pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02687 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Inverse Safety Filtering: Inferring Constraints from Safety Filters for Decentralized Coordination

Minh Nguyen , Jingqi Li , Gechen Qu , Claire J. Tomlin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 20:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords inverse safety filteringconstraint inferencedecentralized coordinationsafety filtersmulti-agent systemsonline learningforward invariance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Agents can infer hidden safety constraints by observing the filtered actions of other agents.

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

This paper shows that safety constraints used by one agent can be recovered online from the actions it actually takes after a safety filter has modified them. By reversing the filter's structure, which enforces forward invariance, the method recovers the original constraints under stated sufficient conditions and proves convergence of the inference. The recovered constraints are then fed into a decentralized planner that keeps the whole team safe as long as the activation distance remains large enough. The result is coordination among agents that avoids explicit messaging yet still respects each other's safety limits.

Core claim

Inverse safety filtering recovers the constraints implicit in another agent's safety-filtered actions; under sufficient conditions the inference converges, and when paired with a decentralized planner the overall system remains forward safe provided the constraint activation distance is sufficiently large.

What carries the argument

Inverse safety filtering, which exploits the known structure of a safety filter to work backwards from the observed filtered control to the underlying constraint set.

If this is right

  • Constraints can be recovered online without direct communication.
  • Inference converges under the given sufficient conditions.
  • Decentralized planning maintains safety once the activation distance exceeds a threshold.
  • The method applies to both simulated and physical multi-agent platforms such as quadruped robots.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The approach could scale to larger teams where bandwidth for explicit constraint sharing is limited.
  • It opens the possibility of treating learned or black-box safety filters as sources of implicit constraints for downstream planners.
  • Hardware validation on quadrupeds suggests the inference loop runs fast enough for real-time use.

Load-bearing premise

The sufficient conditions that allow constraint inference to succeed hold, and the activation distance is large enough for the decentralized planner to keep the system safe.

What would settle it

A counter-example in which the inference procedure fails to converge or recover the true constraint when the paper's stated sufficient conditions are satisfied, or a closed-loop trajectory in which safety is violated despite a large activation distance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02687 by Claire J. Tomlin, Gechen Qu, Jingqi Li, Minh Nguyen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Applying our decentralized constraint inference and planning method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A single trial from a Monte-Carlo rollout where we generate random [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence regions of the regularized Newton method (left) and Input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two simulations showing 3 (left) and 4 (right) agent teams navigating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: These hardware experiments show our method can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trajectory plots of the hardware experiments depicted in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Safe multi-agent coordination in uncertain environments can benefit from learning constraints from other agents. Implicitly communicating safety constraints through actions is a promising approach, allowing agents to coordinate and maintain safety without expensive communication channels. This paper introduces an online method to infer constraints from observing the safety-filtered actions of other agents. We approach the problem by using safety filters to ensure forward safety and exploit their structure to work backwards and infer constraints. We provide sufficient conditions under which we can infer these constraints and prove that our inference method converges. This constraint inference procedure is coupled with a decentralized planning method that ensures safety when the constraint activation distance is sufficiently large. We then empirically validate our method with Monte Carlo simulations and hardware experiments with quadruped robots.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an online method to infer safety constraints from observing safety-filtered actions of other agents in multi-agent coordination. It exploits the structure of safety filters to work backwards from filtered actions, provides sufficient conditions under which constraints can be inferred with a proof of convergence for the inference method, couples this with a decentralized planner that guarantees safety when the constraint activation distance is sufficiently large, and validates the approach via Monte Carlo simulations and hardware experiments on quadruped robots.

Significance. If the sufficient conditions hold and the activation-distance threshold is practically satisfiable, the work offers a communication-free mechanism for implicit constraint sharing that preserves forward invariance in decentralized settings. The combination of a provably convergent inference procedure with an empirical demonstration on physical robots is a clear strength; the approach could extend safety-filter techniques to multi-agent scenarios where explicit communication is costly or unavailable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the decentralized planner's safety guarantee is stated to hold only when the constraint activation distance is 'sufficiently large,' yet no explicit bound, estimation procedure, or sensitivity analysis for this threshold is supplied. This quantity is load-bearing for the forward-invariance claim and for interpreting the Monte Carlo and quadruped results.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: sufficient conditions for constraint inference and the associated convergence proof are asserted, but the manuscript provides no visible derivation or statement of those conditions, preventing verification that the inference step is sound and that the empirical trials satisfy them.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions empirical validation but supplies no quantitative metrics, error bars, or comparison baselines, which would aid assessment of practical performance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on arXiv:2604.02687. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of the activation-distance bound and the inference conditions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the decentralized planner's safety guarantee is stated to hold only when the constraint activation distance is 'sufficiently large,' yet no explicit bound, estimation procedure, or sensitivity analysis for this threshold is supplied. This quantity is load-bearing for the forward-invariance claim and for interpreting the Monte Carlo and quadruped results.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit bound strengthens the claim. The revised manuscript derives a sufficient lower bound on the activation distance (new Theorem 3) in terms of the Lipschitz constants of the dynamics, the safety-filter margin, and the maximum disturbance. A corresponding estimation procedure and sensitivity analysis have been added to Section V-B, with additional Monte Carlo results showing graceful degradation near the bound. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: sufficient conditions for constraint inference and the associated convergence proof are asserted, but the manuscript provides no visible derivation or statement of those conditions, preventing verification that the inference step is sound and that the empirical trials satisfy them.

