Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Piecewise Control Barrier Functions for Stochastic Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 For stochastic nonlinear systems, a barrier certificate and a safe controller can be synthesized together by solving a single linear program, with no loss from convexification.

desk verdict The paper's PWC synthesis idea is attractive, but its central zero-gap LP theorem is invalid as written because the polyhedral representation in (17) swaps 'for all x' for 'exists x', so the formal safety guarantee does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17703 v1 pith:TA4A4RMS submitted 2025-07-23 eess.SY cs.SY

Rayan Mazouz , Luca Laurenti , Morteza Lahijanian This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93C5593E2090C0593D30
keywords controlbarrierfunctionsstochasticsystemspiecewiseconstantminimaxoptimizationduallinearprogrammingprobabilisticsafetyformalsynthesistransitionkernelbounds
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 tries to establish that, for discrete-time nonlinear stochastic systems with additive noise, a safe feedback controller and a piecewise constant barrier certificate can be synthesized together by solving one linear program. The key claim is that the natural minimax formulation—choose the barrier and controller to minimize the safety bound while an adversary chooses transition probabilities consistent with the dynamics—has a zero-gap dual, meaning the LP's optimum equals the original problem's optimum and no accuracy is sacrificed. If correct, the method delivers a certificate with a formal probabilistic safety guarantee, a lower bound on the probability of staying inside the safe set, without needing the barrier or controller to be fixed in advance, and it scales with standard LP solvers. This matters because most prior approaches fix one of the two objects and optimize only the other.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the piecewise constant stochastic control barrier function (s-CBF): $B(x) = b_i$ inside partition cell $X_i$ and $B(x) = 1$ on the unsafe set, paired with a per-cell constant controller $\pi(x) = u_i$. Its defining condition (8c) replaces the hard expectation inequality by a sum over transition probabilities, and those probabilities are approximated from above and below by affine functions of $(x,u_i)$ via interval bound propagation. The resulting set of feasible transition vectors is a simplex, which lets the synthesis problem be written as a minimax optimization. The conversion in (17) introduces a composed vector $\tilde{z}_i = [x, u_i]$ to express the per-cell transition-kernel constraints as a finite set of linear inequalities, and the KKT conditions then collapse the bilevel structure into one LP.

What would settle it

Pick a one-dimensional nonlinear system with a single partition cell, run the proposed LP, then sample a dense grid inside that cell and directly evaluate the original barrier inequality (8c) using numerical integration of the Gaussian transition kernel at the LP's chosen control. If any sampled x violates (8c), the polyhedral reformulation in (17) is not equivalent to the semi-infinite constraint, and the zero-gap claim cannot hold as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the reduction of joint stochastic control barrier synthesis to a minimax program that is losslessly solved as a dual LP. For a K-cell axis-aligned partition of the whitened safe set, the transition probability from any cell to every other cell has an exact expression in terms of error functions. Replacing that nonlinear expression by sound affine lower and upper bounds, computed by interval bound propagation, makes the set of admissible transition kernels a simplex, and the barrier condition becomes a linear constraint in the barrier values, the per-cell controls, and an auxiliary transition vector. Theorem 2 claims the resulting LP has the same optimal value as the minimax problem, i.e., zero duality gap, so the optimal barrier and piecewise constant controller are obtained together, and Corollary 1 yields the formal safety bound $P_s \geq 1 - (\eta + N \max_i \beta_i)$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the unproved claim that 'this inequality must hold for every point x inside a grid cell' can be exactly rewritten as a finite set of linear inequalities involving one representative point, so that any solution of the linear program automatically satisfies the original barrier condition at every x.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a given partition with $K$ cells, one LP run produces both the barrier values and the controller, with no iterative scheme and no pre-specified barrier.
  • The returned pair gives a formal lower bound on $N$-step probabilistic safety; if $1 - (\eta + N \max_i \beta_i)$ meets the required threshold, the system is certified safe.
  • As the partition is refined, the safety probability achieved by the piecewise constant controller approaches the best value attainable by continuous s-CBFs, under the paper's convergence argument.
  • The method applies to nonlinear dynamics with additive Gaussian noise and bounded continuous control sets, and the affine-bounding step extends to any continuous and differentiable transition kernel.
  • The LP has $O(K^2)$ variables and constraints, so moderate partitions are solvable with standard LP solvers; the paper reports certificates for 2D, 3D, and 4D benchmark systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zero-gap equivalence holds, the same dualization pattern should transfer to other supermartingale certificates, such as reach-avoid or moment bounds, wherever the transition kernel can be enclosed by affine bounds.
  • The polyhedral conversion via $\tilde{z}_i$ is the step most likely to be sensitive to partition geometry; testing it on non-rectangular cells or cells with loose affine bounds would reveal whether the equivalence extends beyond the paper's hyper-rectangle constructions.
  • The dual LP could double as a verification tool: freeze the per-cell controls of an arbitrary candidate controller and optimize only the barrier values, yielding either a safety certificate or a refutation for that controller.
  • Comparing the formal lower bound against empirical Monte Carlo safety rates would quantify conservatism and guide adaptive partitioning as the natural next step.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for jointly synthesizing a piecewise constant stochastic control barrier function and a piecewise constant feedback controller for discrete-time nonlinear stochastic systems with additive Gaussian noise and bounded continuous controls. The synthesis problem is formulated as a minimax optimization over the barrier values, controller values, and transition-kernel bounds, and the paper claims that this minimax problem can be solved exactly by a dual linear program with zero duality gap, yielding a formally guaranteed lower bound on probabilistic safety. The method uses interval bound propagation to obtain affine lower and upper bounds on transition kernels over partition cells, then constructs a dual LP whose constraints are derived from the original semi-infinite constraints. The paper reports case studies on 2D linear, 3D temperature-regulation, and 4D unicycle models, with safety probabilities matching or exceeding a 0.95 threshold.

