pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20728 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.SY· eess.SY

Interval POMDP Shielding for Imperfect-Perception Agents

William Scarbro , Ravi Mangal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.SYeess.SY
keywords interval POMDPshieldingperception uncertaintysafety guaranteesautonomous systemsconfidence intervalsruntime verificationPOMDP
0
0 comments X

The pith

A runtime shield for agents with imperfect perception uses interval POMDPs built from data confidence bounds to enforce a safety lower bound with high probability over training data.

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

The paper develops a shielding technique for autonomous systems whose perception comes from learned models that can misclassify sensor inputs. From finite labeled data the method extracts confidence intervals on the probabilities of different perception outcomes and represents the overall system as an Interval POMDP. An algorithm then maintains a conservative set of beliefs over the hidden state that remain consistent with the intervals and the observations received so far. This produces a shield that, conditional on the true perception rates lying inside the intervals, guarantees with high probability over the training data that every action it admits satisfies a stated lower bound on safety probability for a finite horizon. Experiments on four case studies show the approach and its variants reduce unsafe decisions compared with prior baselines.

Core claim

The central claim is that confidence intervals on perception probabilities derived from finite labeled data can be used to construct an Interval POMDP; an associated algorithm computes a conservative belief set over states consistent with observations, enabling a runtime shield that, with high probability over the training data and if the true rates lie inside the intervals, ensures every admitted action meets a given finite-horizon safety lower bound.

What carries the argument

The Interval POMDP, in which perception-outcome probabilities are represented by intervals rather than single values, together with the algorithm that computes a conservative belief set over underlying states consistent with both the intervals and the sequence of observations seen at runtime.

If this is right

  • Every action the shield permits satisfies the stated safety lower bound whenever the true perception rates fall inside the intervals.
  • The guarantee holds with high probability over the finite training data used to form the intervals.
  • The shield operates at runtime for systems with known dynamics and discrete states and actions.
  • Safety performance improves over existing shielding baselines in the reported case studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The conservative belief sets may produce more cautious behavior than point-estimate POMDPs, suggesting a tunable trade-off between safety and task performance.
  • The same interval-construction technique could be applied when both dynamics and perception are uncertain, by widening the intervals accordingly.
  • For longer horizons the finite-horizon guarantee could be iterated or approximated by receding-horizon execution of the shield.

Load-bearing premise

The true perception error probabilities lie inside the confidence intervals computed from the finite labeled data.

What would settle it

A concrete counter-example consisting of a sequence of observations and an action admitted by the shield that produces a safety violation whose probability falls below the stated lower bound, even though the true perception probabilities used to generate the trajectory lie inside the learned intervals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20728 by Ravi Mangal, William Scarbro.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Best low-failure operating point of each shield on the four benchmarks, under uniform and adversarial perception. The selected threshold minimizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Highest-safe operating point of each shield on the four benchmarks. Here the selected threshold maximizes safe completions, with lower fail and then [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: TaxiNet Pareto scatter over threshold β under adversarial perception. History-based shields provide substantially better fail-versus-stuck tradeoffs than memoryless Observation, and the envelope improves on Single-Belief by removing actions that are only safe for the point-estimate model. E. Comparison with Support-Based Shielding The comparison with Carr-style support shielding clarifies when probability … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean shield inference time per step on a log scale. Observation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TaxiNet Pareto scatter over threshold β under adversarial perception. History-based shields provide substantially better fail-versus-stuck tradeoffs than memoryless Observation, and the envelope improves on Single-Belief by removing actions that are only safe for the point-estimate model. APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL EMPIRICAL RESULTS A. Why History Matters: TaxiNet and Obstacle TaxiNet demonstrates why the obser… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: TaxiNet abstraction coarseness for the LFP envelope. The mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Autonomous systems that rely on learned perception can make unsafe decisions when sensor readings are misclassified. We study shielding for this setting: given a proposed action, a shield blocks actions that could violate safety. We consider the common case where system dynamics are known but perception uncertainty must be estimated from finite labeled data. From these data we build confidence intervals for the probabilities of perception outcomes and use them to model the system as a finite Interval Partially Observable Markov Decision Process with discrete states and actions. We then propose an algorithm to compute a conservative set of beliefs over the underlying state that is consistent with the observations seen so far. This enables us to construct a runtime shield that comes with a finite-horizon guarantee: with high probability over the training data, if the true perception uncertainty rates lie within the learned intervals, then every action admitted by the shield satisfies a stated lower bound on safety. Experiments on four case studies show that our shielding approach (and variants derived from it) improves the safety of the system over state-of-the-art baselines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a shielding technique for autonomous agents relying on learned perception models. By constructing confidence intervals for perception error probabilities from finite data, the system is modeled as an Interval POMDP. An algorithm is proposed to maintain a conservative belief set consistent with observations, which is used to build a runtime shield. The shield provides a finite-horizon safety guarantee conditional on the true perception rates lying within the learned intervals (with high probability over the training data). Experimental results on four case studies indicate that the approach and its variants improve safety compared to state-of-the-art baselines.

