Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Synthesis of safety certificates for discrete-time uncertain systems via convex optimization

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that a quadratic control barrier function and a linear feedback controller for a discrete-time linear system with additive disturbances can be co-designed by solving a single convex semidefinite program, guaranteeing…

desk verdict The deterministic co-design SDP is solid, but the finite-horizon theorem has a real trace-term LMI gap plus an initial-condition margin problem that invalidate the bound as stated for n>1. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08559 v1 pith:HPMMBWL4 submitted 2025-05-13 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Marta Fochesato , Han Wang , Antonis Papachristodoulou , Paul Goulart This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY MSC 90C2293C5593E15
keywords controlbarrierfunctionssemidefiniteprogrammingdiscrete-timesystemsstochasticdisturbancesmartingaleinequalitysafetycertificatesconvexoptimizationdistributionallyrobust
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 proves that for a linear discrete-time system with additive disturbances, both a quadratic control barrier function $b(x)=1-x^\top\Omega^{-1}x$ and a linear feedback $u(x)=Y\Omega^{-1}x$ can be co-designed by solving a single semidefinite program. When the disturbance support is bounded, feasibility of the SDP guarantees that the ellipsoid $B=\{x\mid b(x)\ge 0\}$ contains the initial set, is contained in the safe set, and is invariant under every disturbance in the uncertainty set. When the disturbances are unbounded and sub-Gaussian, a second SDP encodes an expected-increase condition that, via a constructed supermartingale and Ville's inequality, yields a joint-in-time safety probability of at least $1-\alpha$ over a finite horizon. The value for a practitioner is that safety and control are designed simultaneously in a convex problem, avoiding the alternating sum-of-squares scheme that requires a feasible initial CBF and provides no convergence guarantee.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quadratic control barrier function $b(x)=1-x^\top\Omega^{-1}x$ paired with the linear feedback gain $u(x)=Y\Omega^{-1}x$, where $\Omega\succ 0$ and $Y$ are the decision variables. The key identity is that the robust invariance condition $b(Ax+Bu(x)+Dw) \ge (1-\beta)b(x)$ for all $w^\top w \le 1$ can be rewritten as a linear matrix inequality in $(\Omega,Y)$ via the S-lemma, yielding constraint (8c). For the stochastic case, the expected-increase condition in (10) is encoded by the covariance LMI (14d) together with (14e)-(14f), and a shifted and scaled supermartingale $\zeta_t$ (constructed in Lemma 3.5) converts the one-step drift bound into a joint-in-time exit probability bound using Ville's inequality.

What would settle it

Run a scalar system $x_{t+1}=0.5x_t+u_t+w_t$ with a chosen safe set and initial ellipsoid, solve SDP (14), and draw $w_t$ from a zero-mean heavy-tailed distribution (e.g., a t-distribution with three degrees of freedom) scaled to have the same covariance $\Sigma$ as assumed. If the measured exit probability over $T=100$ steps exceeds the $\alpha$ predicted by Theorem 3.7 for a feasible SDP, the sub-Gaussian assumption is violated and the certificate fails. For the bounded-support case, set $w_t=1$ deterministically at every step starting from a boundary point of $B$; if the state exits $B$ in one step despite SDP (8) being feasible, the invariance certificate is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the co-design of a CBF and a controller, which is generally nonconvex because the CBF appears inside the composition $b(Ax+Bu(x)+Dw)$, becomes convex when the CBF is quadratic and the controller is linear, after a change of variables that lifts the matrix inequalities. Specifically, Problem (8) is a convex SDP whose feasibility implies existence of a quadratic CBF and a linear feedback that render $B$ invariant for all disturbances $w^\top w \le 1$, with $I\subseteq B\subseteq S$ and $B$ being the largest-volume ellipsoid in this family achieving those properties. For the stochastic case, Problem (14) uses the same parametrization and adds a covariance LMI to enforce the expected-increase condition $\mathbb{E}[b(x_{t+1})\mid F_t] \ge (1-\beta)b(x_t)+\delta$; the paper proves that if it is feasible, then $\Pr(x_t\in S \text{ for all } t\in\{0,\ldots,T\}) \ge 1-\alpha$, with $\alpha$ given by an explicit formula depending on the horizon $T$, the initial ellipsoid parameter $\sigma$, and the chosen $\beta,\delta$. This gives a parameter-free derivation chain from the SDP to a rigorous safety certificate rather than a heuristic one.