Significance. The problem addressed is important: simultaneous synthesis of a barrier certificate and a safe controller for stochastic systems with continuous control sets is genuinely challenging, and an exact, tractable LP formulation would be a valuable contribution. The interval-bound-propagation idea in Lemma 1 is sensible, and the experimental evaluation covers relevant benchmarks of increasing dimension. However, the central claim of an exact zero-gap conversion is not established by the manuscript. The proposed polyhedral representation in Section V replaces a universal quantifier over states with an existential variable, so the LP in Theorem 2 solves a relaxed problem. Consequently, the formal safety lower bound in (9) is not guaranteed by the LP solution, and the reported safety probabilities are not supported by the theory. The paper is not publishable in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [V, Eq. (17)] The representation of P_i(u_i) in (17) is not equivalent to the set defined in (13). In (13), the affine bounds T_ij(x,u_i) ≤ T_ij ≤ T̄_ij(x,u_i) must hold for every x ∈ X_i, which is an intersection over x of interval constraints. In (17), the same affine bounds are evaluated at the single existential variable ẑ_i = [x'_i−x''_i, u_i], so the represented set is a union over admissible (x,u_i) of the interval constraints. This swaps a universal quantifier for an existential one. Consequently, Theorem 2 solves a relaxed problem in which the optimizer can choose, for each cell, the state x that makes the barrier condition easiest to satisfy, while other states in the same cell may violate (8c). The safety lower bound (9) is therefore not guaranteed by the LP solution. The stationarity condition (19e), which treats ẑ_i as an optimization variable, further confirms that the LP is solving the relaxed problem rather than enforcing the original universal constraint.
  2. [V, Theorem 2 proof] The proof does not justify the claimed zero duality gap. The inner problem after (18) is an LP only for a fixed value of ẑ_i; the outer minimization over u_i, equivalently over ẑ_i, is not shown to preserve the convex structure needed for the KKT reduction to a single LP. The stationarity condition ∂L/∂ẑ_i = 0 is asserted without taking into account the box constraints (19f); if λ_i^T H̃^{p2}_i ≠ 0, the minimizing ẑ_i would lie on the boundary of its box, and the dual would require additional dual variables for those bound constraints. The cited references on bilevel optimization do not supply the missing equivalence, and no argument is given that strong duality holds for the joint minimax problem rather than only for the inner maximization at a fixed ẑ_i.
  3. [V, Theorem 2] The final LP (19) does not determine the control u_i. After imposing the stationarity condition (19e), the variable ẑ_i appears only in the separate bound constraints (19f) and is otherwise absent from the objective and from all other constraints. Thus the LP solution yields no information about the optimal control values u_i, and the paper provides no procedure to recover the PWC controller π(x) = u_i for x ∈ X_i. The theorem statement claims that the LP returns an optimal solution (b*,u*,β*,η*) of the problem in Theorem 1, but without a recovery map for u_i, this claim is incomplete and unsupported.
  4. [IV, V (Eq. (14) and (19a))] Theorem 1's formulation is ambiguous: in (14) the inner maximization is written as max over T of η+Nβ, but η and β are outer decision variables, so the maximization is vacuous as written; the intended robust interpretation, in which the constraints must hold for all T ∈ P(u), is not made explicit. Additionally, Theorem 2 imposes the constraint 0 ≤ b_i ≤ 1 in (19a), which is absent from Theorem 1 and from Definition 2, and no argument is given that this restriction is without loss of optimality. Since the paper claims an exact equivalence, these points need to be clarified or proved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V, Eq. (17)] The stated dimension of h_i, R^{2(K+n+m+1)×1}, does not match the displayed vector, which has 2(K+n+m+2) rows; please correct the dimensions.
  2. [V, Eq. (17)] The bounds ẑ^⊥_i and ẑ^⊤_i in (17) and (19f) are never explicitly defined; please specify the lower and upper bounds on the state component x ∈ X_i and the control component u ∈ U.
  3. [VII Conclusion] The conclusion states that the method handles 'non-additive dynamics', but the model in (1) has additive noise; the intended meaning is likely nonlinear dynamics, and the wording should be corrected.
  4. [VI, Table I] The table reports P_s as a lower bound from (9), but the text sometimes refers to it as 'the probability of safety'; please consistently distinguish the theoretical lower bound from the empirical Monte Carlo frequency.
  5. [Remark 3] The extension to the infinite horizon claims that setting β_i = 0 for all i suffices, but feasibility of the barrier condition (15c) under β_i = 0 is not discussed and may be restrictive; please comment on this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dual-LP derivation is independent of the paper's inputs; the polyhedral encoding issue flagged by skeptics is a soundness problem, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain, the paper's reduction is: (i) PWC s-CBF conditions from the authors' earlier work [11] (Corollary 1, Eq. (9)); (ii) affine transition-kernel bounds from the external IBP/LiRPA result [30] (Lemma 1); (iii) a minimax formulation over transition-kernel polytopes (Theorem 1); and (iv) an exact dual LP via Lagrangian duality and KKT conditions (Theorem 2). None of these steps uses the target result as an input. The prior PWC s-CBF theorem is parameter-free and its assumptions (barrier inequalities (8)) do not include the new claim of zero-gap LP equivalence, so under Rule 4 it counts as independent evidence despite the author overlap. The dual LP is derived from standard duality theory ([31]–[35]) and from the affine bounds, not by assuming the theorem. The safety lower bound in (9) is a consequence of the barrier constraints, and the values η and β are optimization outputs, not fitted parameters later called predictions. The most serious issue in the manuscript is a correctness risk, not circularity: the representation of P_i(u_i) in (17) appears to replace the universal 'for all x in X_i' of (13)/(15d) with an existential optimization variable z-tilde_i, which, if correct, would relax the semi-infinite constraints and invalidate the zero-gap claim. I flag this as a soundness concern in Section V; it does not make the derivation circular. Minor self-citations to [11] exist and are used for the barrier foundation and convergence, but they do not reduce the present derivation to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The main 'free' choices are the partition size K and the IBP relaxation, which are computational parameters rather than fitted constants. The axioms are a mix of standard results from the bound-propagation literature and the authors' prior convergence theorem, plus an unverified Slater-type condition for the dual LP proof.

