pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12974 · v2 · pith:HIV6RJ7Hnew · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.SY· eess.SY

Distributionally Robust Safety Under Arbitrary Uncertainties: A Safety Filtering Approach

Daniel M. Cherenson , Haejoon Lee , Taekyung Kim , Dimitra Panagou This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 22:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY
keywords distributionally robust safetysafety filteringbackup policyWasserstein ambiguitysampling-based certificationprobabilistic safetynonlinear control
0
0 comments X

The pith

Backup-based safety filtering reduces distributionally robust certification to a one-dimensional search over policy switching time.

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

The paper establishes that probabilistic safety for nonlinear systems can be certified under arbitrary unknown disturbance distributions by building on a backup safety filter. The filter switches from a high-performance nominal policy to a certified backup policy, and the structure of this switch reduces what would be a complex high-dimensional distributionally robust optimization to a simple one-dimensional search over the switching time. A sampling-based procedure then delivers finite-sample guarantees by comparing the empirical failure probability against a threshold that has been inflated using the Wasserstein distance to account for distributional ambiguity. This approach avoids online solution of full trajectory optimization problems while still providing explicit probabilistic bounds.

Core claim

By exploiting the structure of backup-based safety filtering, safety certification under Wasserstein distributional ambiguity reduces to a one-dimensional search over the switching time between nominal and backup policies, after which a sampling-based procedure compares empirical failure probabilities against a Wasserstein-inflated threshold to obtain finite-sample probabilistic safety guarantees.

What carries the argument

The backup-based safety filtering framework that switches between a nominal policy and a certified backup policy at a chosen time.

Load-bearing premise

The backup policy is certified safe once activated and the Wasserstein ambiguity set adequately represents the unknown true disturbance distribution.

What would settle it

Running the closed-loop system with the certified switching time and measuring a safety violation rate that exceeds the Wasserstein-inflated empirical threshold would falsify the guarantee.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12974 by Daniel M. Cherenson, Dimitra Panagou, Haejoon Lee, Taekyung Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualizations of (a) a 7-dimensional Formula 1 racecar with 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visual flow chart of DRS-gatekeeper. At each time step, for every candidate switching time m ∈ {0, . . . , M − 1}, we sample N noise trajectories from the nominal noise distribution and perform rollouts to evaluate safety. It then counts constraint violations and computes a distributionally robust upper bound on the failure probability. Finally, we select the largest feasible switching time satisfying the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Empirical uncertainty distributions for (a) longitudinal velocity, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: F-16 empirical uncertainty distributions conditioned on a specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we study how to ensure probabilistic safety for nonlinear systems under distributional ambiguity. Our approach builds on a backup-based safety filtering framework that switches between a high-performance nominal policy and a certified backup policy to ensure safety. To handle arbitrary uncertainties from ambiguous distributions, i.e., where the distribution is not of specific structure and the true distribution is unknown, we adopt a distributionally robust (DR) formulation using Wasserstein ambiguity sets. Rather than solving a high-dimensional DR trajectory optimization problem online, we exploit the structure of backup-based safety filtering to reduce safety certification to a one-dimensional search over the switching time between nominal and backup policies. We then develop a sampling-based certification procedure with finite-sample guarantees, where empirical failure probabilities are compared against a Wasserstein-inflated threshold. We validate our method through simulations across three systems, from a Dubins vehicle to a high-speed racing car and a fighter jet, demonstrating the broad applicability and computational efficiency.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that for nonlinear systems under distributional ambiguity, safety can be certified via a backup-based safety filter by reducing the problem to a one-dimensional search over the switching time τ between a nominal policy and a certified backup policy. It then introduces a sampling-based certification procedure using Wasserstein ambiguity sets, where empirical failure probabilities are compared to a Wasserstein-inflated threshold to obtain finite-sample guarantees. The approach is validated through simulations on a Dubins vehicle, high-speed racing car, and fighter jet.

