pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.10572 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-11 · 💻 cs.RO

Safety-critical Control Under Partial Observability: Reach-Avoid POMDP meets Belief Space Control

Matti Vahs , Joris Verhagen , Jana Tumova This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 13:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords reach-avoid POMDPbelief space controlcontrol Lyapunov functionscontrol barrier functionspartial observabilitysafety-critical controlquadratic programmingconformal prediction
0
0 comments X

The pith

A layered belief-space architecture decouples safety, goal reaching, and information gathering to solve reach-avoid POMDPs via real-time quadratic programs.

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

Robots facing uncertainty about their state and surroundings must simultaneously reach goals, avoid harm, and gather information to shrink that uncertainty. The paper shows this can be handled by operating directly in belief space rather than searching a single belief tree. It introduces Belief Control Lyapunov Functions learned through reinforcement learning to drive information gathering as a convergence task, paired with Belief Control Barrier Functions that use conformal prediction to certify safety over finite horizons. These components combine into simple quadratic programs that remain lightweight even when belief representations grow large and non-Gaussian. The result is a modular controller that runs online on robots while improving safety and task completion over existing constrained POMDP methods.

Core claim

The paper claims that reach-avoid POMDPs can be solved by a certificate-based controller in belief space: Belief Control Lyapunov Functions formalize and learn information gathering as Lyapunov stability in belief space, Belief Control Barrier Functions supply probabilistic safety certificates via conformal prediction, and the three objectives are unified through lightweight quadratic programs that are solvable in real time for non-Gaussian beliefs whose dimension exceeds 10^4.

What carries the argument

Belief Control Lyapunov Functions (BCLFs) and Belief Control Barrier Functions (BCBFs) that operate in belief space, with BCLFs learned via reinforcement learning to handle information gathering and BCBFs using conformal prediction to enforce safety.

If this is right

  • Control synthesis reduces to lightweight quadratic programs that run online without exhaustive belief-tree search.
  • Probabilistic safety guarantees hold over finite horizons even for non-Gaussian belief representations larger than 10,000 dimensions.
  • Information gathering is treated as a Lyapunov convergence problem that can be learned separately from safety and goal layers.
  • Experiments show improved safety and task success rates compared with state-of-the-art constrained POMDP solvers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The decoupling into independent certificates may let each layer be verified or improved in isolation before recomposition.
  • The same quadratic-program structure could be reused for other partially observable tasks by replacing the specific BCLF or BCBF definitions.
  • Because the method already handles non-Gaussian beliefs, it may extend to sensor fusion pipelines that produce multimodal uncertainty without additional approximation steps.

Load-bearing premise

Belief Control Lyapunov Functions learned via reinforcement learning will reliably drive information gathering without destabilizing the safety or goal-reaching layers under the non-Gaussian beliefs encountered in practice.

What would settle it

A run on the space-robotics platform or simulation in which the quadratic program produces a control input that violates the finite-horizon safety certificate or fails to reduce belief uncertainty enough to reach the goal, despite using the learned BCLF and BCBF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.10572 by Jana Tumova, Joris Verhagen, Matti Vahs.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of our hardware experiments on a space-robotics platform. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of our proposed control architecture on the example of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of an example with a one dimensional state space. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example visualization of a belief CLF. The blue surface depicts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the network architecture used to learn a belief control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the three reach-avoid POMDPs considered in simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of all baselines in the Constrained Antenna environment in which the antenna location is indicated by a red cross, the goal region is shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the proposed control architecture (top) and the switching controller (bottom) in the Constrained Bumper environment. Our method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Box plots showing median, IQR, and min/max values for the path [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Application of the proposed Control Architecture on a different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of the conflict resolution in the Constrained Bumper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Illustration of the learned BCLF for the example two particle system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Hardware validation for a reach-avoid scenario with a narrow passage. To navigate to the goal region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) provide a principled framework for robot decision-making under uncertainty. Solving reach-avoid POMDPs, however, requires coordinating three distinct behaviors: goal reaching, safety, and active information gathering to reduce uncertainty. Existing online POMDP solvers attempt to address all three within a single belief tree search, but this unified approach struggles with the conflicting time scales inherent to these objectives. We propose a layered, certificate-based control architecture that operates directly in belief space, decoupling goal reaching, information gathering, and safety into modular components. We introduce Belief Control Lyapunov Functions (BCLFs) that formalize information gathering as a Lyapunov convergence problem in belief space, and show how they can be learned via reinforcement learning. For safety, we develop Belief Control Barrier Functions (BCBFs) that leverage conformal prediction to provide probabilistic safety guarantees over finite horizons. The resulting control synthesis reduces to lightweight quadratic programs solvable in real time, even for non-Gaussian belief representations with dimension $>10^4$. Experiments in simulation and on a space-robotics platform demonstrate real-time performance and improved safety and task success compared to state-of-the-art constrained POMDP solvers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a layered certificate-based architecture for reach-avoid POMDPs that decouples goal reaching, information gathering, and safety in belief space. It introduces Belief Control Lyapunov Functions (BCLFs) learned via reinforcement learning to encode information gathering as a Lyapunov convergence problem in belief space, and Belief Control Barrier Functions (BCBFs) that use conformal prediction to deliver finite-horizon probabilistic safety guarantees. The resulting synthesis is reduced to a set of lightweight quadratic programs claimed to be solvable in real time even for non-Gaussian beliefs whose dimension exceeds 10^4, with supporting experiments on simulation and a space-robotics platform.

