LBA-CBF: Rapidly Adaptive Safety Filters via Parallel Dynamics Inference
Authors: Maitham F. AL-Sunni, Timeea-Andreea Radu, Hassan Almubarak, Henry Z. Liao, Michael Görner, Francesco Maurelli, John M. Dolan
Organizations: Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA · School of Computer Science & Engineering, Constructor University, Bremen, Germany · Control & Instrumentation Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia · Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Control barrier functions (CBFs) certify commands through an assumed dynamics model, so an abrupt, unmeasured regime change can undermine the certificate exactly when safety matters most. We present Look-Back Adaptive Control Barrier Functions (LBA-CBF), which rank a finite bank of candidate dynamics by recent prediction error over a short look-back window and enforce the high-order CBF condition against every model within a tolerance of the best, spanning best-fit adaptation to full-bank robust filtering. The dynamics may depend nonlinearly on the unknown parameters, and no switching model or continuously parameterized estimator is required. We prove that any feasible filtered input satisfies the true CBF condition whenever a safety-representative candidate is retained. In quadrotor simulation with abrupt wind reversals and an unknown payload, LBA-CBF is safe and reaches the goal from all random initial conditions, matching an oracle, while adaptive and robust baselines achieve 0-88% success. Banks of up to 250,000 models run inside the control loop, and Crazyflie 2.1 and F1TENTH experiments demonstrate adaptation to wind, payload release, and varying tire-road friction. Code, videos, and project details are available at: https://lla-control.github.io
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the LBA-CBF framework. The look-back stage ranks candidate models by recent prediction error and retains a prediction-plausible set, while the look-ahead computes a control input satisfying the CBF constraints for every retained model.
Fig. 2: Ablation over bank size M and window W . (A) One-step prediction error (star indicates minimum). (B) Control rate vs. M .
Method
Safe [%]
Reached [%]
Success [%]
ΔU
Oracle CBF (truth)
100
100
100
47.2
LBA-CBF ( η=0 )
100
100
100
42.6
LBA-CBF ( η=0.01 )
100
100
100
32.7
LBA-CBF ( η=0.05 )
100
100
100
31.6
HO-RaCBF
88
100
88
395.2
L1 -AC + CBF
69
92
62
61.1
TABLE I: Quadrotor simulation, 26 random initial conditions per method. A success is both safe and reached. ΔU is averaged over the 13 starts on which every method with a nonzero success rate succeeded; n/a otherwise. η is the plausible-set tolerance.
Fig. 3: Quadrotor simulation: all 26 trajectories per method, ordered as in Table I . The vehicle descends from the grey squares to the goal (star) through five gates of paired obstacles (grey discs, whose edge is h=0 ); the wind blows along the red arrows, +x in the shaded bands and −x in the white ones. (A) Oracle , (B) LBA-CBF , (C) HO-RaCBF , (D) L1 -AC , (E) DOB-CBF , (F) R-CBF , (G) Nominal CBF .
Method
Closest distance to an obstacle [ cm ]
Oracle CBF (truth)
15.2
LBA-CBF ( η=0 )
16.7
LBA-CBF ( η=0.01 )
21.0
LBA-CBF ( η=0.05 )
26.7
TABLE II: Effect of the plausible-set tolerance η : median closest approach to any obstacle over the all runs, each row flown from the same course and start.
Fig. 4: Crazyflie 2.1: LBA-CBF vs. Nominal CBF . (A) hover and (B) flight to a goal, both in wind; (C) hover with a swinging payload. Top: xy trajectories, obstacle (grey disc), wind (red arrows), target (star). Bottom: barrier value h(t) ; h<0 is a violation.
Fig. 5: Crazyflie 2.1 hardware setups for Experiments 1–3.
Fig. 6: Experiment 1: nominal-model tracking (top left), LBA-CBF tracking (top right), and LBA-CBF ’s friction estimates and P -step prediction error (bottom).
Fig. 7: Experiment 2: nominal-model tracking (top left), LBA-CBF tracking (top right), and LBA-CBF ’s friction estimates and P -step prediction error (bottom).
Control barrier functions (CBF) are a popular safety filter to ensure safety for nonlinear dynamical systems. However, when the system is subject to uncertainties and disturbances, this requires the use of robust variants of CBFs, which can be difficult to construct and can be overly conservative, especially for high-dimensional systems under input constraints. In this work, we propose a new approach to solve these challenges by introducing Least-Effort Adversarial Potentials (LEAP), a certificate that quantifies the robustness of a given state against disturbances in terms of the effort required by the disturbance to cause failure. We show that LEAP is a CBF for the undisturbed system, but can also be used to construct a safety filter that is robust to disturbances whose cumulative effort is bounded. We propose a method for constructing LEAPs with on-policy deep reinforcement learning. Next, we demonstrate LEAPs in simulation on a variety of multi-agent systems with disturbances and uncertainties. Finally, hardware experiments on a quadruped and quadrotors validate that LEAPs are well suited to tackle the disturbances and uncertainties from real-world robotic systems.
Reinforcement learning (RL), while powerful and expressive, can often prioritize performance at the expense of safety. Yet safety violations can lead to catastrophic outcomes in real-world deployments. Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) offer a principled method to enforce dynamic safety -- traditionally deployed online via safety filters. While the result is safe behavior, the fact that the RL policy does not have knowledge of the CBF can lead to conservative behaviors. This paper proposes CBF-RL, a framework for generating safe behaviors with RL by enforcing CBFs in training. CBF-RL has two key attributes: (1) minimally modifying a nominal RL policy to encode safety constraints via a CBF term, (2) and safety filtering of the policy rollouts in training. Theoretically, we prove that continuous-time safety filters can be deployed via closed-form expressions on discrete-time roll-outs. Practically, we demonstrate that CBF-RL internalizes the safety constraints in the learned policy -- both enforcing safer actions and biasing towards safer rewards -- enabling safe deployment without the need for an online safety filter. We validate our framework through ablation studies on navigation tasks and on the Unitree G1 humanoid robot, where CBF-RL enables safer exploration, faster convergence, and robust performance under uncertainty, enabling the humanoid robot to avoid obstacles and climb stairs safely in real-world settings without a runtime safety filter.
Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) can provide provable safety guarantees for dynamic systems. However, finding a valid CBF for a system of interest is often non-trivial, especially for systems with low computational resources, higher-order dynamics, and moving close to obstacles of complex shape. A common solution to this problem is to use a purely distance-based CBF. In this paper, we study Hyperplane CBFs (H-CBFs), where a hyperplane separates the agent from the obstacle. First, we note that the common distance-based CBF is a special case of an H-CBF where the hyperplane is a supporting hyperplane of the obstacle that is orthogonal to a line between the agent and the closest point of the obstacle. We then show that a less conservative CBF can be found by optimising over the orientation of the supporting hyperplane, in order to find the Least Restrictive Hyperplane CBF. This enables us to maintain the safety guarantees while allowing controls that are closer to the desired ones, especially when moving fast and passing close to obstacles. We illustrate the approach on a double integrator dynamical system with acceleration constraints, moving through a group of arbitrarily shaped static and moving obstacles, and show that the proposed approach reduces the average gap between desired and safe controls by an order of magnitude.
Mattias Trende, Petter Ögren
The authors are with the Robotics, Perception and Learning Lab., School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden