Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Safety Certificate against Latent Variables with Partially Unidentifiable Dynamics

T0 review · 3 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 One Q-function can certify long-term safety under hidden variables

desk verdict Sound theoretical core, but the learning pipeline is never exercised and the load-bearing assumption is narrower than advertised. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17927 v1 pith:T4AQYK5I submitted 2025-06-22 eess.SY cs.SY

Haoming Jing , Yorie Nakahira This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords safetycertificatelatentvariablesprobabilisticinvariancecausalreinforcementlearningdistributionshiftlong-termconfoundedMarkovdecisionprocessmarginalizedQ-function
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

Systems whose latent variables make their dynamics partially unidentifiable, and whose offline training data statistically differ from online operation, cannot be certified by standard control barrier functions or forward-invariance conditions. This paper proposes a probabilistic safety certificate that instead works in probability space: it states a condition on a marginalized Q-function that can be evaluated from observed statistics. If the condition is enforced at every step, the probability of staying safe for the whole episode stays above $1-\epsilon$, and a feasible safe action provably always exists. The construction links safety certificates to causal reinforcement learning, so existing off-policy estimators can supply the Q-function without ever observing the latent variable. Numerical simulations on a slippery-road driving example show the certificate meeting the bound while a discrete-time control barrier function fails under the same distribution shift.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the marginalized Q-function $Q^\pi$ defined on the augmented state $\hat{Y}_t=[X_t^{\top}, H-t]^{\top}$, for the auxiliary MDP whose online transition kernel $\tilde{P}_{\text{online}}$ keeps the state frozen once the safe event $C(X_t)$ fails and otherwise follows the marginal online statistics $P_{\text{online}}(X_{t+1}\mid X_t, U_t)$. The identity that carries the argument is the Bellman relation $Q^\pi(\hat{Y}_t, U_t)=\mathbb{E}[V^\pi(\hat{Y}_{t+1})\mid \hat{Y}_t, U_t]$ (the running reward is zero except at the horizon), which turns the certificate $S\ge 0$ into the probability-space invariance condition $\mathbb{E}[V^\pi(\hat{Y}_{t+1})\mid \hat{Y}_t, U_t]\ge V^\pi(\hat{Y}_t)$. The front-door adjustment, a causal identity, supplies the bridge from offline data to online statistics: it expresses $\tilde{P}_{\text{online}}(\hat{Y}_{t+1}\mid \hat{Y}_t, U_t)$ in terms of offline quantities using an observable mediator variable, which is what makes the Q-function learnable without access to the latent state.