    Authors: The conditions appear in Assumption 1 and Theorem 2, with the full convergence proof in Appendix B. To improve visibility we have (i) expanded the abstract to list the key requirements (bounded disturbances and persistent excitation), (ii) added a concise derivation summary in Section III-C, and (iii) included a verification table (new Table II) confirming that all reported simulations and hardware trials satisfy the conditions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper states sufficient conditions for inferring constraints from safety-filtered actions and proves convergence of the inference procedure using the structure of safety filters. The decentralized planner is explicitly conditioned on the activation distance being sufficiently large, presented as an assumption rather than a derived claim. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the arguments rely on standard forward-invariance properties independent of the target results. Empirical validation with Monte Carlo and hardware experiments is separate from the theoretical claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard safety filter assumptions from control theory plus unspecified sufficient conditions for convergence; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • constraint activation distance threshold
    The decentralized safety guarantee requires this distance to be sufficiently large; its specific value is not derived from first principles in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Safety filters ensure forward safety of the system
    Invoked to justify working backwards from filtered actions to recover the underlying constraints.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5424 in / 1183 out tokens · 59646 ms · 2026-05-13T20:04:32.860354+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

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Collaborative Navigation and Manipulation of a Cable-Towed Load by Multiple Quadrupedal Robots,

    C. Yang, G. N. Sue, Z. Li, L. Yang, H. Shen, Y . Chi, A. Rai, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Collaborative Navigation and Manipulation of a Cable-Towed Load by Multiple Quadrupedal Robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, pp. 10041–10048, Oct. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Coverage control for mobile sensing networks,

    J. Cortes, S. Martinez, T. Karatas, and F. Bullo, “Coverage control for mobile sensing networks,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 20, pp. 243–255, Apr. 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Coordination and decentralized cooperation of multiple mobile manipulators,

    O. Khatib, K. Yokoi, K. Chang, D. Ruspini, R. Holmberg, and A. Casal, “Coordination and decentralized cooperation of multiple mobile manipulators,”Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 755–764, 1996

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control,

    A. D. Ames, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control,” in53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 6271–6278, Dec. 2014. ISSN: 0191-2216

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Control Barrier Certificates for Safe Swarm Behavior,

    U. Borrmann, L. Wang, A. D. Ames, and M. Egerstedt, “Control Barrier Certificates for Safe Swarm Behavior,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, pp. 68–73, Jan. 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Distributed Consensus in Multi-vehicle Coopera- tive Control: Theory and Applications (Ren, W. and Beard, R.W.; 2008) [Book Shelf],

    J. Wang and X. Hu, “Distributed Consensus in Multi-vehicle Coopera- tive Control: Theory and Applications (Ren, W. and Beard, R.W.; 2008) [Book Shelf],”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 30, pp. 85–86, June 2010

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Constraint Inference in Control Tasks from Expert Demonstrations via Inverse Optimization,

    D. Papadimitriou and J. Li, “Constraint Inference in Control Tasks from Expert Demonstrations via Inverse Optimization,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1762–1769, Dec. 2023. ISSN: 2576-2370

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning.,

    A. Y . Ng, S. Russell,et al., “Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning.,” inIcml, vol. 1, p. 2, 2000

    work page 2000

  9. [9]

    Inverse Constrained Reinforcement Learning,

    S. Malik, U. Anwar, A. Aghasi, and A. Ahmed, “Inverse Constrained Reinforcement Learning,” inProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 7390–7399, PMLR, July 2021. ISSN: 2640-3498

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Online inverse optimal control for control-constrained discrete-time systems on finite and infinite horizons,

    T. L. Molloy, J. J. Ford, and T. Perez, “Online inverse optimal control for control-constrained discrete-time systems on finite and infinite horizons,”Automatica, vol. 120, p. 109109, Oct. 2020

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Model-based inverse reinforcement learning for deterministic systems,

    R. Self, M. Abudia, S. M. N. Mahmud, and R. Kamalapurkar, “Model-based inverse reinforcement learning for deterministic systems,” Automatica, vol. 140, p. 110242, June 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Cost inference for feedback dynamic games from noisy par- tial state observations and incomplete trajectories,

    J. Li, C.-Y . Chiu, L. Peters, S. Sojoudi, C. Tomlin, and D. Fridovich- Keil, “Cost inference for feedback dynamic games from noisy par- tial state observations and incomplete trajectories,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01398, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Peer-Aware Cost Estimation in Nonlinear General-Sum Dynamic Games for Mutual Learning and Intent Inference,

    S. Y . Soltanian and W. Zhang, “Peer-Aware Cost Estimation in Nonlinear General-Sum Dynamic Games for Mutual Learning and Intent Inference,” Apr. 2025. arXiv:2504.17129 [eess]

