pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.29792 · v2 · pith:KYP3FWKZnew · submitted 2026-03-31 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Where to Put Safety? Control Barrier Function Placement in Networked Control Systems

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords safetycontroldisturbancelocalnetworkedplacementpredictivearchitectures
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Control barrier functions (CBFs) are widely used to enforce safety in autonomous systems, yet their placement within networked control architectures remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate where to enforce safety in a networked control system in which a remote model predictive controller (MPC) communicates with the plant over a delayed network. We compare two safety strategies: i) a local myopic CBF filter applied at the plant and ii) predictive CBF constraints embedded in the remote MPC. For both architectures, we derive state-dependent disturbance tolerance bounds and show that safety placement induces a fundamental trade-off: local CBFs provide higher disturbance tolerance due to access to fresh state measurements, whereas MPC-CBF enables improved performance through anticipatory behavior, but yields stricter admissible disturbance levels. Motivated by this insight, we propose a combined architecture that integrates predictive and local safety mechanisms. The theoretical findings are illustrated in simulations on a planar three-degree-of-freedom robot performing a collision-avoidance task.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

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