Significance. If the learned BCLFs provably maintain Lyapunov decrease under the closed-loop belief trajectories generated by the online QP and if the conformal calibration remains valid under the induced non-stationary dynamics, the work would constitute a meaningful practical advance: it supplies a modular, real-time alternative to unified belief-tree POMDP solvers that struggle with conflicting time scales, while extending certificate-based safety methods to high-dimensional non-Gaussian beliefs.

major comments (2)
  1. [BCLF definition and RL training] The central claim that control synthesis reduces to lightweight real-time QPs for non-Gaussian beliefs of dimension >10^4 rests on the assumption that RL-trained BCLFs will produce a stable Lyapunov decrease for information gathering that can be safely combined with BCBF constraints. No explicit argument, generalization bound, or closed-loop stability analysis is supplied showing that the learned BCLFs remain valid under the belief updates that arise when the QP is solved online; this assumption is load-bearing for both the real-time performance and the safety guarantees.
  2. [BCBF construction and conformal calibration] The finite-horizon probabilistic safety bounds obtained via conformal prediction for the BCBFs implicitly require that the calibration distribution remains representative under the non-stationary belief dynamics produced by the closed-loop controller. The manuscript provides no analysis or empirical check of how the conformal guarantee degrades when the belief trajectory is shaped by the QP that itself depends on the BCLF and BCBF terms; violation of this stationarity assumption would directly undermine the claimed safety certificates.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts 'improved safety and task success' without quoting the quantitative metrics or baselines used; adding the specific success-rate and safety-violation numbers would improve clarity.
  2. [Experiments] The list of free parameters (RL hyperparameters for BCLF training) is acknowledged but no sensitivity analysis or ablation is reported; a brief table showing performance variation with these hyperparameters would strengthen the reproducibility claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which identifies key areas where additional justification would strengthen our claims. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that incorporate further discussion and empirical validation without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [BCLF definition and RL training] The central claim that control synthesis reduces to lightweight real-time QPs for non-Gaussian beliefs of dimension >10^4 rests on the assumption that RL-trained BCLFs will produce a stable Lyapunov decrease for information gathering that can be safely combined with BCBF constraints. No explicit argument, generalization bound, or closed-loop stability analysis is supplied showing that the learned BCLFs remain valid under the belief updates that arise when the QP is solved online; this assumption is load-bearing for both the real-time performance and the safety guarantees.