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Learning Hyper- planes for Multi-Agent Collision Avoidance in Space,

    F. Palafox, Y . Yu, and D. Fridovich-Keil, “Learning Hyper- planes for Multi-Agent Collision Avoidance in Space,” Nov. 2023. arXiv:2311.09439 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Learning constraints from demon- strations with grid and parametric representations,

    G. Chou, D. Berenson, and N. Ozay, “Learning constraints from demon- strations with grid and parametric representations,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 40, no. 10-11, pp. 1255–1283, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Maximum Likelihood Constraint Inference for Inverse Reinforcement Learning,

    D. R. R. Scobee and S. S. Sastry, “Maximum Likelihood Constraint Inference for Inverse Reinforcement Learning,” inInternational Con- ference on Learning Representations, Sept. 2019

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Uncertainty-aware constraint inference in inverse constrained reinforcement learning,

    S. Xu and G. Liu, “Uncertainty-aware constraint inference in inverse constrained reinforcement learning,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Safety Verification of Hybrid Systems Using Barrier Certificates,

    S. Prajna and A. Jadbabaie, “Safety Verification of Hybrid Systems Using Barrier Certificates,” inHybrid Systems: Computation and Control(R. Alur and G. J. Pappas, eds.), (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 477– 492, Springer, 2004

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    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,” in2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 2242–2253, Dec. 2017

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    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 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 3420–3431, June 2019

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    The Safety Filter: A Unified View of Safety-Critical Control in Autonomous Systems,

    K.-C. Hsu, H. Hu, and J. F. Fisac, “The Safety Filter: A Unified View of Safety-Critical Control in Autonomous Systems,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 7, pp. 47–72, July

    work page

  22. [22]

    Publisher: Annual Reviews

    work page

  23. [23]

    Data-Driven Safety Filters: Hamilton- Jacobi Reachability, Control Barrier Functions, and Predictive Methods for Uncertain Systems,

    K. P. Wabersich, A. J. Taylor, J. J. Choi, K. Sreenath, C. J. Tomlin, A. D. Ames, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Data-Driven Safety Filters: Hamilton- Jacobi Reachability, Control Barrier Functions, and Predictive Methods for Uncertain Systems,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 43, pp. 137–177, Oct. 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Safety-Critical Model Predictive Control with Discrete-Time Control Barrier Function,

    J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-Critical Model Predictive Control with Discrete-Time Control Barrier Function,” in2021 Amer- ican Control Conference (ACC), pp. 3882–3889, May 2021. ISSN: 2378-5861

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Layered Control for Cooperative Locomotion of Two Quadrupedal Robots: Centralized and Distributed Approaches,

    J. Kim, R. T. Fawcett, V . R. Kamidi, A. D. Ames, and K. A. Hamed, “Layered Control for Cooperative Locomotion of Two Quadrupedal Robots: Centralized and Distributed Approaches,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, pp. 4728–4748, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Optimal Trajectory Planning for Cooperative Manipulation with Multiple Quadrotors Using Control Barrier Functions,

    A. Pallar, G. Li, M. Sarvaiya, and G. Loianno, “Optimal Trajectory Planning for Cooperative Manipulation with Multiple Quadrotors Using Control Barrier Functions,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2808–2814, May 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Multi-UA V Collaborative Transportation of Payloads With Obstacle Avoidance,

    A. Hegde and D. Ghose, “Multi-UA V Collaborative Transportation of Payloads With Obstacle Avoidance,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 926–931, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Distributed multi-robot formation control in dynamic environments,

    J. Alonso-Mora, E. Montijano, T. N ¨ageli, O. Hilliges, M. Schwager, and D. Rus, “Distributed multi-robot formation control in dynamic environments,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 43, pp. 1079–1100, June 2019

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Safety barrier certificates for heterogeneous multi-robot systems,

    L. Wang, A. Ames, and M. Egerstedt, “Safety barrier certificates for heterogeneous multi-robot systems,” in2016 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 5213–5218, July 2016. ISSN: 2378-5861

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Legibility and predictability of robot motion,

    A. D. Dragan, K. C. Lee, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Legibility and predictability of robot motion,” in2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 301–308, Mar

    work page

  31. [31]

    Learning Environment Constraints in Collaborative Robotics: A Decen- tralized Leader-Follower Approach,

    M. Bujarbaruah, Y . R. St¨urz, C. Holda, K. H. Johansson, and F. Borrelli, “Learning Environment Constraints in Collaborative Robotics: A Decen- tralized Leader-Follower Approach,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1636–1641, Sept. 2021. ISSN: 2153-0866

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization. Cambridge New York Melbourne New Delhi Singapore: Cambridge University Press, version 29 ed., 2023

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Efficient iterative linear-quadratic approximations for nonlinear multi- player general-sum differential games,

    D. Fridovich-Keil, E. Ratner, L. Peters, A. D. Dragan, and C. J. Tomlin, “Efficient iterative linear-quadratic approximations for nonlinear multi- player general-sum differential games,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1475–1481, IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020