free parameters (1)
  • partition size K = 81, 100, 400, 500, 900, 1800, 2400 across experiments
    The number of axis-aligned cells in the partition of the safe set is chosen by the user for each case study. It is a design parameter that controls the approximation quality and computational cost, and it is not inferred from data.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The IBP/LiRPA affine bounds in Lemma 1 are sound for the given continuous dynamics and partition.
    The proof of Lemma 1 cites Theorem 1 of [30]. The soundness of the affine relaxation is taken as a known result from the bound propagation literature.
  • domain assumption Partition cell boundaries have measure zero with respect to the transition kernel T(·|x, π).
    Stated in Section III.A before Corollary 1. Needed so that the piecewise constant function's values on boundaries do not affect the probability calculations.
  • domain assumption An optimal continuous stochastic barrier function exists, so that the PWC approximation converges to the optimal safety probability as K grows.
    Invoked in Section IV after Theorem 1 via [11, Proposition 1]. This is a prior result from the authors' earlier work and is not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The inner maximization problems satisfy Slater's condition / strong duality so that the KKT-based reduction to a single LP is valid.
    Implicit in the proof of Theorem 2. The paper does not verify that the polyhedral sets Pi(ui) have nonempty interior for the instances considered, nor does it discuss degeneracy, which is required for the zero-gap claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Piecewise Control Barrier Functions for Stochastic Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TA4A4RMS