Load-bearing premise

The certificates rest on the disturbance being i.i.d., zero-mean, sub-Gaussian with exactly the covariance $\Sigma$ used in the SDP, and on the initial state lying in a known ellipsoid; if the true noise violates these assumptions, the stated safety bounds are not certified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The SDP replaces the standard alternating SOS co-design; no feasible initial CBF guess is required and the problem is convex, so a global solution is certified.
  • The largest-volume invariant ellipsoid property (Theorem 3.3) gives a direct way to optimize the size of the safety set in one shot, without solving a reachability problem.
  • For the stochastic case, the method returns an explicit joint-in-time exit probability bound that scales with the horizon $T$ and risk tolerance $\alpha$, letting designers trade off horizon versus safety in closed form.
  • Input constraints, both polytopic and norm-bounded, can be added as extra LMIs without destroying convexity, and the same certificate can be used to build a safety filter solved in real time.
  • Distributionally robust safety certificates can be obtained by replacing the covariance LMI with a Gelbrich-distance ambiguity set (Proposition 4.3), making the bound robust to misspecified covariances within a given radius.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the parametrization is identical to the usual quadratic Lyapunov/controller pair, the same SDP could be recycled for performance objectives such as H2 or H-infinity control by adding LMIs, giving a combined safety-and-performance design.
  • The martingale bound is a discrete-time analogue of continuous-time supermartingale exit estimates; one could adapt it to time-varying $\beta_t$ or position-dependent noise, at the cost of a more complex LMI.
  • The explicit threshold $\alpha$ in Theorem 3.7 suggests a natural experiment: compare the predicted exit probability against Monte-Carlo counts in high-dimensional systems; the gap between bound and empirical frequency measures the conservatism of the quadratic CBF, not just the martingale step.
  • For partially observed systems, one could combine the construction with a state estimator and use the same CBF on the estimated state; the paper does not treat output feedback, and the covariance LMI would need a correction term for estimation error.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes convex semidefinite programs for the joint synthesis of a quadratic control barrier function b(x)=1-x^T Omega^{-1}x and a linear feedback u=Y Omega^{-1}x for discrete-time linear systems with additive disturbances. Problem (8) is intended to certify infinite-horizon, worst-case safety under bounded disturbances, while Problem (14) is intended to certify finite-horizon, joint-in-time (1-alpha)-safety under i.i.d. sub-Gaussian noise using a martingale argument based on Ville's inequality. The paper also discusses input constraints, distributional ambiguity, safety filters, and SOS-based extensions to general semialgebraic safe sets. The main claims are Theorems 3.3 and 3.7, with the finite-horizon result being the principal contribution for unbounded noise.