Significance. If the proposed method and its guarantee are correct, this work offers a valuable contribution to safe decision-making in partially observable environments with uncertain perception. It bridges statistical estimation with formal shielding methods in a way that provides explicit (conditional) safety bounds, which is important for deploying learned systems in safety-critical domains. The use of interval-based modeling avoids overconfidence in point estimates and the experiments suggest practical benefits. Strengths include the explicit conditioning of the guarantee and the focus on finite-horizon tractability.

major comments (3)
  1. The algorithm for computing the conservative belief set consistent with observations (described after the Interval POMDP modeling) lacks a formal definition, pseudocode, or derivation steps, which is load-bearing for verifying how the finite-horizon safety lower bound is obtained for admitted actions.
  2. The experimental section reports that the shielding approach improves safety on four case studies but supplies no quantitative metrics, tables, error bars, or specific baseline comparisons, preventing assessment of the practical effect size or robustness of the claimed improvements.
  3. No proof sketch, key lemmas, or derivation is provided for the central finite-horizon guarantee (that admitted actions satisfy a stated lower bound on safety when true rates lie in the intervals), which is essential to substantiate the main claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review. The comments highlight important areas where the presentation can be strengthened to better substantiate the technical contributions. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested improvements in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The algorithm for computing the conservative belief set consistent with observations (described after the Interval POMDP modeling) lacks a formal definition, pseudocode, or derivation steps, which is load-bearing for verifying how the finite-horizon safety lower bound is obtained for admitted actions.

    Authors: We agree that the current description of the belief-set algorithm would benefit from greater formality. In the revision we will add a formal definition of the conservative belief set, a complete pseudocode listing of the algorithm, and a step-by-step derivation that shows how the set is maintained from observations while remaining consistent with the learned intervals. These additions will explicitly connect the belief-set construction to the finite-horizon safety lower bound used by the shield. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The experimental section reports that the shielding approach improves safety on four case studies but supplies no quantitative metrics, tables, error bars, or specific baseline comparisons, preventing assessment of the practical effect size or robustness of the claimed improvements.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the experimental results are currently presented at a high level. The revised manuscript will include quantitative tables reporting safety-violation rates, task-completion rates, and computational overhead for our method and all baselines across the four case studies. We will also add error bars derived from repeated trials and explicit numerical comparisons that quantify the improvement over the state-of-the-art baselines. revision: yes

  3. Referee: No proof sketch, key lemmas, or derivation is provided for the central finite-horizon guarantee (that admitted actions satisfy a stated lower bound on safety when true rates lie in the intervals), which is essential to substantiate the main claim.

    Authors: We will include a dedicated proof appendix containing a high-level proof sketch together with the key lemmas that establish the finite-horizon safety guarantee. The sketch will derive the lower bound on safety probability from the properties of the interval POMDP, the conservative belief set, and the shield’s acceptance condition, under the assumption that the true perception rates lie inside the learned intervals. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation is self-contained with no circular steps

full rationale

The paper derives confidence intervals from finite labeled data using standard statistical methods, models the system as an Interval POMDP, computes a conservative belief set consistent with observations, and constructs a runtime shield whose finite-horizon safety lower bound is explicitly conditional on the event that true perception rates lie inside those intervals (with high probability over the training data). No step reduces a claimed prediction or guarantee to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does the argument depend on load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness results; the modeling choices and conditional guarantee follow directly from the stated assumptions without internal reduction to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed from abstract only; full technical details on assumptions and parameters are unavailable.

free parameters (1)
  • confidence level for perception intervals
    Used to construct the intervals from finite labeled data; value not stated in abstract.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption System dynamics are known and can be represented as a finite-state discrete-action MDP.
    Stated explicitly in the abstract as the setting under which perception uncertainty is the only source of uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Perception outcomes are discrete and their probabilities can be bounded by confidence intervals derived from i.i.d. labeled data.
    Core modeling choice that enables the Interval POMDP formulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5477 in / 1403 out tokens · 21868 ms · 2026-05-09T23:34:53.950059+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    X-taxinet - an environment for learning and decision systems for airplane operations,

    T. C. Staudinger, Z. D. Jorgensen, and D. D. Margineantu, “X-taxinet - an environment for learning and decision systems for airplane operations,” 2018, openReview preprint, Work in progress. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/references/pdf?id=SJzzHvt57

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Case study: analysis of autonomous center line tracking neural networks,

    I. B. Kadron, D. Gopinath, C. S. P ˘as˘areanu, and H. Yu, “Case study: analysis of autonomous center line tracking neural networks,” inInter- national Workshop on Numerical Software Verification. Springer, 2021, pp. 104–121

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Formal analysis and redesign of a neural network-based aircraft taxiing system with verifai,

    D. J. Fremont, J. Chiu, D. D. Margineantu, D. Osipychev, and S. A. Seshia, “Formal analysis and redesign of a neural network-based aircraft taxiing system with verifai,” inInternational Conference on Computer Aided Verification. Springer, 2020, pp. 122–134

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    onighofer, S. Niekum, and U. Topcu, “Safe reinforcement learning via shielding,

    M. Alshiekh, R. Bloem, R. Ehlers, B. K"onighofer, S. Niekum, and U. Topcu, “Safe reinforcement learning via shielding,” inAAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Safe reinforcement learning using probabilistic shields,

    N. Jansen, S. Junges, U. Topcuet al., “Safe reinforcement learning using probabilistic shields,”Theoretical Computer Science, 2020, probabilistic shielding line

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    onighoferet al., “Shielding for safe reinforcement learning,

    B. K"onighoferet al., “Shielding for safe reinforcement learning,” in Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,

    R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,”Journal of Basic Engineering, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 1960

    work page 1960

  8. [8]

    Shielding for partially observable markov decision pro- cesses,

    e. a. Carr, “Shielding for partially observable markov decision pro- cesses,” 2023, referenced by repository implementation docs

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,

    S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” inProceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 15, 2011, pp. 627–635. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v15...

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    Conformal prediction: A gentle intro- duction,

    A. Angelopoulos and S. Bates, “Conformal prediction: A gentle intro- duction,”Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 494–591, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    V ovk, A

    V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer,Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer, 2005

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Conformal safety shielding for imperfect-perception agents,

    W. Scarbro, C. Imrie, S. G. Yaman, K. Fatehi, C. P ˘as˘areanu, R. Calinescu, and R. Mangal, “Conformal safety shielding for imperfect-perception agents,” inRuntime Verification: 25th International Conference, RV 2025, Graz, Austria, September 15–19, 2025, Proceedings. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2025, p. 213–232. [Online]. Available: https://doi....

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05435-7_13 2025

  13. [13]

    Conformal prediction under covariate shift,

    R. J. Tibshirani, R. Foygel Barber, E. Candès, and A. Ramdas, “Conformal prediction under covariate shift,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/ 2019/file/8fb21ee7a2207526da55a679f0332de2-Paper.pdf

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Adaptive conformal inference under distribution shift,

    I. Gibbs and E. Candès, “Adaptive conformal inference under distribution shift,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, 2021, pp. 1660–1672. [On- line]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2021/ file/0d441de75945e5acbc865406fc9a2559-Paper.pdf

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,

    Y . Ovadia, E. Fertig, J. Ren, Z. Nado, D. Sculley, S. Nowozin, J. Dillon, B. Lakshminarayanan, and J. Snoek, “Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32,

    work page

  16. [16]

    Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ paper/2019/file/8558cb408c1d76621371888657d2eb1d-Paper.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/ paper/2019/file/8558cb408c1d76621371888657d2eb1d-Paper.pdf

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains,

    L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. R. Cassandra, “Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains,”Artificial Intelligence, vol. 101, no. 1-2, pp. 99–134, 1998

    work page 1998

  18. [18]

    Closed-loop analysis of vision-based autonomous systems: A case study,

    C. P ˘as˘areanu, R. Mangal, D. Gopinath, S. Getir Yaman, C. Imrie, R. C ˘a- linescu, and H. Yu, “Closed-loop analysis of vision-based autonomous systems: A case study,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04634, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Perception-based beliefs for pomdps with visual observations,

    M. Schäfers, M. Krale, T. D. Simão, N. Jansen, and M. Weininger, “Perception-based beliefs for pomdps with visual observations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.05679, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Bounded-parameter markov decision processes,