@misc{pith2026250717703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Piecewise Control Barrier Functions for Stochastic Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TA4A4RMS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17703}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a method for the simultaneous synthesis of a barrier certificate and a safe controller for discrete-time nonlinear stochastic systems. Our approach, based on piecewise stochastic control barrier functions, reduces the synthesis problem to a minimax optimization, which we solve exactly using a dual linear program with zero gap. This enables the joint optimization of the barrier certificate and safe controller within a single formulation. The method accommodates stochastic dynamics with additive noise and a bounded continuous control set. The synthesized controllers and barrier certificates provide a formally guaranteed lower bound on probabilistic safety. Case studies on linear and nonlinear stochastic systems validate the effectiveness of our approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convex safe set case study on a linear system. (a) Visualization of the closed-loop vector field, where the background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Non-convex safe set case study on a linear system. (a) Visualization of the closed-loop vector field, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Monte Carlo simulations for the temperature regulation model, showing 500 trajectories over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Monte Carlo simulations for the unicycle model, showing 500 trajectories over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On a Formal Model of Safe and Scalable Self-driving Cars,

    S. Shalev-Shwartz, S. Shammah, and A. Shashua, “On a Formal Model of Safe and Scalable Self-driving Cars,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.06374, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Safety-Critical Ad- vanced Robots: A Survey,

    J. Guiochet, M. Machin, and H. Waeselynck, “Safety-Critical Ad- vanced Robots: A Survey,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 94, pp. 43–52, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Dynamics and optimal control for free-flight and tethered arrays in low earth orbit,

    R. Mazouz, M. Quadrelli, and R. Beauchamp, “Dynamics and optimal control for free-flight and tethered arrays in low earth orbit,” in 2021 IEEE aerospace conference (50100) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–20

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Shielded Deep Reinforcement Learning for Complex Spacecraft Tasking

    R. Reed, H. Schaub, and M. Lahijanian, “Shielded Deep Rein- forcement Learning for Complex Spacecraft Tasking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05693, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Synthesis for robots: Guarantees and feedback for robot behavior,

    H. Kress-Gazit, M. Lahijanian, and V . Raman, “Synthesis for robots: Guarantees and feedback for robot behavior,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 211– 236, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Falsification of Autonomous Systems in Rich Environments

    K. Elimelech, M. Lahijanian, L. E. Kavraki, and M. Y . Vardi, “Falsifi- cation of Autonomous Systems in Rich Environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17992, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    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,” in 2019 18th European control conference (ECC). Ieee, 2019, pp. 3420– 3431

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Control Barrier Function based Quadratic Programs for Safety Critical Systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control Barrier Function based Quadratic Programs for Safety Critical Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Tabuada, Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems: a Symbolic Approach

    P. Tabuada, Verification and Control of Hybrid Systems: a Symbolic Approach. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Formal Verification and Synthesis for Discrete-time Stochastic Systems,

    M. Lahijanian, S. B. Andersson, and C. Belta, “Formal Verification and Synthesis for Discrete-time Stochastic Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 2031–2045, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Piecewise Stochastic Barrier Functions,

    R. Mazouz, F. Baymler Mathiesen, L. Laurenti, and M. Lahi- janian, “Piecewise Stochastic Barrier Functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16986, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A Barrier Function Approach to Finite-time Stochastic System Verification and Control,

    C. Santoyo, M. Dutreix, and S. Coogan, “A Barrier Function Approach to Finite-time Stochastic System Verification and Control,” Automat- ica, vol. 125, p. 109439, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Formal Synthesis of Stochas- tic Systems via Control Barrier Certificates,

    P. Jagtap, S. Soudjani, and M. Zamani, “Formal Synthesis of Stochas- tic Systems via Control Barrier Certificates,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 7, pp. 3097–3110, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Safety Guarantees for Neural Network Dynamic Systems via Stochas- tic Barrier Functions,

    R. Mazouz, K. Muvvala, A. Ratheesh, L. Laurenti, and M. Lahijanian, “Safety Guarantees for Neural Network Dynamic Systems via Stochas- tic Barrier Functions,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Sum of Squares and Polynomial Convexity,

    A. A. Ahmadi and P. A. Parrilo, “Sum of Squares and Polynomial Convexity,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Control , 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    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

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Non-smooth Control Barrier Functions for Stochastic Dynamical Systems,

    M. Vahs and J. Tumova, “Non-smooth Control Barrier Functions for Stochastic Dynamical Systems,” in2024 European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2200–2205

    2024

  10. [18]

    Efficiency through Uncertainty: Scalable Formal Synthesis for Stochastic Hybrid Systems,

    N. Cauchi, L. Laurenti, M. Lahijanian, A. Abate, M. Kwiatkowska, and L. Cardelli, “Efficiency through Uncertainty: Scalable Formal Synthesis for Stochastic Hybrid Systems,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 2019...