Significance. If the stated results were correct, the paper would be a useful contribution: it offers an explicit convex SDP for co-designing a CBF and a feedback law, avoiding the usual bilinearities and alternating SOS schemes, and it provides a reasonably detailed derivation of the infinite-horizon invariance conditions. The distributionally robust extension and the safety-filter formulation are also natural and potentially valuable. However, the finite-horizon result is the advertised headline for unbounded disturbances, and that result is false as stated. The error is internal to the SDP encoding: Problem (14) does not enforce the scalar trace condition needed in the expected-increase inequality, and Theorem 3.7 is contradicted by a small feasible instance. Because the numerical example in Section 5 rests on this SDP, the central contribution cannot stand without a substantial redesign.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.4, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 is described as having guaranteed convergence to a feasible CBF and controller, but no convergence proof or termination argument is provided. The initialization step (27) may not produce B subset of S, and the alternating iterations (28)--(29) are not shown to preserve feasibility or to converge. This does not affect the main theorems, but if the extension is to be claimed with a guarantee, the proof is missing.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Theorem 3.7 statement] The statement of Theorem 3.7 should explicitly restate the hypotheses on the safe set S and the initial set I from Assumption 3.1, including the role of the vectors a_j and the scalar sigma; as written, the theorem refers to S and I without defining them in its own statement.
  2. [Section 4.3, Lemma 4.4] The proof of Lemma 4.4 is omitted with the comment that it follows directly from the definition of convexity; for a journal submission, the short proof should be included or a precise citation given.
  3. [Example 1, Eq. (11) and surrounding display] The formulas for a(t), kappa, and the cases delta<0 and delta>=0 are hard to follow because some symbols in the displayed derivation are garbled, and the relationship between the formulas for alpha_1 and alpha_2 and the later simplified bounds is not shown step by step. Please rewrite this part with consistent notation.
  4. [Notation] The symbol R is used both for a given matrix defining the initial ellipsoid and for the real numbers, and the appearance R^n in the same context can be confusing. This should be clarified in the notation subsection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the safety theorems are re-derived in the paper from the stated disturbance and set assumptions, and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Problem (8) is shown in Appendix 6.1 to render the ellipsoid B invariant under bounded w directly from LMI (8c), with I⊆B⊆S enforced by (8d)-(8e); no target safety property is fed back into the constraints. Problem (14) is obtained by transcribing the expected-increase condition (10) into LMIs, and the finite-horizon bound in Theorem 3.7 follows from Ville's inequality via Lemma 3.5 and Proposition 3.6, using only the stated sub-Gaussian and covariance assumptions. No fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness or equivalence theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice of Ω and Y. The citation to the authors' own [34] supplies only the quadratic parameterization (5) and motivation; the containment and invariance proofs are carried out in the paper, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. A soundness concern exists in the proof of Theorem 3.7—the Schur complement of (14d) bounds Tr(Ω^{-1}Σ) only by nλ rather than λ, so (14e) may not enforce β−δ−Tr(Ω^{-1}Σ)≥0—but this is an internal LMI gap, not a circular reduction of the theorem to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The design depends on user-chosen scalars beta, delta, lambda, sigma and on the quadratic parametrization (5); no data are fitted. The mathematical background (S-Lemma, Ville's inequality, Schur complement) is standard. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • beta = user-specified in (0,1)
    Decay parameter in the barrier condition; controls conservatism of the invariant set and appears in both SDPs.
  • delta = user-specified in (beta-1, beta]
    Offset in the expected-increase condition (10); used to tune the finite-horizon exit probability bound.
  • lambda = user-specified in [0,1]
    S-lemma multiplier in the robust invariance LMI (8c); the authors suggest bisection since the problem is quasi-convex in lambda.
  • sigma = user-specified in (0,1)
    Margin parameter defining the initial ellipsoid I = {x : 1 - x^T R x >= sigma}; affects the probability bound in Theorem 3.7.
  • eta = optimized analytically
    Parameter in the supermartingale construction of Example 1; the tightest bound is obtained at an endpoint of its admissible interval.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math S-Lemma (Lemma 1.3) and its use for quadratic and affine constraints
    Used to derive the containment condition (8e) and the SDP reformulations in Sections 3 and 4.
  • standard math Ville's inequality (Lemma 1.2) for non-negative supermartingales
    Central to the finite-horizon probabilistic bound in Proposition 3.6 and Theorem 3.7.
  • standard math Schur complement and congruent transformations
    Used throughout the appendix to convert quadratic inequalities into LMIs.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: disturbances are i.i.d., zero-mean, sub-Gaussian with known covariance Sigma
    Required for the finite-horizon supermartingale construction and for the covariance LMI (14d).
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.2: bounded support W = {w : w^T w <= 1}
    Enables the worst-case infinite-horizon safety guarantee in Theorem 3.3.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.1: safe set is an intersection of half-planes a_j^T x + 1 >= 0 and initial set is an ellipsoid
    Restricts the geometry needed for the convex containment conditions (8d), (8e), (14g), (14h).
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic CBF parametrization (5): b(x)=1-x^T Omega^{-1} x, u(x)=Y Omega^{-1} x
    This is the design restriction that makes the co-design problem convex; it limits certificates to ellipsoidal invariant sets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthesis of safety certificates for discrete-time uncertain systems via convex optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPMMBWL4

@misc{pith2026250508559,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthesis of safety certificates for discrete-time uncertain systems via convex optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPMMBWL4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08559}
}
read the original abstract

We study the problem of co-designing control barrier functions and linear state feedback controllers for discrete-time linear systems affected by additive disturbances. For disturbances of bounded magnitude, we provide a semi-definite program whose feasibility implies the existence of a control law and a certificate ensuring safety in the infinite horizon with respect to the worst-case disturbance realization in the uncertainty set. For disturbances with unbounded support, we rely on martingale theory to derive a second semi-definite program whose feasibility provides probabilistic safety guarantees holding joint-in-time over a finite time horizon. We examine several extensions, including (i) encoding of different types of input constraints, (ii) robustification against distributional ambiguity around the true distribution, (iii) design of safety filters, and (iv) extension to general safety specifications such as obstacle avoidance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08559 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the safety filter concept. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Empirical bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs with applicatio n to adaptive cruise control