    Authors: We agree that a formal closed-loop stability analysis and generalization bound would provide stronger theoretical support. Our BCLFs are trained offline via RL to promote convergence in belief space, and the QP is formulated to enforce the decrease condition at each timestep based on the current belief estimate. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection outlining the assumptions required for Lyapunov decrease preservation under the QP-induced belief updates, along with new empirical results plotting BCLF values over closed-loop trajectories from our simulation and hardware experiments. This modular separation enables practical real-time performance while the experiments demonstrate reliable behavior, even absent a complete theoretical guarantee. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [BCBF construction and conformal calibration] The finite-horizon probabilistic safety bounds obtained via conformal prediction for the BCBFs implicitly require that the calibration distribution remains representative under the non-stationary belief dynamics produced by the closed-loop controller. The manuscript provides no analysis or empirical check of how the conformal guarantee degrades when the belief trajectory is shaped by the QP that itself depends on the BCLF and BCBF terms; violation of this stationarity assumption would directly undermine the claimed safety certificates.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this concern regarding potential non-stationarity. In the revised manuscript we will add an empirical calibration study in the experiments section: calibration data will be collected from trajectories generated by the full closed-loop QP controller (incorporating both BCLF and BCBF terms), and we will report the observed safety violation rates versus the conformal-predicted probabilities. This check will confirm that the finite-horizon guarantees hold under the induced dynamics for the evaluated scenarios. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained; no reductions to fitted inputs or self-citations by construction

full rationale

The paper introduces BCLFs formalized as Lyapunov functions in belief space and learned via RL, alongside BCBFs using conformal prediction for probabilistic guarantees. The reduction of control synthesis to real-time QPs follows directly from enforcing the certificate conditions in the modular QP formulation. No step equates a prediction to its own fitted parameters by construction, nor does any central claim rest on a self-citation chain that itself lacks independent verification. The architecture is presented as a new synthesis method combining existing certificate ideas with RL and conformal methods, remaining self-contained against external benchmarks without renaming known results or smuggling ansatzes via citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The approach rests on standard POMDP belief-update assumptions plus the new certificate functions whose learning and safety properties are not independently verified in the provided text.

free parameters (1)
  • RL hyperparameters for BCLF training
    Used to learn the information-gathering Lyapunov functions; values not reported in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Belief updates follow standard POMDP transition and observation models
    Invoked when operating directly in belief space.
invented entities (2)
  • Belief Control Lyapunov Functions (BCLFs) no independent evidence
    purpose: Formalize active information gathering as Lyapunov convergence in belief space
    New certificate introduced to decouple information gathering from safety and goal reaching.
  • Belief Control Barrier Functions (BCBFs) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide probabilistic safety guarantees via conformal prediction
    New certificate for finite-horizon safety under partial observability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5514 in / 1321 out tokens · 31603 ms · 2026-05-15T13:46:43.487940+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Risk-Constrained Belief-Space Optimization for Safe Control under Latent Uncertainty

    eess.SY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A belief-space MPPI controller with CVaR safety constraints achieves 82% success and zero contact violations in uncertain robotic insertion simulations, outperforming risk-neutral and chance-constrained baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Partially observable markov decision processes and robotics,

    H. Kurniawati, “Partially observable markov decision processes and robotics,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 253–277, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Simplified continuous high-dimensional belief space planning with adaptive probabilistic belief-dependent con- straints,

    A. Zhitnikov and V . Indelman, “Simplified continuous high-dimensional belief space planning with adaptive probabilistic belief-dependent con- straints,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 1684–1705, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Anytime probabilistically constrained provably convergent online belief space planning,

    A. zhitnikov and V . Indelman, “Anytime probabilistically constrained provably convergent online belief space planning,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Constrainedzero: chance-constrained pomdp planning using learned 18 probabilistic failure surrogates and adaptive safety constraints,

    R. J. Moss, A. Jamgochian, J. Fischer, A. Corso, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Constrainedzero: chance-constrained pomdp planning using learned 18 probabilistic failure surrogates and adaptive safety constraints,” inPro- ceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024, pp. 6752–6760

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Mobile robot control and navigation: A global overview,

    S. G. Tzafestas, “Mobile robot control and navigation: A global overview,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 35–58, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Stabilization with relaxed controls,

    Z. Artstein, “Stabilization with relaxed controls,”Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1163–1173, 1983

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    Autonomous ucav strike missions using behavior control lyapunov functions,

    P. Ogren, A. Backlund, T. Harryson, L. Kristensson, and P. Stensson, “Autonomous ucav strike missions using behavior control lyapunov functions,” inAIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit, 2006, p. 6197

    work page 2006

  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

  9. [9]