What would settle it

Construct a two-state system with a latent variable that persists across time, e.g. $W_t$ following a Markov chain on $\{0,1\}$ with $P(W_{t+1}=1\mid W_t=1, X_t)=0.9$, violating Assumption 2.1, while keeping the same safe event and offline dataset structure as the Appendix A example. Train a causal RL estimator on offline data generated under a behavioral policy, enforce condition (27) at every step, and measure the empirical long-term safe probability over many online episodes; if it drops below $1-\epsilon$ while (27) was satisfied throughout, then the certificate's guarantee relies essentially on the conditional-independence assumption rather than on the Q-condition alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that long-term safety, defined as $P_{\hat{\pi},\pi}(C(X_t)\cap\cdots\cap C(X_H)\mid X_0)\ge 1-\epsilon$ for every $t$, is guaranteed by enforcing the per-step condition $S(X_t, U_t, t)=Q^\pi(\hat{Y}_t, U_t)-\mathbb{E}_{U\sim\pi}[Q^\pi(\hat{Y}_t, U)\mid\hat{Y}_t]\ge 0$, where $\hat{Y}_t=[X_t^{\top}, H-t]^{\top}$ appends the remaining time to the observed state and $Q^\pi$ is the marginalized Q-function of an auxiliary MDP whose transitions freeze once the safe event $C$ fails. Under this condition, Theorem 3.4 shows that a safe action always exists, so the certificate never forces the controller into an infeasible stall. The proof identifies the long-term safe probability with the auxiliary value function $V^\pi$ (Proposition 3.1), converts the value-based invariance condition (17) into the Q-based condition (27) through a modified Bellman equation, and evaluates that condition using offline data via the front-door adjustment, which corrects for the confounding latent variable.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee depends on the latent variable at each time being conditionally independent of all past latent variables, observed states, and actions given the current observed state; if the hidden variable carries persistent or history-dependent influence, the safety certificate can no longer be derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Enforcing the Q-function advantage condition at every step keeps the whole-episode safe probability above $1-\epsilon$, and a feasible safe input always exists, so the certificate never dead-ends the controller.
  • Safety certification is decoupled from knowing the full transition dynamics: only a marginalized Q-function needs to be learned or estimated, and any causal reinforcement-learning estimator that respects the confounded Markov structure can supply it.
  • The construction allows a myopic, performance-oriented policy to be filtered by a safety layer without retraining, since the certificate is evaluated online using the observed state and remaining time.
  • Existing offline datasets collected under a behavioral policy that conditions on the latent variable can be reused: Algorithm 1 converts them into an auxiliary dataset with offline statistics, and the front-door adjustment recovers online statistics from them.
  • The approach extends naturally to unbounded disturbances, actuation limits, and time-varying safe sets encoded in the event $C(X_t)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If latent variables persist over time given the observed state, the same safety score likely overestimates safety; augmenting the state with a belief or a sufficient statistic would be a natural extension.
  • The feasibility guarantee in Theorem 3.4 proves only existence, not robustness; when the Q-function estimate has high variance away from offline data coverage, adding a safety margin or a conservative threshold on $S$ would be prudent.
  • The score $S$ could double as a monitoring statistic: values near zero flag states close to irrecoverable, before the safety bound is actually violated.
  • Proposition 3.1 implies the remaining safety margin can be read off $V^\pi$ at runtime, enabling headroom-aware action ranking rather than simple pass/fail filtering.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a probabilistic safety certificate for stochastic control systems with latent variables that induce a distribution shift between offline and online observed statistics. Under a conditional-independence assumption on the latent process (Assumption 2.1), the authors define a marginalized value function V^pi and Q-function Q^pi on an auxiliary MDP with an absorbing unsafe state, and show that the condition S(X_t,U_t,t) = Q^pi(Yhat_t,U_t) - E_{U~pi}[Q^pi(Yhat_t,U)|Yhat_t] >= 0 is sufficient for the long-term safe probability to remain above 1-epsilon (Theorem 3.2, Lemma 3.3). They also prove that a feasible action always exists (Theorem 3.4) and sketch an offline estimation procedure based on front-door adjustment and iterative Q-estimation (Algorithm 2, Section 3.4). The method is illustrated on a discrete driving simulation.