    Aaron D Ames, Jessy W Grizzle, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier function based quadratic programs with applicatio n to adaptive cruise control. In 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pages 6271–6278. IEEE, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Infinite time reachability of state- space regions by using feedback control

    Dimitri Bertsekas. Infinite time reachability of state- space regions by using feedback control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 17(5):604–613, 1972

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    End to end learning for self-driving c ars

    Mariusz Bojarski. End to end learning for self-driving c ars. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316 , 2016

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    A semi-algebraic framework for verificati on and synthesis of control barrier functions

    Andrew Clark. A semi-algebraic framework for verificati on and synthesis of control barrier functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00081, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

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

    Ryan K Cosner, Preston Culbertson, Andrew J Taylor, and Aaron D Ames. Robust safety under stochastic uncertainty with discrete-time control barrier functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07469, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Safe control with learned certificates: A survey of neural lyapunov, barr ier, and contraction methods for robotics and control

    Charles Dawson, Sicun Gao, and Chuchu Fan. Safe control with learned certificates: A survey of neural lyapunov, barr ier, and contraction methods for robotics and control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(3):1749–1767, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Penlab: A matlab solver for nonlinear semidefinite optimization

    Jan Fiala, Michal Kočvara, and Michael Stingl. Penlab: A matlab solver for nonlinear semidefinite optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.5240, 2013

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Formal synthesis of stochastic systems via control barrier certificates

    Pushpak Jagtap, Sadegh Soudjani, and Majid Zamani. Formal synthesis of stochastic systems via control barrier certificates. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 66(7):3097–3110, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Fast and certifiable trajectory optimization

    Shucheng Kang, Xiaoyang Xu, Jay Sarva, Ling Liang, and Heng Yang. Fast and certifiable trajectory optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05846 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Convex computation of the maximum controlled invariant set for polynomial control systems

    Milan Korda, Didier Henrion, and Colin N Jones. Convex computation of the maximum controlled invariant set for polynomial control systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 52(5):2944–2969, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Stochastic stability and contr ol

    Harold Joseph Kushner. Stochastic stability and contr ol. 1967

    1967

  4. [12]

    Distributionally robust policy and lyapunov-certificate learning

    Kehan Long, Jorge Cortes, and Nikolay Atanasov. Distributionally robust policy and lyapunov-certificate learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03017 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hamilton–jacobi formulation for reach–avoid differential games

    Kostas Margellos and John Lygeros. Hamilton–jacobi formulation for reach–avoid differential games. IEEE Transactions on automatic control , 56(8):1849–1861, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    Procrustes metrics on covariance operators and optimal transportation of gaussian processes

    Valentina Masarotto, Victor M Panaretos, and Yoav Zeme l. Procrustes metrics on covariance operators and optimal transportation of gaussian processes. Sankhya A, 81:172–213, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Safe value functions

    Pierre-François Massiani, Steve Heim, Friedrich Solo wjow, and Sebastian Trimpe. Safe value functions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 68(5):2743–2757, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A time-dependent hamilton-jacobi formulation of reachabl e sets for continuous dynamic games

    Ian M Mitchell, Alexandre M Bayen, and Claire J Tomlin. A time-dependent hamilton-jacobi formulation of reachabl e sets for continuous dynamic games. IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 50(7):947–957, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    Mean-covariance robust risk measurement

    Viet Anh Nguyen, Soroosh Shafiee, Damir Filipović, and Daniel Kuhn. Mean-covariance robust risk measurement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09959 , 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems

    Pablo A Parrilo. Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems. Mathematical programming, 96:293– 320, 2003

    2003

  11. [19]

    Barrier certificates for nonlinear mod el validation

    Stephen Prajna. Barrier certificates for nonlinear mod el validation. Automatica, 42(1):117–126, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    A framework for worst-case and stochastic safety verificatio n using barrier certificates

