Safeguarding Systems: A Guide to Reach-Avoid Verification

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

This review explores how barrier certificate methods can ensure the safe operation of systems subject to randomness and uncertainty.

A comparative analysis of barrier-like function techniques for verifying probabilistic safety in stochastic discrete-time systems.

Ensuring the safety of complex systems operating under uncertainty remains a fundamental challenge in control and formal methods. This is addressed in ‘Comparative Analysis of Barrier-like Function Methods for Reach-Avoid Verification in Stochastic Discrete-Time Systems’, which comparatively analyzes several barrier certificate-based approaches for verifying reach-avoid properties in stochastic systems. Our analysis reveals critical trade-offs between theoretical guarantees, computational tractability-assessed via semidefinite programming and counterexample-guided inductive synthesis-and the inherent conservativeness of each method. Ultimately, this work asks: how can we best leverage barrier functions to provide scalable and reliable safety assurances for increasingly complex stochastic systems?

Whispers of Uncertainty: The Foundations of Stochastic Systems

Many contemporary systems, ranging from the intricate movements of robotics to the stability of large-scale power grids, function as StochasticDiscreteTimeSystem – meaning their operation unfolds in distinct steps while being subject to inherent uncertainties. This characteristic necessitates a particularly stringent approach to safety verification. Unlike deterministic systems where behavior is predictable, these systems require guarantees not just for expected outcomes, but also for probabilistic bounds on potentially hazardous scenarios. Consequently, demonstrating safety isn’t simply about proving a system can achieve a goal, but about establishing, with quantifiable confidence, that it will avoid undesirable states – a challenge that has driven the development of novel verification techniques designed to account for the realities of unpredictable operation in critical infrastructure and automated machinery.

The increasing sophistication of safety-critical systems – encompassing everything from autonomous vehicles to medical devices – presents a significant challenge to conventional verification techniques. These methods, often reliant on exhaustive state-space exploration or simplified models, falter when confronted with the inherent uncertainties of real-world operation. Factors like sensor noise, unpredictable environmental conditions, and the probabilistic nature of component behavior introduce complexities that quickly overwhelm traditional approaches. Consequently, demonstrating the absolute safety of such systems becomes impractical, if not impossible. The limitations stem from an inability to accurately model and account for the vast number of potential scenarios and the associated probabilities, rendering conventional verification insufficient for guaranteeing reliable and safe performance in dynamic, uncertain environments.

A fundamental challenge in designing safety-critical systems lies in proving their ability to reliably achieve desired objectives while steadfastly avoiding hazardous states. This is addressed through a process called ReachAvoidVerification, which rigorously explores all possible system behaviors under a defined set of conditions. Rather than simply testing a system with a limited number of inputs, ReachAvoidVerification systematically determines if, for every plausible scenario, the system will either reach a specified goal state or, crucially, remain within a safe operating envelope. Demonstrating feasibility across diverse scenarios-including those with environmental variations or unexpected inputs-is paramount, requiring computational methods that can handle the inherent complexity of real-world systems and provide strong assurances against catastrophic failures. This approach shifts the focus from reactive error detection to proactive safety validation, building confidence in the system’s robustness before deployment.

Achieving safety in complex systems frequently demands more than simply proving a system always behaves correctly; instead, verification must often account for inherent uncertainties and probabilistic outcomes. Consequently, methods are needed that can provide assurances not of absolute safety, but of safety with a defined level of confidence. Analysis often centers on establishing a ProbabilityThreshold – an acceptable risk level below which system operation is deemed safe – and demonstrating that the system meets this threshold across a range of potential scenarios. Recent investigations, for example, explored the impact of setting this threshold at $p = 0.85$ and $p = 0.90$, revealing how varying the acceptable risk influences the complexity of verification and the range of operational conditions for which safety can be guaranteed. This approach shifts the focus from deterministic guarantees to probabilistic ones, acknowledging that in many real-world applications, a high degree of confidence, rather than absolute certainty, is sufficient to ensure reliable and safe operation.

Containing Chaos: Barrier Certificates and Invariant Sets

A BarrierLikeCondition establishes safety by defining a $RobustInvariantSet$, a region of state space guaranteed to contain all reachable states of a dynamical system. This set is mathematically defined such that if the system begins within it, it will remain within it for all future times, despite the influence of disturbances or modeling uncertainties. The $RobustInvariantSet$ effectively provides a safety margin around the origin or a desired operating region, ensuring the system avoids unsafe states. Certification of safety relies on verifying that this set satisfies the conditions necessary to guarantee its invariance under the system’s dynamics and external influences, providing a rigorous and verifiable guarantee of safe operation.

Barrier certificates establish safety by defining a region, termed the Robust Invariant Set, that guarantees the system remains within safe operating bounds. This is achieved by constructing a safety margin around the system’s feasible states, effectively isolating it from potentially hazardous regions. Critically, this margin is designed to accommodate external disturbances and uncertainties; even if the system experiences a perturbation, the barrier condition ensures it remains contained within the safe set. The size of this margin is determined by the magnitude of expected disturbances and the system’s sensitivity to those disturbances, providing a quantifiable measure of safety.

Computing barrier certificates, which define a safety margin around safe states, presents significant computational challenges, especially for systems described by non-polynomial functions. Two primary approaches to barrier computation are Semi-Definite Programming (SDP) and Counterexample Guided Inductive Synthesis (CEGIS). SDP formulates the barrier computation as a convex optimization problem, enabling efficient solutions for polynomial systems but becoming intractable as system complexity or non-polynomial terms increase. CEGIS, conversely, iteratively refines candidate barriers through search and verification, offering greater flexibility for non-polynomial systems but typically at the cost of slower convergence and requiring substantial computational resources for complex systems. The choice between SDP and CEGIS, therefore, represents a tradeoff between the ability to handle system complexity and the computational cost of finding a suitable barrier.

The computation of barrier certificates, used to guarantee system safety, frequently leverages convex optimization techniques. Specifically, for polynomial systems, Semidefinite Programming (SDP) offers an efficient approach to finding these barriers. SDP’s performance consistently surpasses that of the CounterExample Guided Inductive Synthesis (CEGIS) method in polynomial cases, as demonstrated in Examples 1-3. This superiority stems from SDP’s ability to formulate the barrier certificate search as a convex problem, allowing for globally optimal solutions and faster convergence compared to the iterative and potentially locally optimal nature of CEGIS.

Bridging the Gap: CEGIS and the Pursuit of Valid Barriers

The CEGIS (Computation of Equilibrium and Gradient Invariants Synthesis) framework provides a structured methodology for determining barrier functions applicable to systems where traditional polynomial approaches are insufficient. This iterative process begins with the synthesis of a candidate barrier function, typically based on sampled system trajectories or prior knowledge of the system dynamics. This candidate is then subjected to a rigorous verification step, which mathematically assesses whether the proposed function guarantees safety – specifically, whether it remains positive definite along all possible system trajectories. If the candidate fails verification, a counterexample – a trajectory violating the safety criteria – is generated. This counterexample is then used to refine the synthesis process, guiding the search toward a valid barrier function that demonstrably ensures system safety. The systematic nature of CEGIS allows for the exploration of complex, non-polynomial state spaces where analytical solutions are intractable.

The CEGIS (Computation of Equilibrium and Gradient In Synthesis) framework operates through iterative cycles of synthesis and verification. In the synthesis phase, candidate barrier functions, typically algebraic inequalities designed to enforce safety constraints, are proposed. These candidate functions are then subjected to verification, a process which rigorously checks if they satisfy the required safety criteria – specifically, if they guarantee that the system remains within a defined safe set. Verification often involves analyzing the barrier function and the system dynamics to determine if all trajectories remain bounded. If a candidate barrier function fails verification, the process does not terminate; instead, the failure is used to inform the subsequent synthesis step, guiding the search toward a valid solution that satisfies the safety requirements. This iterative loop continues until a suitable barrier function is found or a termination criterion is met.

When a proposed candidate barrier function fails to satisfy the established safety criteria during verification, the CEGIS framework automatically generates a counterexample. This counterexample represents a specific system trajectory that violates the safety specification with respect to the candidate barrier. The counterexample is not merely an indication of failure; it is a crucial feedback signal used to refine the synthesis process. Specifically, the information contained within the counterexample – typically the state variables and time at which safety is violated – is used to constrain the search space for improved barrier functions. This targeted approach allows CEGIS to iteratively converge toward a valid barrier function that demonstrably ensures system safety, avoiding exhaustive and undirected searches.

Neural Network Barriers (NNBs) represent a recent development in the CEGIS framework, offering increased flexibility in approximating barrier functions compared to traditional polynomial methods. This is achieved through the use of neural networks to represent the barrier function, allowing for the handling of more complex system dynamics and potentially reducing computational cost in certain scenarios. However, empirical results-specifically, Examples 1-3-indicate that while NNBs show promise, CEGIS utilizing them generally exhibits lower performance than Semi-Definite Programming (SDP) based methods when applied to polynomial systems. This suggests that, despite their adaptability, NNBs within CEGIS currently do not outperform established techniques for this class of problems.

Solidifying Confidence: Mathematical Foundations and Practical Impact

The reliability of verifying complex systems hinges on a rigorous mathematical foundation, particularly through concepts like the MultiplicativeReachAvoidSupermartingale. This sophisticated framework provides a formal means of analyzing reachability – determining the likelihood of a system transitioning to a specific state. Essentially, it establishes a probabilistic guarantee that the potential for reaching a desired state doesn’t diminish as the system evolves. By leveraging this mathematical structure, verification methods can move beyond simple pass/fail assessments to quantify the robustness of a system’s behavior. The $MultiplicativeReachAvoidSupermartingale$ property ensures that even in the face of uncertainties or disturbances, the probability of reaching the target state is maintained, offering a powerful tool for ensuring the safety and dependability of intricate control systems and algorithms.

A core principle underpinning the safety verification framework is the guarantee of non-decreasing probability of reaching a desired target state. This is achieved through mathematical constructions that effectively prevent the probability from diminishing as the system evolves over time. Instead of merely proving reachability at a single point, the framework establishes that the likelihood of successful completion can only remain stable or increase with each step. This characteristic is crucial for building confidence in complex systems, particularly those operating in uncertain or dynamic environments, as it provides a robust and reliable assessment of safety, even over extended operational periods. The continuous, non-decreasing probability serves as a powerful indicator that the system will ultimately achieve its intended goal, providing a strong foundation for dependable performance and hazard mitigation.

The developed verification methods demonstrate notable versatility, extending beyond simple open-loop systems to encompass a broad spectrum of control strategies, crucially including FeedbackControl. This adaptability is vital for real-world applications where dynamic adjustments are essential for maintaining stability and achieving desired outcomes. By providing formal guarantees of safety even with feedback loops, these techniques bolster the reliability of complex systems ranging from autonomous robotics and aerospace engineering to critical infrastructure management. The framework’s capacity to analyze systems responding to sensor data and corrective actions dramatically expands its practical relevance, ensuring that safety properties are maintained not just under ideal conditions, but also in the face of unpredictable environmental factors and internal disturbances, ultimately leading to more robust and trustworthy designs.

A rigorous comparison of several verification conditions revealed substantial differences in their practical applicability. Conditions (BC1), (BC4), and (BC5) consistently demonstrated broad utility across diverse control systems, proving adaptable to a wider range of scenarios. Conversely, conditions (BC2) and (BC3) were found to be significantly constrained by their dependence on a pre-defined, robust invariant set – a mathematical boundary that, if not accurately established, limits the effectiveness of the verification process. This highlights a crucial principle in safety-critical systems: the selection of appropriate verification conditions is paramount, and a careful assessment of the system’s characteristics is necessary to ensure reliable and meaningful safety guarantees. The study underscores that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is insufficient; instead, a nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of each condition is essential for effective reachability analysis and robust system validation.

The pursuit of verifying reach-avoid properties in stochastic systems feels less like engineering and more like attempting to chart the currents of a restless sea. This work, dissecting barrier certificate methods, doesn’t offer certainty, but rather a fleeting glimpse of control before the inevitable turbulence. It’s a delicate dance with probability, acknowledging that perfect prediction is a phantom. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau observed, “The best-laid schemes o’ mice and men often go awry.” The models proposed aren’t definitive truths, but fragile agreements with the chaos, useful until the whispers of the system shift and the carefully constructed barriers begin to crumble. The computational feasibility examined isn’t about finding solutions, but about delaying the moment of inevitable entropy.

What Shadows Remain?

The proliferation of barrier certificates, as demonstrated, merely shifts the burden. One trades a guarantee of safety for a guarantee of tractability – a bargain entropy always favors. The methods explored offer increasingly refined ways to describe the avoidance of undesirable states, but rarely address the fundamental difficulty: that any system perfectly captured by a model is already a failure of imagination. The search for tighter relaxations, for certificates that scale with dimensionality, feels less like progress and more like rearranging deck chairs on a predictably sinking vessel.

The preoccupation with discrete-time systems also warrants scrutiny. The universe, thankfully, does not operate on clock cycles. Extending these techniques to continuous or hybrid domains will undoubtedly reveal further fragility. Perhaps the true challenge isn’t in perfecting the calculation of safety, but in embracing the inherent uncertainty. A probabilistic guarantee, after all, is just a polite fiction – a statistically plausible lie.

Future work will inevitably focus on adaptive barrier certificates, learning-based refinements, and the integration of formal methods with reinforcement learning. The pursuit of perfect verification, however, remains a fool’s errand. A more fruitful path lies in developing robust control strategies that tolerate unavoidable failures, accepting that any system, however meticulously modeled, will eventually succumb to the whispers of chaos.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.05348.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-09 01:59