Significance. The conceptual bridge between probability-space invariance conditions and marginalized Q-functions is attractive and could be useful: if an exact or consistently estimated Q^pi is available, the resulting safety filter is simple, online, and comes with a persistent-feasibility guarantee. The proofs of Theorems 3.2 and 3.4 are elementary and correct given the paper's assumptions. The paper also correctly identifies that offline statistics alone are unreliable under latent-variable confounding, and it draws on a credible causal-RL literature to justify estimating Q^pi from observed data. However, the significance is conditional: the central assumption as written conflicts with the paper's own problem setup, and the simulation does not exercise the proposed learning pipeline, so the claim that the certificate 'can be constructed using observed statistics' is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Assumption 2.1 and Eqs. (3)-(4)] Assumption 2.1 states W_t is independent of {U_tau}_{tau<=t} given X_t. Under this assumption, the offline behavioral policy pi_b(U_t|X_t,W_t) must satisfy pi_b(U_t|X_t,W_t) = pi_b(U_t|X_t), because U_t is conditionally independent of W_t given X_t. Then Eq. (3) reduces to Eq. (4), and the offline/online distribution shift that motivates the paper disappears. The simulation's behavioral policy given in Appendix C explicitly depends on W_t given X_t, so the simulated setting violates Assumption 2.1 as written. This is load-bearing: the mismatch between Eqs. (3) and (4) is the foundation for the paper's problem statement. Please clarify whether Assumption 2.1 is intended to hold only for the online system, or remove U_t from the independence statement, and adjust the derivations accordingly.
  2. [Section 4, Simulation] The numerical study does not implement the proposed Algorithm 2. The text states that the proposed method 'has access to an unbiased estimate for the Q-function Q^pi', which can be estimated by an existing causal RL method, but the simulation never runs the iterative procedure in Eq. (44), never uses the offline dataset D to estimate Q^pi_M, and never introduces the mediator M_t required by Assumption 3.5. Thus the central claim that the safety certificate can be constructed from observed statistics is not empirically validated. Please provide an end-to-end experiment that learns Q^pi from D, or at minimum a sensitivity study showing how the guarantee degrades with estimation error.
  3. [Section 2.1 and Introduction] Assumption 2.1 rules out persistent latent states: W_t is independent of all past latent variables and past observable states given X_t, so W_{t+1} cannot depend on W_t, and a latent variable that evolves over time (e.g., a slowly changing road-slipperiness parameter or a persistent pedestrian intent) is outside the proved guarantee. These are exactly the motivating examples in the Introduction. This limitation is not disclosed in the abstract or in a limitations paragraph, and the title's unqualified reference to 'latent variables' overstates the scope. Please either narrow the claims to conditionally independent latent variables or add a prominent statement of the limitation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, decomposition after Assumption 2.1] The displayed decomposition P(X_{t+1},W_{t+1}|X_t,W_t,U_t) = P(W_t|X_t)P(X_{t+1}|X_t,U_t,W_t) is dimensionally inconsistent: the left-hand side conditions on W_t, so the right-hand side should not contain the marginal P(W_t|X_t). Please correct this to a proper transition kernel for W_{t+1}, or state the intended factorization more carefully.
  2. [Section 3.4, Assumption 3.5] Assumption 3.5 says that the mediator M_t intercepts every directed path 'from U_t to U_t or to S_{t+1}', but S_{t+1} is never defined and the path 'from U_t to U_t' appears to be a typo. Please rewrite the assumption in terms of the state transition and define all variables.
  3. [Algorithm 2, line 14] The algorithm says 'Estimate Q^pi using (54) with Q^pi_M', but Eq. (54) also requires the offline conditional distributions P_offline(M_t|U_t,Yhat_t). It should be stated explicitly that these distributions are estimated from the dataset D and how the estimation error is handled.
  4. [Section 4, Figures 1-2] The simulation section reports 95% confidence intervals but does not describe how they are computed (e.g., whether they are per-time binomial intervals or across trajectory replications). Please add a brief description of the statistical procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the long-term safety guarantee is derived from the Bellman equation and an independent supermartingale argument; the self-citations are attributional only.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Theorem 3.2 derives the long-term safety objective from the supermartingale condition (17) using the law of total expectation and Proposition 3.1, whose proof is given in Appendix B rather than imported from prior work. Lemma 3.3 derives the implementable certificate (27) from the Bellman equation (28)-(32); no parameter is fitted to safety outcomes, and no prediction is tuned to match a target. Theorem 3.4's persistent-feasibility claim is a valid consequence of choosing an argmax of Qpi, so it is a mathematical tautology rather than an empirically load-bearing reduction: it does not smuggle the conclusion into the definitions in the manner of a fitted input called a prediction, and it does not affect the main long-term safety proof. Self-citations (Hoshino & Nakahira 2024 as 'inspired by'; Jing & Nakahira 2022 and Wang et al. 2022 as related work) are attributional and are not used as evidence for the theorems. The main non-circular caveat is Assumption 2.1: equation (3) defines offline actions by pi_b(U_t|X_t,W_t), which makes U_t dependent on W_t given X_t, in tension with the stated W_t independence from U_t given X_t; this is a correctness/scope limitation, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The augmented state Ŷ and the auxiliary MDPs are mathematical constructions, and the mediator M_t is assumed to be an observable variable rather than a new invention. The central claim rests on the latent-variable conditional independence and on the causal graph behind the front-door adjustment.

free parameters (1)
  • Risk tolerance ε = 0.2 in simulation, user-specified
    The safety objective (6) requires long-term safe probability ≥ 1-ε for the whole episode. The threshold is chosen by the user, not fitted to data, and the theoretical guarantee holds for any ε where the initial condition Ψπ(X0,0) > 1-ε.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: W_t is conditionally independent of all past states, actions, and latent variables given X_t.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to decompose the transition kernel and establish that X_t is Markov; without it, the online statistics (4) does not equal the marginalized kernel and the value-function representation in Proposition 3.1 fails.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3.5: There exists an observable mediator M_t that intercepts all directed paths from U_t to X_{t+1}, and the stated back-door paths are blocked.
    Used in Section 3.4 to justify front-door adjustment in equation (48) so that the online Q-function can be estimated from offline data. This requires a specific causal graph that may not hold in the motivating applications.
  • domain assumption The offline dataset D contains trajectories generated by an unknown behavioral policy πb that depends on the latent variable W_t.
    Stated in Section 2.1; this is the source of confounding and distribution shift that the method is designed to handle. If the behavioral policy were independent of W_t, there would be no confounding and standard offline RL would suffice.
  • domain assumption The baseline safety policy π and the nominal policy πn are fixed and known.
    The safety condition (27) and the value function Vπ are defined with respect to π; the optimizer (55) uses πn. The choice of π affects the achievable safety guarantees.
  • domain assumption The horizon H and the risk tolerance ε are known and finite.
    The safety objective (6) is stated over a finite episode of length H; the guarantee is relative to the threshold 1-ε.
  • standard math Standard measure-theoretic probability and the Bellman equation for finite-horizon MDPs.
    Used in the proofs of Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 3.2; no non-standard mathematical assumptions are made.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safety Certificate against Latent Variables with Partially Unidentifiable Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4AQYK5I

