Safe-Control-Gym: A Unified Benchmark Suite for Safe Learning-Based Control and Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, both reinforcement learning and learning-based control—as well as the study of theirsafety, which is crucial for deployment in real-world robots—have gained significant traction. However, to adequately gauge the progress and applicability of new results, we need the tools to equitably compare the approaches proposed by the controls and reinforcement learning communities. Here, we propose a new open-source benchmark suite, calledsafe-control-gym, supporting both model-based and data-based control techniques. We provide implementations for three dynamic systems—the cart-pole, the 1D, and 2D quadrotor—and two control tasks—stabilization and trajectory tracking. We propose to extend OpenAI'sGymAPI—thede factostandard in reinforcement learning research—with(i)the ability to specify (and query) symbolic dynamics and(ii)constraints, and(iii)(repeatably) inject simulated disturbances in the control inputs, state measurements, and inertial properties. To demonstrate our proposal and in an attempt to bring research communities closer together, we show how to usesafe-control-gymto quantitatively compare the control performance, data efficiency, and safety of multiple approaches from the fields of traditional control, learning-based control, and reinforcement learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".