Significance. If the finite-sample guarantees hold after proper accounting for data-dependent selection of τ, the work would provide a computationally efficient alternative to full online distributionally robust trajectory optimization for safety under arbitrary uncertainties. The structural reduction to a 1D search over switching time and the multi-system empirical validation are notable strengths; the method could be useful in robotics applications where backup policies are available.

major comments (1)
  1. [sampling-based certification procedure / finite-sample theorem] In the section deriving the sampling-based certification procedure and associated finite-sample theorem: the claimed probabilistic safety guarantee does not follow when τ is chosen data-dependently from the same samples (e.g., the minimal τ such that the empirical failure rate plus Wasserstein inflation lies below the threshold). Standard Wasserstein concentration results apply to a fixed τ; selecting τ via optimization on the empirical rates biases the minimum downward and requires an explicit union bound or uniform-convergence correction over a discretization of [0,T]. Without this correction, the finite-sample bound on the true failure probability is not valid under the stated assumptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could briefly state the sample complexity or number of trajectories used in the certification step to give readers immediate context on practicality.
  2. [Simulation results] In the simulation sections, include explicit values of the selected switching time τ and the empirical vs. inflated failure probabilities for each system to allow direct verification of the certification step.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the structural reduction to a one-dimensional search and the empirical validation across multiple systems. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the finite-sample analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [sampling-based certification procedure / finite-sample theorem] In the section deriving the sampling-based certification procedure and associated finite-sample theorem: the claimed probabilistic safety guarantee does not follow when τ is chosen data-dependently from the same samples (e.g., the minimal τ such that the empirical failure rate plus Wasserstein inflation lies below the threshold). Standard Wasserstein concentration results apply to a fixed τ; selecting τ via optimization on the empirical rates biases the minimum downward and requires an explicit union bound or uniform-convergence correction over a discretization of [0,T]. Without this correction, the finite-sample bound on the true failure probability is not valid under the stated assumptions.

    Authors: We agree that the data-dependent selection of τ requires an explicit correction to the finite-sample theorem. The current analysis applies concentration results to a fixed τ, but the certification procedure searches for a suitable τ (typically the smallest value satisfying the inflated empirical condition). To correct this, we will revise the theorem by discretizing [0, T] into a finite grid of M points and applying a union bound with an additional log(M) factor in the failure probability. This yields a uniform guarantee over the grid; the discretization error can be controlled by choosing M sufficiently large relative to the Lipschitz constant of the failure probability with respect to τ. The revised section will state the updated bound explicitly, discuss the resulting sample-complexity overhead, and include a brief remark on how the approach extends to continuous τ via covering arguments. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Builds on backup-filter framework with independent DR formulation and sampling certification; no reduction of guarantees to fitted inputs by construction

full rationale

The derivation reduces safety certification to a one-dimensional search over switching time τ using the structure of backup-based filtering, then applies a separate sampling-based procedure comparing empirical failure probabilities to a Wasserstein-inflated threshold for finite-sample guarantees. This does not reduce the claimed probabilistic certificate to a quantity defined by the same data or by self-citation chains; the DR formulation and concentration bounds are introduced independently. While data-dependent selection of τ requires care to preserve validity of the bounds (standard results assume fixed τ), this is a potential gap in the proof rather than circularity where an equation or result equals its input by definition. The paper remains self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method rests on standard domain assumptions from safety filtering and distributionally robust optimization; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The backup policy is certified safe when activated.
    Invoked as the foundation for the switching framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5711 in / 1156 out tokens · 47738 ms · 2026-05-20T22:03:50.245250+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Advances in the theory of control barrier func- tions: Addressing practical challenges in safe control synthesis for autonomous and robotic systems,

    K. Garg, J. Usevitch, J. Breeden, M. Black, D. Agrawal, H. Parwana, and D. Panagou, “Advances in the theory of control barrier func- tions: Addressing practical challenges in safe control synthesis for autonomous and robotic systems,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 57, p. 100945, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    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, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    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,” inIEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2017, pp. 2242–2253

