The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Where to Put Safety? Control Barrier Function Placement in Networked Control Systems
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1109/lcsys.2026.3710212 · Paper page
Abstract
Control barrier functions (CBFs) are widely used to enforce safety in autonomous systems, yet their placement within networked control architectures remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate where to enforce safety in a networked control system in which a remote model predictive controller (MPC) communicates with the plant over a delayed network. We compare two safety strategies: i) a local myopic CBF filter applied at the plant and ii) predictive CBF constraints embedded in the remote MPC. For both architectures, we derive state-dependent disturbance tolerance bounds and show that safety placement induces a fundamental trade-off: local CBFs provide higher disturbance tolerance due to access to fresh state measurements, whereas MPC-CBF enables improved performance through anticipatory behavior, but yields stricter admissible disturbance levels. Motivated by this insight, we propose a combined architecture that integrates predictive and local safety mechanisms. The theoretical findings are illustrated in simulations on a planar three-degree-of-freedom robot performing a collision-avoidance task.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Metadata
- Authors
- Beger, S., Chen, Y., & Hirche, S.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- Volume
- 10
- Pages
- 2011-2016
- ISSN
- 2475-1456 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2603.29792
- OpenAlex
- W7167491726
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Control Systems Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Advanced Control Systems Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Stability and Control of Uncertain Systems
- Keywords
- control barrier functions, networked control systems, model predictive control, communication delay, disturbance tolerance, autonomous systems, collision avoidance, robot control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review