    Belief control barrier functions for risk-aware control,

    M. Vahs, C. Pek, and J. Tumova, “Belief control barrier functions for risk-aware control,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 8565–8572, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Risk-aware control for robots with non- gaussian belief spaces,

    M. Vahs and J. Tumova, “Risk-aware control for robots with non- gaussian belief spaces,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 11 661–11 667

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Point-based value iteration for continuous pomdps,

    J. M. Porta, N. Vlassis, M. T. Spaan, and P. Poupart, “Point-based value iteration for continuous pomdps,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, pp. 2329–2367, 2006

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Perseus: Randomized point-based value iteration for pomdps,

    M. T. Spaan and N. Vlassis, “Perseus: Randomized point-based value iteration for pomdps,”Journal of artificial intelligence research, vol. 24, pp. 195–220, 2005

    work page 2005

  13. [13]

    Heuristic search value iteration for pomdps,

    T. Smith and R. Simmons, “Heuristic search value iteration for pomdps,” inProceedings of the 20th conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, 2004, pp. 520–527

    work page 2004

  14. [14]

    Point-based pomdp algorithms: improved analysis and implementation,

    T. smith and R. Simmons, “Point-based pomdp algorithms: improved analysis and implementation,” inProceedings of the Twenty-First Con- ference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2005, pp. 542–549

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    Sarsop: Efficient point-based pomdp planning by approximating optimally reachable belief spaces

    H. Kurniawati, D. Hsu, W. S. Leeet al., “Sarsop: Efficient point-based pomdp planning by approximating optimally reachable belief spaces.” in Robotics: Science and systems, vol. 2008. Zurich, Switzerland, 2008

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    Despot-alpha: Online pomdp planning with large state and observation spaces

    N. P. Garg, D. Hsu, and W. S. Lee, “Despot-alpha: Online pomdp planning with large state and observation spaces.” inRobotics: Science and Systems, vol. 3, no. 3, 2019, pp. 3–2

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    An on-line pomdp solver for contin- uous observation spaces,

    M. Hoerger and H. Kurniawati, “An on-line pomdp solver for contin- uous observation spaces,” inInternational conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 7643–7649

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Sparse tree search optimality guarantees in pomdps with continuous observation spaces,

    M. H. Lim, C. J. Tomlin, and Z. N. Sunberg, “Sparse tree search optimality guarantees in pomdps with continuous observation spaces,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on Interna- tional Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2021, pp. 4135–4142

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Bayesian optimized monte carlo planning,

    J. Mern, A. Yildiz, Z. Sunberg, T. Mukerji, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Bayesian optimized monte carlo planning,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 13, 2021, pp. 11 880– 11 887

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Online algorithms for pomdps with continuous state, action, and observation spaces,

    Z. Sunberg and M. Kochenderfer, “Online algorithms for pomdps with continuous state, action, and observation spaces,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 28, 2018, pp. 259–263

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Online pomdp planning with anytime deterministic guarantees,

    M. Barenboim and V . Indelman, “Online pomdp planning with anytime deterministic guarantees,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 79 886–79 902, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Monte-carlo tree search for constrained pomdps,

    J. Lee, G.-H. Kim, P. Poupart, and K.-E. Kim, “Monte-carlo tree search for constrained pomdps,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Online planning for constrained pomdps with continuous spaces through dual ascent,

    A. Jamgochian, A. Corso, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Online planning for constrained pomdps with continuous spaces through dual ascent,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 33, 2023, pp. 198–202

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Address- ing myopic constrained pomdp planning with recursive dual ascent,

    P. Stocco, S. Chundi, A. Jamgochian, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Address- ing myopic constrained pomdp planning with recursive dual ascent,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 34, 2024, pp. 565–569

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Constrained hierarchical monte carlo belief-state planning,

    A. Jamgochian, H. Buurmeijer, K. H. Wray, A. Corso, and M. J. Kochen- derfer, “Constrained hierarchical monte carlo belief-state planning,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2368–2374

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Belief space planning assuming maximum likelihood observations,

    R. Platt, R. Tedrake, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Perez, “Belief space planning assuming maximum likelihood observations,” inRobotics: Science and Systems, 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Motion planning under uncertainty using iterative local optimization in belief space,

    J. Van Den Berg, S. Patil, and R. Alterovitz, “Motion planning under uncertainty using iterative local optimization in belief space,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1263– 1278, 2012

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Closed-loop belief space planning for linear, gaussian systems,

    M. P. Vitus and C. J. Tomlin, “Closed-loop belief space planning for linear, gaussian systems,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2011, pp. 2152–2159

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    Risk-aware spatio-temporal logic planning in gaussian belief spaces,

    M. Vahs, C. Pek, and J. Tumova, “Risk-aware spatio-temporal logic planning in gaussian belief spaces,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2023, pp. 7879–7885

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Non-gaussian belief space planning as a convex program,

    R. Platt Jr and R. Tedrake, “Non-gaussian belief space planning as a convex program,” inProc. of the IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2012

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Efficient planning in non-gaussian belief spaces and its application to robot grasping,

    R. Platt, L. Kaelbling, T. Lozano-Perez, and R. Tedrake, “Efficient planning in non-gaussian belief spaces and its application to robot grasping,” inRobotics Research: The 15th International Symposium ISRR. Springer, 2016, pp. 253–269

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    Information acquisition with sensing robots: Algorithms and error bounds,

    N. Atanasov, J. Le Ny, K. Daniilidis, and G. J. Pappas, “Information acquisition with sensing robots: Algorithms and error bounds,” in International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2014, pp. 6447–6454

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    Non-monotone energy-aware information gathering for heterogeneous robot teams,

    X. Cai, B. Schlotfeldt, K. Khosoussi, N. Atanasov, G. J. Pappas, and J. P. How, “Non-monotone energy-aware information gathering for heterogeneous robot teams,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 8859–8865

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Learning continuous control policies for information-theoretic active perception,

    P. Yang, Y . Liu, S. Koga, A. Asgharivaskasi, and N. Atanasov, “Learning continuous control policies for information-theoretic active perception,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Safe pomdp online planning among dynamic agents via adaptive conformal prediction,

    S. Sheng, P. Yu, D. Parker, M. Kwiatkowska, and L. Feng, “Safe pomdp online planning among dynamic agents via adaptive conformal prediction,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Control theory meets pomdps: A hybrid systems approach,

    M. Ahmadi, N. Jansen, B. Wu, and U. Topcu, “Control theory meets pomdps: A hybrid systems approach,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 5191–5204, 2020

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Belief space control of safety-critical systems under state-dependent measurement noise,

    R. Walia, M. Black, A. Schoer, and K. Leahy, “Belief space control of safety-critical systems under state-dependent measurement noise,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14100, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Risk-aware robot control in dynamic environments using belief control barrier functions,

    S. Han, M. Vahs, and J. Tumova, “Risk-aware robot control in dynamic environments using belief control barrier functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04097, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Mobile sensor network control using mutual information methods and particle filters,

    G. M. Hoffmann and C. J. Tomlin, “Mobile sensor network control using mutual information methods and particle filters,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 32–47, 2009

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    Mutual informa- tion methods with particle filters for mobile sensor network control,

    G. M. Hoffmann, S. L. Waslander, and C. J. Tomlin, “Mutual informa- tion methods with particle filters for mobile sensor network control,” in Proceedings of the 45th Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2006, pp. 1019–1024

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    Learning safe, generalizable perception-based hybrid control with certificates,

    C. Dawson, B. Lowenkamp, D. Goff, and C. Fan, “Learning safe, generalizable perception-based hybrid control with certificates,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1904–1911, 2022

    work page 1904

  42. [42]

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

    C. Dawson, S. Gao, and C. Fan, “Safe control with learned certificates: A survey of neural lyapunov, barrier, and contraction methods for robotics and control,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1749– 1767, 2023

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Safe nonlinear control using robust neural lyapunov-barrier functions,

    C. Dawson, Z. Qin, S. Gao, and C. Fan, “Safe nonlinear control using robust neural lyapunov-barrier functions,” inConference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 1724–1735

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Learning barrier functions with memory for robust safe navigation,

    K. Long, C. Qian, J. Cort ´es, and N. Atanasov, “Learning barrier functions with memory for robust safe navigation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4931–4938, 2021

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

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

    W. Xiao, T.-H. Wang, R. Hasani, M. Chahine, A. Amini, X. Li, and D. Rus, “Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 2289–2307, 2023

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Distributionally robust lyapunov function search under uncertainty,

    K. Long, Y . Yi, J. Cort ´es, and N. Atanasov, “Distributionally robust lyapunov function search under uncertainty,” inLearning for Dynamics and Control Conference. PMLR, 2023, pp. 864–877

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Distributionally robust policy and lyapunov-certificate learning,

    K. Long, J. Cortes, and N. Atanasov, “Distributionally robust policy and lyapunov-certificate learning,”IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Neural stochastic control,

    J. Zhang, Q. Zhu, and W. Lin, “Neural stochastic control,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 9098–9110, 2022

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    Neural continuous-time supermartingale certificates,

    G. Neustroev, M. Giacobbe, and A. Lukina, “Neural continuous-time supermartingale certificates,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 26, 2025, pp. 27 538–27 546. 19

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Learning a formally verified control barrier function in stochastic environment,

    M. Tayal, H. Zhang, P. Jagtap, A. Clark, and S. Kolathaya, “Learning a formally verified control barrier function in stochastic environment,” in63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 4098–4104

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Stochastic neural control barrier functions,

    H. Zhang, M. Tayal, J. Cox, P. Jagtap, S. Kolathaya, and A. Clark, “Stochastic neural control barrier functions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.21697, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    How to train your neural control barrier function: Learning safety filters for complex input-constrained systems,

    O. So, Z. Serlin, M. Mann, J. Gonzales, K. Rutledge, N. Roy, and C. Fan, “How to train your neural control barrier function: Learning safety filters for complex input-constrained systems,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 11 532–11 539

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Safe value functions: Learned critics as hard safety constraints,

    D. C. Tan, R. McCarthy, F. Acero, A. M. Delfaki, Z. Li, and D. Kanoulas, “Safe value functions: Learned critics as hard safety constraints,” in 20th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2441–2448

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Safe model- based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees,

    F. Berkenkamp, M. Turchetta, A. Schoellig, and A. Krause, “Safe model- based reinforcement learning with stability guarantees,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Generalizing safety beyond collision-avoidance via latent-space reachability analysis,

    K. Nakamura, L. Peters, and A. Bajcsy, “Generalizing safety beyond collision-avoidance via latent-space reachability analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00935, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Anysafe: Adapting latent safety filters at runtime via safety constraint parameter- ization in the latent space,

    S. Agrawal, J. Seo, K. Nakamura, R. Tian, and A. Bajcsy, “Anysafe: Adapting latent safety filters at runtime via safety constraint parameter- ization in the latent space,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19555, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    How to train your latent control barrier function: Smooth safety filtering under hard-to-model constraints,

    K. Nakamura, A. L. Bishop, S. Man, A. M. Johnson, Z. Manchester, and A. Bajcsy, “How to train your latent control barrier function: Smooth safety filtering under hard-to-model constraints,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18606

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Rein- forcement learning for safe robot control using control lyapunov barrier functions,

    D. Du, S. Han, N. Qi, H. B. Ammar, J. Wang, and W. Pan, “Rein- forcement learning for safe robot control using control lyapunov barrier functions,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2023. IEEE, 2023, pp. 9442–9448

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Control barrier functions for stochastic systems,

    A. Clark, “Control barrier functions for stochastic systems,”Automatica, vol. 130, p. 109688, 2021

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Almost-sure safety guarantees of stochastic zero-control barrier functions do not hold,

    O. So, A. Clark, and C. Fan, “Almost-sure safety guarantees of stochastic zero-control barrier functions do not hold,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02430, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Lyapunov theorems for stability and semistability of discrete-time stochastic systems,

    W. M. Haddad and J. Lee, “Lyapunov theorems for stability and semistability of discrete-time stochastic systems,”Automatica, vol. 142, p. 110393, 2022

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Finite time stability and optimal finite time stabilization for discrete-time stochastic dynamical systems,

    J. Lee, W. M. Haddad, and M. Lanchares, “Finite time stability and optimal finite time stabilization for discrete-time stochastic dynamical systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 3978–3991, 2022

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    A tutorial on conformal prediction