    R. Givan, S. Leach, and T. Dean, “Bounded-parameter markov decision processes,” inInternational Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence Workshop on Planning under Uncertainty and Incomplete Information, 2000

    work page 2000

  21. [21]

    Robust control of markov decision pro- cesses with uncertain transition matrices,

    A. Nilim and L. El Ghaoui, “Robust control of markov decision pro- cesses with uncertain transition matrices,”Operations Research, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 780–798, 2005

    work page 2005

  22. [22]

    Conservative inference rule for uncer- tain reasoning under incompleteness,

    M. Zaffalon and E. Miranda, “Conservative inference rule for uncer- tain reasoning under incompleteness,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 34, pp. 757–821, 2009

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial,

    C. J. Clopper and E. S. Pearson, “The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial,”Biometrika, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 404–413, 1934

    work page 1934

  24. [24]

    Computing probabilistic con- trolled invariant sets,

    Y . Gao, K. H. Johansson, and L. Xie, “Computing probabilistic con- trolled invariant sets,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2007–2012, 2021, arXiv:1905.04117

    work page arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    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,” in2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), 2019, pp. 3420–3431

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Nonlinear bayesian estimation with convex sets of probability densities,

    B. Noack, V . Klumpp, D. Brunn, and U. D. Hanebeck, “Nonlinear bayesian estimation with convex sets of probability densities,” inPro- ceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Fusion, 2008

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    Ipomdp shielding artifact,

    W. Scarbro, “Ipomdp shielding artifact,” Software Heritage archive, 2026, directory snapshot permalink: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/ swh:1:dir:841e006611e599002ec860573b35fe5770065484

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Conser- vative perception models for probabilistic model checking,

    M. Cleaveland, P. Lu, O. Sokolsky, I. Lee, and I. Ruchkin, “Conser- vative perception models for probabilistic model checking,” in2025 61st Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing Proceedings. Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,

    L. R. Rabiner, “A tutorial on hidden markov models and selected applications in speech recognition,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 257–286, 1989

    work page 1989

  30. [30]

    Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part i. convex underestimating problems,

    G. P. McCormick, “Computability of global solutions to factorable nonconvex programs: Part i. convex underestimating problems,”Math- ematical Programming, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 147–175, 1976

    work page 1976

  31. [31]

    Programming with linear fractional functionals,

    A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper, “Programming with linear fractional functionals,”Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3-4, pp. 181–186, 1962

    work page 1962

  32. [32]

    Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference,

    E. B. Wilson, “Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 22, no. 158, pp. 209–212, 1927

    work page 1927

  33. [33]

    Interval estimation for a binomial proportion,

    L. D. Brown, T. T. Cai, and A. DasGupta, “Interval estimation for a binomial proportion,”Statistical Science, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 101–133, 2001

    work page 2001

  34. [34]

    Conformal predictive systems under covariate shift,

    J. Jonkers, G. Van Wallendael, L. Duchateau, and S. Van Hoecke, “Conformal predictive systems under covariate shift,” inProceedings of the Thirteenth Symposium on Conformal and Probabilistic Prediction with Applications, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 230. PMLR, 2024, pp. 406–423. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v23...

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Extending conformal prediction to hidden markov models with exact validity via de finetti’s theorem for markov chains,

    B. Nettasinghe, S. Chatterjee, R. Tipireddy, and M. M. Halappanavar, “Extending conformal prediction to hidden markov models with exact validity via de finetti’s theorem for markov chains,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol

    work page

  36. [36]

    25 890–25 903

    PMLR, 2023, pp. 25 890–25 903. [Online]. Available: https: //proceedings.mlr.press/v202/nettasinghe23a.html

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Conformal off-policy evaluation in markov decision processes,

    D. Foffano, A. Russo, and A. Proutière, “Conformal off-policy evaluation in markov decision processes,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2023, pp. 3087– 3094, also available as arXiv:2304.02574. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2304.02574

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Point-based value iteration: An anytime algorithm for pomdps,

    J. Pineau, G. Gordon, and S. Thrun, “Point-based value iteration: An anytime algorithm for pomdps,” inInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2003, pp. 1025–1032

    work page 2003

  39. [39]

    Distribution bisimilarity via the power of convex algebras,

    F. Bonchi, A. Silva, and A. Sokolova, “Distribution bisimilarity via the power of convex algebras,”Logical Methods in Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 10:1–10:28, 2021. Fig. 5. TaxiNet Pareto scatter over thresholdβunder adversarial perception. History-based shields provide substantially better fail-versus-stuck tradeoffs than memoryless Observation,...

    work page 2021