@misc{pith2026250617927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safety Certificate against Latent Variables with Partially Unidentifiable Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4AQYK5I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17927}
}
read the original abstract

Many systems contain latent variables that make their dynamics partially unidentifiable or cause distribution shifts in the observed statistics between offline and online data. However, existing control techniques often assume access to complete dynamics or perfect simulators with fully observable states, which are necessary to verify whether the system remains within a safe set (forward invariance) or safe actions are consistently feasible at all times. To address this limitation, we propose a technique for designing probabilistic safety certificates for systems with latent variables. A key technical enabler is the formulation of invariance conditions in probability space, which can be constructed using observed statistics in the presence of distribution shifts due to latent variables. We use this invariance condition to construct a safety certificate that can be implemented efficiently in real-time control. The proposed safety certificate can continuously find feasible actions that control long-term risk to stay within tolerance. Stochastic safe control and (causal) reinforcement learning have been studied in isolation until now. To the best of our knowledge, the proposed work is the first to use causal reinforcement learning to quantify long-term risk for the design of safety certificates. This integration enables safety certificates to efficiently ensure long-term safety in the presence of latent variables. The effectiveness of the proposed safety certificate is demonstrated in numerical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Probability of safety at each time for both controllers with 95% confidence interval shown in the shady region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Long-term safety at each time for both controllers with 95% confidence interval shown in the shady region. The long-term safety is equal to P π,π ˆ (C(Xt) ∩ C(Xt+1) ∩ · · · ∩ C(XH)|X0) defined in (6). The simulation results are illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    Verification of uncertain pomdps using barrier certificates

    Ahmadi, M., Cubuktepe, M., Jansen, N., and Topcu, U. Verification of uncertain pomdps using barrier certificates. In 2018 56th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp.\ 115--122. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Control theory meets pomdps: A hybrid systems approach

    Ahmadi, M., Jansen, N., Wu, B., and Topcu, U. Control theory meets pomdps: A hybrid systems approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66 0 (11): 0 5191--5204, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    D., Xu, X., Grizzle, J

    Ames, A. D., Xu, X., Grizzle, J. W., and Tabuada, P. Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62 0 (8): 0 3861--3876, 2016

    2016

  5. [5]

    D., Coogan, S., Egerstedt, M., Notomista, G., Sreenath, K., and Tabuada, P

    Ames, A. D., Coogan, S., Egerstedt, M., Notomista, G., Sreenath, K., and Tabuada, P. Control barrier functions: Theory and applications. In 2019 18th European control conference (ECC), pp.\ 3420--3431. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    and Zamani, M

    Anand, M. and Zamani, M. Formally verified neural network control barrier certificates for unknown systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 56 0 (2): 0 2431--2436, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    and Kallus, N

    Bennett, A. and Kallus, N. Proximal reinforcement learning: Efficient off-policy evaluation in partially observed markov decision processes. Operations Research, 72 0 (3): 0 1071--1086, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Off-policy evaluation in infinite-horizon reinforcement learning with latent confounders

    Bennett, A., Kallus, N., Li, L., and Mousavi, A. Off-policy evaluation in infinite-horizon reinforcement learning with latent confounders. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 1999--2007. PMLR, 2021

    work page 1999

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Set invariance in control

    Blanchini, F. Set invariance in control. Automatica, 35 0 (11): 0 1747--1767, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Safe reinforcement learning via shielding under partial observability

    Carr, S., Jansen, N., Junges, S., and Topcu, U. Safe reinforcement learning via shielding under partial observability. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pp.\ 14748--14756, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    T., Sreenath, K., and Gaidon, A

    Castaneda, F., Nishimura, H., McAllister, R. T., Sreenath, K., and Gaidon, A. In-distribution barrier functions: Self-supervised policy filters that avoid out-of-distribution states. In Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, pp.\ 286--299. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    On instrumental variable regression for deep offline policy evaluation

    Chen, Y., Xu, L., Gulcehre, C., Le Paine, T., Gretton, A., De Freitas, N., and Doucet, A. On instrumental variable regression for deep offline policy evaluation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (302): 0 1--40, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Control barrier functions for complete and incomplete information stochastic systems

    Clark, A. Control barrier functions for complete and incomplete information stochastic systems. In 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), pp.\ 2928--2935. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Control barrier functions for stochastic systems

    Clark, A. Control barrier functions for stochastic systems. Automatica, 130: 0 109688, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    K., Culbertson, P., Taylor, A

    Cosner, R. K., Culbertson, P., Taylor, A. J., and Ames, A. D. Robust safety under stochastic uncertainty with discrete-time control barrier functions. In Bekris, K. E., Hauser, K., Herbert, S. L., and Yu, J. (eds.), Robotics: Science and Systems XIX, Daegu, Republic of Korea, ...

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Learning a better control barrier function under uncertain dynamics

    Dai, B., Krishnamurthy, P., and Khorrami, F. Learning a better control barrier function under uncertain dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04795, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Guaranteeing safety of learned perception modules via measurement-robust control barrier functions

    Dean, S., Taylor, A., Cosner, R., Recht, B., and Ames, A. Guaranteeing safety of learned perception modules via measurement-robust control barrier functions. In Conference on Robot Learning, pp.\ 654--670. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Fu, Z., Qi, Z., Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Xu, Y., and Kosorok, M. R. Offline reinforcement learning with instrumental variables in confounded markov decision processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.08666, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cost-aware offline safe meta reinforcement learning with robust in-distribution online task adaptation

    Guan, C., Xue, R., Zhang, Z., Li, L., Li, Y.-C., Yuan, L., and Yu, Y. Cost-aware offline safe meta reinforcement learning with robust in-distribution online task adaptation. In AAMAS, pp.\ 743--751, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    and Nakahira, Y

    Hoshino, H. and Nakahira, Y. Physics-informed rl for maximal safety probability estimation. In 2024 American Control Conference (ACC), pp.\ 3576--3583. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Hsu, K.-C., Hu, H., and Fisac, J. F. The safety filter: A unified view of safety-critical control in autonomous systems. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 7, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Synthesis of stochastic systems with partial information via control barrier functions

    Jahanshahi, N., Jagtap, P., and Zamani, M. Synthesis of stochastic systems with partial information via control barrier functions. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 53 0 (2): 0 2441--2446, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Compositional construction of safety controllers for networks of continuous-space pomdps

    Jahanshahi, N., Lavaei, A., and Zamani, M. Compositional construction of safety controllers for networks of continuous-space pomdps. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 10 0 (1): 0 87--99, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    and Nakahira, Y

    Jing, H. and Nakahira, Y. Probabilistic safety certificate for multi-agent systems. In 2022 61th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    J., Janner, M., Tomlin, C., and Levine, S

    Kang, K., Gradu, P., Choi, J. J., Janner, M., Tomlin, C., and Levine, S. Lyapunov density models: Constraining distribution shift in learning-based control. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 10708--10733. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Learning hybrid control barrier functions from data

    Lindemann, L., Hu, H., Robey, A., Zhang, H., Dimarogonas, D., Tu, S., and Matni, N. Learning hybrid control barrier functions from data. In Conference on robot learning, pp.\ 1351--1370. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Off-policy evaluation for episodic partially observable markov decision processes under non-parametric models

    Miao, R., Qi, Z., and Zhang, X. Off-policy evaluation for episodic partially observable markov decision processes under non-parametric models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 593--606, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    and Zamani, M

    Nejati, A. and Zamani, M. Data-driven synthesis of safety controllers via multiple control barrier certificates. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7: 0 2497--2502, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Causality

    Pearl, J. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Prajna, S., Jadbabaie, A., and Pappas, G. J. A framework for worst-case and stochastic safety verification using barrier certificates. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 52 0 (8): 0 1415--1428, 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Sablas: Learning safe control for black-box dynamical systems

    Qin, Z., Sun, D., and Fan, C. Sablas: Learning safe control for black-box dynamical systems. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7 0 (2): 0 1928--1935, 2022 a

    1928

  24. [32]

    Quantifying safety of learning-based self-driving control using almost-barrier functions

    Qin, Z., Weng, T.-W., and Gao, S. Quantifying safety of learning-based self-driving control using almost-barrier functions. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp.\ 12903--12910. IEEE, 2022 b