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    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,” inEuropean Control Conference (ECC), 2019, pp. 3420–3431

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Robust safety under stochastic uncertainty with discrete-time control barrier functions,

    R. K. Cosner, P. Culbertson, A. J. Taylor, and A. D. Ames, “Robust safety under stochastic uncertainty with discrete-time control barrier functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07469, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Safety on the fly: Constructing robust safety filters via policy control barrier functions at runtime,

    L. Knoedler, O. So, J. Yin, M. Black, Z. Serlin, P. Tsiotras, J. Alonso- Mora, and C. Fan, “Safety on the fly: Constructing robust safety filters via policy control barrier functions at runtime,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Safe navigation in uncertain crowded environments using risk adaptive cvar barrier functions,

    X. Wang, T. Kim, B. Hoxha, G. Fainekos, and D. Panagou, “Safe navigation in uncertain crowded environments using risk adaptive cvar barrier functions,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2025, pp. 7669–7676

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Safe control for nonlinear systems with stochastic uncertainty via risk control barrier functions,

    A. Singletary, M. Ahmadi, and A. D. Ames, “Safe control for nonlinear systems with stochastic uncertainty via risk control barrier functions,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 349–354, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Distributionally robust convex optimization,

    W. Wiesemann, D. Kuhn, and M. Sim, “Distributionally robust convex optimization,”Operations research, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1358–1376, 2014

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Distributionally robust cvar-based safety filtering for motion planning in uncertain environments,

    S. Safaoui and T. H. Summers, “Distributionally robust cvar-based safety filtering for motion planning in uncertain environments,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 103–109

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Distributionally robust optimization with unscented transform for learning-based motion control in dynamic environments,

    A. Hakobyan and I. Yang, “Distributionally robust optimization with unscented transform for learning-based motion control in dynamic environments,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 3225–3232

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems,

    E. Delage and Y . Ye, “Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems,”Op- erations research, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 595–612, 2010

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Sensor-based distributionally robust control for safe robot navigation in dynamic environments,

    K. Long, Y . Yi, Z. Dai, S. Herbert, J. Cort ´es, and N. Atanasov, “Sensor-based distributionally robust control for safe robot navigation in dynamic environments,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 328–351, 2026

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    Dro-edl-mpc: Evidential deep learning-based distributionally robust model predictive control for safe autonomous driving,

    H. Ham and H. Ahn, “Dro-edl-mpc: Evidential deep learning-based distributionally robust model predictive control for safe autonomous driving,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2026

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    Addressing behavior model inaccuracies for safe motion control in uncertain dynamic environ- ments,

    M. Sung, H. Kim, and N. Hovakimyan, “Addressing behavior model inaccuracies for safe motion control in uncertain dynamic environ- ments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    A distributionally robust optimization model for vehicle platooning under stochastic disturbances,

    P. Zhang, D. Tian, J. Zhou, X. Duan, D. Zhao, and D. Cao, “A distributionally robust optimization model for vehicle platooning under stochastic disturbances,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 9666–9681, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Wasserstein tube mpc with exact uncertainty propagation,

    L. Aolaritei, M. Fochesato, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Wasserstein tube mpc with exact uncertainty propagation,” inIEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2023, pp. 2036–2041

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    TPL-001-5.1 — Transmission System Plan- ning Performance Requirements

    H. Rahimian and S. Mehrotra, “Distributionally robust optimization: A review,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05659, 2019

    work page arXiv 1908

  19. [19]

    Wasserstein distributionally robust motion control for collision avoidance using conditional value-at-risk,

    A. Hakobyan and I. Yang, “Wasserstein distributionally robust motion control for collision avoidance using conditional value-at-risk,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 939–957, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Distributionally robust sampling-based motion planning under uncertainty,

    T. Summers, “Distributionally robust sampling-based motion planning under uncertainty,” inIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, pp. 6518–6523

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Chance-constrained trajectory planning with multimodal environmental uncertainty,

    K. Ren, H. Ahn, and M. Kamgarpour, “Chance-constrained trajectory planning with multimodal environmental uncertainty,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 13–18, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Safe, learning-based mpc for highway driving under lane-change uncertainty: A distributionally robust approach,

    M. Schuurmans, A. Katriniok, C. Meissen, H. E. Tseng, and P. Patri- nos, “Safe, learning-based mpc for highway driving under lane-change uncertainty: A distributionally robust approach,”Artificial Intelligence, vol. 320, p. 103920, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Safe reinforcement learning with nonlinear dynamics via model predictive shielding,

    O. Bastani, “Safe reinforcement learning with nonlinear dynamics via model predictive shielding,” inAmerican Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 3488–3494

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Backup control barrier functions: Formulation and comparative study,

    Y . Chen, M. Jankovic, M. Santillo, and A. D. Ames, “Backup control barrier functions: Formulation and comparative study,” inIEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2021, pp. 6835–6841

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    gatekeeper: Online safety verification and control for nonlinear systems in dynamic environ- ments,

    D. R. Agrawal, R. Chen, and D. Panagou, “gatekeeper: Online safety verification and control for nonlinear systems in dynamic environ- ments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 4358–4375, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Safe reinforcement learning via statis- tical model predictive shielding

    O. Bastani, S. Li, and A. Xu, “Safe reinforcement learning via statis- tical model predictive shielding.” inRobotics: Science and Systems, 2021, pp. 1–13

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    A data-driven approach to multistage stochastic linear optimization,

    D. Bertsimas, S. Shtern, and B. Sturt, “A data-driven approach to multistage stochastic linear optimization,”Management Science, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 51–74, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Computing probabilistic controlled invariant sets,

    Y . Gao, K. H. Johansson, and L. Xie, “Computing probabilistic controlled invariant sets,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 3138–3151, 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Invariance in stochastic dynamical control systems,

    G. Pola, J. Lygeros, and M. D. Di Benedetto, “Invariance in stochastic dynamical control systems,” inInternational Symposium on Mathemat- ical Theory of Networks and Systems, 2006

    work page 2006

  30. [30]

    Probabilistic reachability and safety for controlled discrete time stochastic hybrid systems,

    A. Abate, M. Prandini, J. Lygeros, and S. Sastry, “Probabilistic reachability and safety for controlled discrete time stochastic hybrid systems,”Automatica, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 2724–2734, 2008

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Backup-Based Safety Filters: A Comparative Review of Backup CBF, Model Predictive Shielding, and gatekeeper

    T. Kim, A. D. Menon, A. Trivedi, and D. Panagou, “Backup-based safety filters: A comparative review of backup cbf, model predictive shielding, and gatekeeper,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02401, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Guarantees on robot system performance using stochastic simulation rollouts,

    J. A. Vincent, A. O. Feldman, and M. Schwager, “Guarantees on robot system performance using stochastic simulation rollouts,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    A simulation benchmark for autonomous racing with large-scale human data,

    A. Remonda, N. Hansen, A. Raji, N. Musiu, M. Bertogna, E. E. Veas, and X. Wang, “A simulation benchmark for autonomous racing with large-scale human data,”Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 37, pp. 102 078–102 100, 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applica- tions to autonomous driving,

    G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applica- tions to autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1603–1622, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Jsbsim: An open source flight dynamics model in c++,

    J. Berndt, “Jsbsim: An open source flight dynamics model in c++,” in AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference and exhibit, 2004, p. 4923

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    Accelerating practical engineering design optimization with computational graph transformations,

    P. D. Sharpe, “Accelerating practical engineering design optimization with computational graph transformations,” 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Safety guardrails in the sky: Realizing control barrier functions on the vista f-16 jet,

    A. W. Singletary, M. H. Cohen, T. G. Molnar, and A. D. Ames, “Safety guardrails in the sky: Realizing control barrier functions on the vista f-16 jet,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27912, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026