    G. Shafer and V . V ovk, “A tutorial on conformal prediction.”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 9, no. 3, 2008

    work page 2008

  64. [64]

    Formal verification and control with conformal prediction: Practical safety guarantees for autonomous systems,

    L. Lindemann, Y . Zhao, X. Yu, G. J. Pappas, and J. V . Deshmukh, “Formal verification and control with conformal prediction: Practical safety guarantees for autonomous systems,”IEEE Control Systems, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 72–122, 2025

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    A. H. Jazwinski,Stochastic processes and filtering theory. Courier Corporation, 2007

    work page 2007

  66. [66]

    S ¨arkk¨a,Recursive Bayesian inference on stochastic differential equa- tions

    S. S ¨arkk¨a,Recursive Bayesian inference on stochastic differential equa- tions. Helsinki University of Technology, 2006

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    Continuous-discrete filtering using ekf, ukf, and pf,

    M. Mallick, M. Morelande, and L. Mihaylova, “Continuous-discrete filtering using ekf, ukf, and pf,” in15th International Conference on Information Fusion. IEEE, 2012, pp. 1087–1094

    work page 2012

  68. [68]

    A survey of convergence results on particle filtering methods for practitioners,

    D. Crisan and A. Doucet, “A survey of convergence results on particle filtering methods for practitioners,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Pro- cessing, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 736–746, 2002

    work page 2002

  69. [69]

    Thrun, W

    S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox,Probabilistic robotics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005

    work page 2005

  70. [70]

    Independent resampling sequential monte carlo algorithms,

    R. Lamberti, Y . Petetin, F. Desbouvries, and F. Septier, “Independent resampling sequential monte carlo algorithms,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 65, no. 20, pp. 5318–5333, 2017

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    Semi- independent resampling for particle filtering,

    R. lamberti, Y . Petetin, F. Desbouvries, and F. Septier, “Semi- independent resampling for particle filtering,”IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 130–134, 2017

    work page 2017

  72. [72]

    Tactile exploration with particle-based belief entropy,

    L. Bruderm ¨uller, J. Jankowski, S. Calinon, M. Toussaint, and N. Hawes, “Tactile exploration with particle-based belief entropy,” in 2nd Workshop on Dexterous Manipulation: Design, Perception and Control (RSS), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum? id=7sKUwZvTD6

    work page 2024

  73. [73]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 652–660

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,

    V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski et al., “Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,” nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533, 2015

    work page 2015

  75. [75]

    Composing control barrier functions for complex safety specifications,

    T. G. Molnar and A. D. Ames, “Composing control barrier functions for complex safety specifications,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 3615–3620, 2023

    work page 2023

  76. [76]

    Astrobee: A new platform for free-flying robotics on the international space station,

    T. Smith, J. Barlow, M. Bualat, T. Fong, C. Provencher, H. Sanchez, and E. Smith, “Astrobee: A new platform for free-flying robotics on the international space station,” inInternational Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Automation in Space (i-SAIRAS), no. ARC- E-DAA-TN31584, 2016

    work page 2016

  77. [77]

    Stein particle filter for nonlinear, non-gaussian state estimation,

    F. A. Maken, F. Ramos, and L. Ott, “Stein particle filter for nonlinear, non-gaussian state estimation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5421–5428, 2022

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Addressing function approxi- mation error in actor-critic methods,

    S. Fujimoto, H. Hoof, and D. Meger, “Addressing function approxi- mation error in actor-critic methods,” inInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 1587–1596

    work page 2018

  79. [79]

    Verification of neural reachable tubes via scenario optimization and conformal prediction,

    A. Lin and S. Bansal, “Verification of neural reachable tubes via scenario optimization and conformal prediction,” in6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference. PMLR, 2024, pp. 719–731

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Safe perception-based control under stochastic sensor uncertainty using con- formal prediction,

    S. Yang, G. J. Pappas, R. Mangharam, and L. Lindemann, “Safe perception-based control under stochastic sensor uncertainty using con- formal prediction,” in62nd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 6072–6078. X. APPENDIX A. Proof of Theorem 5 Proof.First, we show that the CLF candidate is greater than zero everywhere outside the goal s...

    work page 2023