actual ones, so the policy can violate safety on the real system. This is exactly the gap between the paper's 'provably correct' claim and the admission in Section V that no formal guarantees are provided.
[Section IV, Figs. 3-4] The experimental section provides only qualitative trajectory plots and barrier visualizations. There are no quantitative safety metrics such as violation rates or success rates, no comparison against baselines (e.g., training without L_syn, different hyperparameters α, ξ_1, ξ_2, or a standard CBF-QP filter), and no reporting of the misclassification rate mentioned in the caption of Fig. 3. For a paper whose stated objective is safety certification, this evidence is insufficient to support the universal claim in condition (4).

minor comments (6)

[Algorithm 1] The pseudocode contains placeholder or formatting errors: lines such as 'Lpred ← −(dθ, enc, Ot−H:t+1, at−H:t, pt−H:t)' and 'θ ← −Learn θ' are not valid update rules and should be replaced with the actual optimization steps.
[Figures] Figure numbering is inconsistent: the text refers to Fig. 2a-2d for the pendulum results, but Fig. 2 is the framework diagram and the pendulum image and embeddings appear in Fig. 3. Please renumber the figures and fix all in-text references.
[Notation, Sections II-A and II-C] The symbol S is overloaded: in Section II-A S denotes the safe set, while in Section II-C 'S represent samples of visuomotor observations from the safe region'. Rename the dataset, for example D_safe, to avoid confusion.
[Eqs. (6)-(7)] The transition model is written as a conditional distribution z_{t+1} ∼ d_θ(z_{t+1} | ...) in Eq. (6) but used as a deterministic mapping in Eq. (7) and Eq. (10); please clarify whether d_θ is stochastic or deterministic, and specify the norm used in Eq. (7).
[Eq. (9)] The term 'Lie loss' is misleading because no Lie derivative is computed; this is a monotonicity penalty on the barrier values along transitions. Consider renaming it to, for example, 'monotonicity loss'.
[Reproducibility] The paper does not report hyperparameter values (ξ_1, ξ_2, α), training iterations, or the convergence criteria for the staged training in Section III-D, which limits reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the synthesis loss is a training objective, and the empirical rollouts are evaluated in the true environment; the 'provably correct' overclaim is a verification gap, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The world model dθ is trained first on random-action transitions (Section III-D.1), and the barrier/policy pair is trained with the losses in Eqs. (8)-(11); Lsyn in Eq. (10) is a soft, sample-based surrogate for condition (4) evaluated with the learned transition model, but the paper does not present satisfaction of Lsyn itself as an independent prediction. The empirical validation (Sections IV-A, IV-B, Figs. 2d and 4a) rolls out the learned policy in the true environment and checks that trajectories reach the known safe sets defined in Eqs. (13) and (15), which is external to the barrier training objective. The 'provably correct' language in Section II-C is an overclaim in light of Section V's explicit statement that 'the current framework does not provide formal safety guarantees'; however, an unsupported universal guarantee or missing error bound for dθ is a correctness/verification gap, not a circular reduction. The self-citations ([15], [20], [23]) are related-work references and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported; Lemma 1 is taken from the standard CBF literature [8]. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to a claimed result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence the appropriate circularity finding is negative.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities. The central 'free parameter' is the neural barrier itself, fitted to labeled data. The key unstated assumptions are the accuracy of the latent transition model and the global validity of the barrier condition trained on finite samples.

free parameters (6)

Barrier loss weights ξ1, ξ2
Weighting coefficients in Lbarrier (Eq. 8), chosen by hand, no values given.
Lie loss decay α
Decay factor in Llie (Eq. 9), chosen by hand, no value given.
Safe/unsafe set thresholds
Definitions of labeled safe and unsafe sets C and U in Eq. (13) and (15), e.g., ±π/12 rad and ±0.25 rad/s for the pendulum, ±0.7/0.9 for the Dubins car; these constrain the barrier and are chosen by the authors.
Reference policy π_user gains
PD and P controllers used for π_user in Eq. (11) and for collecting trajectories; gains are not reported.
World model context length and prediction horizon = H=3, horizon=3
Stated in Section III-D without sensitivity analysis.
Dataset sizes = 50,000 transitions, 250 trajectories
Stated in Section III-D, chosen by hand.