    2022

  25. [33]

    M., Azizan, N., Slotine, J.-J., and Pavone, M

    Richards, S. M., Azizan, N., Slotine, J.-J., and Pavone, M. Control-oriented meta-learning. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 42 0 (10): 0 777--797, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    A minimax learning approach to off-policy evaluation in confounded partially observable markov decision processes

    Shi, C., Uehara, M., Huang, J., and Jiang, N. A minimax learning approach to off-policy evaluation in confounded partially observable markov decision processes. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 20057--20094. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Off-policy confidence interval estimation with confounded markov decision process

    Shi, C., Zhu, J., Shen, Y., Luo, S., Zhu, H., and Song, R. Off-policy confidence interval estimation with confounded markov decision process. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119 0 (545): 0 273--284, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Learning to be safe: Deep rl with a safety critic

    Srinivasan, K., Eysenbach, B., Ha, S., Tan, J., and Finn, C. Learning to be safe: Deep rl with a safety critic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.14603, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Belief control barrier functions for risk-aware control

    Vahs, M., Pek, C., and Tumova, J. Belief control barrier functions for risk-aware control. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wabersich, K. P. and Zeilinger, M. N. Linear model predictive safety certification for learning-based control. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp.\ 7130--7135. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Wabersich, K. P. and Zeilinger, M. N. A predictive safety filter for learning-based control of constrained nonlinear dynamical systems. Automatica, 129: 0 109597, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Wabersich, K. P. and Zeilinger, M. N. Predictive control barrier functions: Enhanced safety mechanisms for learning-based control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68 0 (5): 0 2638--2651, 2023. doi:10.1109/TAC.2022.3175628

    2023

  33. [41]

    P., Hewing, L., Carron, A., and Zeilinger, M

    Wabersich, K. P., Hewing, L., Carron, A., and Zeilinger, M. N. Probabilistic model predictive safety certification for learning-based control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 67 0 (1): 0 176--188, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    P., Taylor, A

    Wabersich, K. P., Taylor, A. J., Choi, J. J., Sreenath, K., Tomlin, C. J., Ames, A. D., and Zeilinger, M. N. Data-driven safety filters: Hamilton-jacobi reachability, control barrier functions, and predictive methods for uncertain systems. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 43 0 (...

    2023

  35. [43]

    L., and Liu, J

    Wang, C., Meng, Y., Smith, S. L., and Liu, J. Safety-critical control of stochastic systems using stochastic control barrier functions. In 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp.\ 5924--5931. IEEE, 2021 a

    2021

  36. [44]

    Stochastic control barrier functions with bayesian inference for unknown stochastic differential equations

    Wang, C., Meng, Y., Liu, J., and Smith, S. Stochastic control barrier functions with bayesian inference for unknown stochastic differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12759, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Provably efficient causal reinforcement learning with confounded observational data

    Wang, L., Yang, Z., and Wang, Z. Provably efficient causal reinforcement learning with confounded observational data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 21164--21175, 2021 b

    2021

  38. [46]

    and Xu, X

    Wang, Y. and Xu, X. Observer-based control barrier functions for safety critical systems. In 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp.\ 709--714. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Myopically verifiable probabilistic certificate for long-term safety

    Wang, Z., Jing, H., Kurniawan, C., Chern, A., and Nakahira, Y. Myopically verifiable probabilistic certificate for long-term safety. In 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp.\ 4894--4900. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Risk-sensitive mobile robot navigation in crowded environment via offline reinforcement learning

    Wu, J., Wang, Y., Asama, H., An, Q., and Yamashita, A. Risk-sensitive mobile robot navigation in crowded environment via offline reinforcement learning. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp.\ 7456--7462. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control

    Xiao, W., Wang, T.-H., Hasani, R., Chahine, M., Amini, A., Li, X., and Rus, D. Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39 0 (3): 0 2289--2307, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    An instrumental variable approach to confounded off-policy evaluation

    Xu, Y., Zhu, J., Shi, C., Luo, S., and Song, R. An instrumental variable approach to confounded off-policy evaluation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 38848--38880. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Control barrier function meets interval analysis: Safety-critical control with measurement and actuation uncertainties

    Zhang, Y., Walters, S., and Xu, X. Control barrier function meets interval analysis: Safety-critical control with measurement and actuation uncertainties. In 2022 American Control Conference (ACC), pp.\ 3814--3819. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    and Yu, H

    Zhao, C. and Yu, H. Robust safety for mixed-autonomy traffic with delays and disturbances. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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