    2019

  11. [19]

    Interval Markov Decision Processes with Continuous Action-spaces,

    G. Delimpaltadakis, M. Lahijanian, M. Mazo Jr, and L. Laurenti, “Interval Markov Decision Processes with Continuous Action-spaces,” in Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control , 2023, pp. 1–10

    2023

  12. [20]

    Data-Driven Permissible Safe Control with Barrier Certificates,

    R. Mazouz, J. Skovbekk, F. B. Mathiesen, E. Frew, L. Laurenti, and M. Lahijanian, “Data-Driven Permissible Safe Control with Barrier Certificates,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00136 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Learning-Based Shielding for Safe Au- tonomy under Unknown Dynamics,

    R. Reed and M. Lahijanian, “Learning-Based Shielding for Safe Au- tonomy under Unknown Dynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07359, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Temporal Logic Control for Nonlinear Stochastic Systems Under Unknown Disturbances,

    I. Gracia, L. Laurenti, M. Mazo Jr, A. Abate, and M. Lahijanian, “Temporal Logic Control for Nonlinear Stochastic Systems Under Unknown Disturbances,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11343 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Learning Control Policies for Stochastic Systems with Reach-avoid Guarantees,

    Ð. Žikeli ´c, M. Lechner, T. A. Henzinger, and K. Chatterjee, “Learning Control Policies for Stochastic Systems with Reach-avoid Guarantees,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, no. 10, 2023, pp. 11 926–11 935

    2023

  16. [24]

    Safe controller optimization for quadrotors with Gaussian processes,

    F. Berkenkamp, A. P. Schoellig, and A. Krause, “Safe controller optimization for quadrotors with Gaussian processes,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 491–496

    2016

  17. [25]

    D. P. Bertsekas and S. Shreve, Stochastic Optimal Control: the Discrete-time Case. Athena Scientific, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Formal Control Synthesis for Stochastic Neural Network Dynamic Models,

    S. Adams, M. Lahijanian, and L. Laurenti, “Formal Control Synthesis for Stochastic Neural Network Dynamic Models,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 2858–2863, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Unifying Safety Approaches for Stochastic Systems: From Barrier Functions to Uncertain Abstractions via Dynamic Programming,

    L. Laurenti and M. Lahijanian, “Unifying Safety Approaches for Stochastic Systems: From Barrier Functions to Uncertain Abstractions via Dynamic Programming,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01802 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Efficient Neural Network Robustness Certification with General Acti- vation Functions,

    H. Zhang, T.-W. Weng, P.-Y . Chen, C.-J. Hsieh, and L. Daniel, “Efficient Neural Network Robustness Certification with General Acti- vation Functions,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Bound propagation,

    F. B. Mathiesen, “Bound propagation,” https://github.com/Zinoex/ bound_propagation, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Automatic Perturbation Analy- sis for Scalable Certified Robustness and Beyond,

    K. Xu, Z. Shi, H. Zhang, Y . Wang, K.-W. Chang, M. Huang, B. Kailkhura, X. Lin, and C.-J. Hsieh, “Automatic Perturbation Analy- sis for Scalable Certified Robustness and Beyond,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 1129–1141, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Lagrangian Duality Theory,

    Y . Ye, “Lagrangian Duality Theory,” Stanford University Lecture Notes, accessed: 31 Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://web. stanford.edu/class/msande311/lecture08.pdf

    2025

  25. [33]

    Lagrange Duality Theory for Con- vex Control Problems,

    W. W. Hager and S. K. Mitter, “Lagrange Duality Theory for Con- vex Control Problems,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 843–856, 1976

    1976

  26. [34]

    A Review on Bilevel Optimization: From Classical to Evolutionary Approaches and Applications,

    A. Sinha, P. Malo, and K. Deb, “A Review on Bilevel Optimization: From Classical to Evolutionary Approaches and Applications,” IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 276–295, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    On the Solution of Convex Bilevel Op- timization Problems,

    S. Dempe and S. Franke, “On the Solution of Convex Bilevel Op- timization Problems,” Computational Optimization and Applications , vol. 63, pp. 685–703, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Safety Controller Synthesis for Incrementally Stable Switched Systems using Multiscale Symbolic Models,

    A. Girard, G. Gössler, and S. Mouelhi, “Safety Controller Synthesis for Incrementally Stable Switched Systems using Multiscale Symbolic Models,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1537–1549, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Stabilization of the Unicycle via Dynamic Feedback Linearization,

    A. De Luca, G. Oriolo, and M. Vendittelli, “Stabilization of the Unicycle via Dynamic Feedback Linearization,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 33, no. 27, pp. 687–692, 2000. 8

    2000

Pith tools

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