assumptions (5)

standard math Lemma 1 from [8]: existence of a CBC satisfying B(f(x,u)) ≤ B(x) under a policy implies forward invariance of the safe set.
Invoked as the theoretical basis for Lsyn and the safety claim; the premise is never verified globally.
domain assumption The latent transition model dθ accurately approximates the true latent dynamics.
Lsyn in Eq. (10) uses dθ as a surrogate for the true f; if dθ is biased, the enforced barrier condition does not apply to the real system.
domain assumption DINO-v2 latent features separate safe and unsafe regions sufficiently for a neural barrier.
Section III-B asserts 'The separability of safe/unsafe regions in feature space is crucial', but no quantitative validation is provided.
ad hoc to paper Minimizing hinge losses on finite samples yields a barrier satisfying condition (4) on all latent states.
The optimization only penalizes violations at sampled points; the conclusion explicitly disclaims formal guarantees.
domain assumption Safety in latent space (B ≤ 0) corresponds to safety in state space.
The barrier operates on enc(ot), while labels are defined on the underlying state x; the encoding is assumed to preserve the safe/unsafe distinction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safety Certification in the Latent space using Control Barrier Functions and World Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBS6DLFT

@misc{pith2026250713871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safety Certification in the Latent space using Control Barrier Functions and World Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBS6DLFT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13871}
}

read the original abstract

Synthesising safe controllers from visual data typically requires extensive supervised labelling of safety-critical data, which is often impractical in real-world settings. Recent advances in world models enable reliable prediction in latent spaces, opening new avenues for scalable and data-efficient safe control. In this work, we introduce a semi-supervised framework that leverages control barrier certificates (CBCs) learned in the latent space of a world model to synthesise safe visuomotor policies. Our approach jointly learns a neural barrier function and a safe controller using limited labelled data, while exploiting the predictive power of modern vision transformers for latent dynamics modelling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13871 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The figure encapsulates the flow of our entire framework, the environment with a reference controller generates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** a This figure shows the difference between the trajectories generated by our controller (green) and the reference controller(red). Fig b represents the value of barrier function over the state space of the env speed v=1, while the control input u corresponds to Θ˙ turning the agent about its axis. It follows the discrete-time dynamics given by:   xt+1 yt+1 Θt+1   =   xt yt Θt   +     v cos Θt v sin Θt 0… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: a. represents the image of the inverted pendulum in the OpenAI gymnasium environment. Fig b The embedding, when projected onto the first two principal components, enables a clear visualisation of the decision boundary that partitions safe and unsafe regions. This separ…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

Constrained policy op- timization,

J. Achiam, D. Held, A. Tamar, and P. Abbeel, “Constrained policy op- timization,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 22–31

2017
[2]

Model-based safe deep reinforcement learning via a constrained proximal policy optimization algorithm,

A. K. Jayant and S. Bhatnagar, “Model-based safe deep reinforcement learning via a constrained proximal policy optimization algorithm,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, 2022, pp. 24 432–24 445

2022
[3]

Safe model-based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees,

F. Berkenkamp, M. Turchetta, A. Schoellig, and A. Krause, “Safe model-based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

2017
[4]

On reachability and minimum cost optimal control,

J. Lygeros, “On reachability and minimum cost optimal control,” Automatica, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 917–927, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0005109804000263

work page 2004
[5]

Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances,

S. Bansal, M. Chen, S. Herbert, and C. J. Tomlin, “Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances,” in 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2017, pp. 2242–2253

work page 2017
[6]

A physics- informed machine learning framework for safe and optimal control of autonomous systems,

M. Tayal, A. Singh, S. Kolathaya, and S. Bansal, “A physics- informed machine learning framework for safe and optimal control of autonomous systems,” in Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning , 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=SrfwiloGQF

2025
[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, 2017

2017
[8]

Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in 18th European control conference (ECC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 3420– 3431

2019

Show all 26 references

[9]

Barrier certificates for nonlinear model validation,

S. Prajna, “Barrier certificates for nonlinear model validation,” Auto- matica, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 117–126, 2006. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109805002839

2006
[10]

Formal synthesis of stochastic systems via control barrier certificates,

P. Jagtap, S. Soudjani, and M. Zamani, “Formal synthesis of stochastic systems via control barrier certificates,” IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 3097–3110, 2020

2020
[11]

Learning for safety-critical control with control barrier functions,

A. Taylor, A. Singletary, Y . Yue, and A. Ames, “Learning for safety-critical control with control barrier functions,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Learning for Dynamics and Control , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. M. Bayen, A. Jadbabaie, G. Pappa...

2020
[12]

Control barrier functions in dynamic uavs for kinematic obstacle avoidance: a collision cone approach,

M. Tayal and S. Kolathaya, “Control barrier functions in dynamic uavs for kinematic obstacle avoidance: a collision cone approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15871, 2023

2023 arXiv
[13]

Control barrier functions for unknown nonlinear systems using gaussian processes,

P. Jagtap, G. J. Pappas, and M. Zamani, “Control barrier functions for unknown nonlinear systems using gaussian processes,” in 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2020, pp. 3699– 3704

2020
[14]

Sablas: Learning safe control for black-box dynamical systems,

Z. Qin, D. Sun, and C. Fan, “Sablas: Learning safe control for black-box dynamical systems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1928–1935, 2022

1928
[15]

Learning a formally verified control barrier function in stochastic environment,

M. Tayal, H. Zhang, P. Jagtap, A. Clark, and S. Kolathaya, “Learning a formally verified control barrier function in stochastic environment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.19332 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Enforcing safety for vision-based controllers via control barrier functions and neural radiance fields,

M. Tong, C. Dawson, and C. Fan, “Enforcing safety for vision-based controllers via control barrier functions and neural radiance fields,”
[17]

Safe control using vision- based control barrier function (v-cbf),

H. Abdi, G. Raja, and R. Ghabcheloo, “Safe control using vision- based control barrier function (v-cbf),” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 782–788

2023
[18]

Point cloud-based control barrier function regression for safe and efficient vision-based control,

M. De Sa, P. Kotaru, and K. Sreenath, “Point cloud-based control barrier function regression for safe and efficient vision-based control,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 366–372

2024
[19]

Neural control barrier functions for safe navigation,

M. Harms, M. Kulkarni, N. Khedekar, M. Jacquet, and K. Alexis, “Neural control barrier functions for safe navigation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.19907

2024 arXiv
[20]

Semi-supervised safe visuomotor policy synthesis using barrier certificates,

M. Tayal, A. Singh, P. Jagtap, and S. Kolathaya, “Semi-supervised safe visuomotor policy synthesis using barrier certificates,” 2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2024

2025
[21]

Dino-wm: World models on pre-trained visual features enable zero-shot planning,

G. Zhou, H. Pan, Y . LeCun, and L. Pinto, “Dino-wm: World models on pre-trained visual features enable zero-shot planning,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04983

2025 arXiv
[22]

Generalizing safety beyond collision-avoidance via latent-space reachability analysis,

K. Nakamura, L. Peters, and A. Bajcsy, “Generalizing safety beyond collision-avoidance via latent-space reachability analysis,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00935

2025
[23]

Cp-ncbf: A conformal prediction-based approach to synthesize verified neural control barrier functions,

M. Tayal, A. Singh, P. Jagtap, and S. Kolathaya, “Cp-ncbf: A conformal prediction-based approach to synthesize verified neural control barrier functions,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.17395

2025 arXiv
[24]

Mastering diverse domains through world models,

D. Hafner, J. Pasukonis, J. Ba, and T. Lillicrap, “Mastering diverse domains through world models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04104 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[25]

Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

M. Oquab, T. Darcet, T. Moutakanni, H. V o, M. Szafraniec, V . Khalidov, P. Fernandez, D. Haziza, F. Massa, A. El-Nouby, M. Assran, N. Ballas, W. Galuba, R. Howes, P.-Y . Huang, S.-W. Li, I. Misra, M. Rabbat, V . Sharma, G. Synnaeve, H. Xu, H. Jegou, J. Mairal, P. Labatut, A. ...

2024 arXiv
[2023]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.12266

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.12266

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Constrained policy op- timization,

J. Achiam, D. Held, A. Tamar, and P. Abbeel, “Constrained policy op- timization,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 22–31

2017

[2] [2]

Model-based safe deep reinforcement learning via a constrained proximal policy optimization algorithm,

A. K. Jayant and S. Bhatnagar, “Model-based safe deep reinforcement learning via a constrained proximal policy optimization algorithm,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 35, 2022, pp. 24 432–24 445

2022

[3] [3]

Safe model-based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees,

F. Berkenkamp, M. Turchetta, A. Schoellig, and A. Krause, “Safe model-based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 30, 2017

2017

[4] [4]

On reachability and minimum cost optimal control,

J. Lygeros, “On reachability and minimum cost optimal control,” Automatica, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 917–927, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0005109804000263

work page 2004

[5] [5]

Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances,

S. Bansal, M. Chen, S. Herbert, and C. J. Tomlin, “Hamilton-jacobi reachability: A brief overview and recent advances,” in 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2017, pp. 2242–2253

work page 2017

[6] [6]

A physics- informed machine learning framework for safe and optimal control of autonomous systems,

M. Tayal, A. Singh, S. Kolathaya, and S. Bansal, “A physics- informed machine learning framework for safe and optimal control of autonomous systems,” in Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning , 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=SrfwiloGQF

2025

[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, 2017

2017

[8] [8]

Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in 18th European control conference (ECC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 3420– 3431

2019