    Stephen Prajna, Ali Jadbabaie, and George J Pappas. A framework for worst-case and stochastic safety verificatio n using barrier certificates. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 52(8):1415–1428, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    Application of reachab ility analysis for stochastic hybrid systems to aircraft conflict prediction

    Maria Prandini and Jianghai Hu. Application of reachab ility analysis for stochastic hybrid systems to aircraft conflict prediction. In 2008 47th IEEE conference on decision and control, pages 4036–4041. IEEE, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Dynamic walking: Toward agile and efficient bipedal robots

    Jenna Reher and Aaron D Ames. Dynamic walking: Toward agile and efficient bipedal robots. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , 4:535–572, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Learning control barrier functions from expert demonstrations

    Alexander Robey, Haimin Hu, Lars Lindemann, Hanwen Zhang, Dimos V Dimarogonas, Stephen Tu, and Nikolai Matni. Learning control barrier functions from expert demonstrations. In 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 3717–3724. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Variational analysis, volume 317

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J-B W ets. Variational analysis, volume 317. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Advanced safety filter based on sos control barrier and lyapunov functions

    Michael Schneeberger, Silvia Mastellone, and Florian Dörfler. Advanced safety filter based on sos control barrier and lyapunov functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06901 , 2024. 12

    2024

  18. [26]

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

    Andrew Singletary, Mohamadreza Ahmadi, and Aaron D Ames. Safe control for nonlinear systems with stochastic uncertainty via risk control barrier functions. IEEE Control Systems Letters , 7:349–354, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Synthesis of control barrier functions usi ng a supervised machine learning approach

    Mohit Srinivasan, Amogh Dabholkar, Samuel Coogan, and Patricio A Vela. Synthesis of control barrier functions usi ng a supervised machine learning approach. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7139–7145. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Searching for control lyapunov functions using sums of squares programming

    W eehong Tan and Andrew Packard. Searching for control lyapunov functions using sums of squares programming. sibi, 1(1), 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    Safety of sampled- data systems with control barrier functions via approximat e discrete time models

    Andrew J Taylor, Victor D Dorobantu, Ryan K Cosner, Yisong Yue, and Aaron D Ames. Safety of sampled- data systems with control barrier functions via approximat e discrete time models. In 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 7127–7134. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Etude critique de la notion de collectif

    Jean Ville. Etude critique de la notion de collectif . Gauthier- Villars Paris, 1939

    1939

  23. [31]

    Predictive con trol barrier functions: Enhanced safety mechanisms for learnin g- based control

    Kim P W abersich and Melanie N Zeilinger. Predictive con trol barrier functions: Enhanced safety mechanisms for learnin g- based control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 68(5):2638–2651, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Assessing safety for contr ol systems using sum-of-squares programming, 2023

    Han W ang, Kostas Margellos, and Antonis Papachristodoulou. Assessing safety for contr ol systems using sum-of-squares programming, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Safety verification and controller synthesis for systems with inpu t constraints

    Han W ang, Kostas Margellos, and Antonis Papachristodoulou. Safety verification and controller synthesis for systems with inpu t constraints. IF AC-PapersOnLine, 56(2):1698–1703, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Convex co-design of control barrier function and safe feedback controller under input constrai nts

    Han W ang, Kostas Margellos, Antonis Papachristodoulo u, and Claudio De Persis. Convex co-design of control barrier function and safe feedback controller under input constrai nts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11763 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Simultaneous synthesis and verification of neural control barrier functions through branch-and-bound verification-in-the-loop training

    Xinyu W ang, Luzia Knoedler, Frederik Baymler Mathiese n, and Javier Alonso-Mora. Simultaneous synthesis and verification of neural control barrier functions through branch-and-bound verification-in-the-loop training. In 2024 European Control Conference (ECC) , pages 571–578. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Synthesizing control barrier functions with feasible region iteration for safe reinforcement learning

    Yujie Yang, Yuhang Zhang, W enjun Zou, Jianyu Chen, Yuming Yin, and Shengbo Eben Li. Synthesizing control barrier functions with feasible region iteration for safe reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Convex synthesis of control barrier functions under input constraints

    Pan Zhao, Reza Ghabcheloo, Yikun Cheng, Hossein Abdi, and Naira Hovakimyan. Convex synthesis of control barrier functions under input constraints. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2023. Appendix A: Proofs of Section 3 6.1 Proof of Theorem 3.3 We first prove that (8c) is sufficient f...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.