Computing Control Lyapunov-Barrier Functions: Softmax Relaxation and Smooth Patching with Formal Guarantees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a computational framework for synthesizing a single smooth Lyapunov function that certifies both asymptotic stability and safety. We show that the existence of a strictly compatible pair of control barrier and control Lyapunov functions (CBF-CLF) guarantees the existence of such a function on the exact safe set certified by the barrier. To maximize the certifiable safe domain while retaining differentiability, we employ a log-sum-exp (softmax) relaxation of the nonsmooth maximum barrier, together with a counterexample-guided refinement that inserts half-space cuts until a strict barrier condition is verifiable. We then patch the softmax barrier with a CLF via an explicit smooth bump construction, which is always feasible under the strict compatibility condition. All conditions are formally verified using a satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) solver, enabled by a reformulation of Farkas' lemma for encoding strict compatibility. On benchmark systems, including a power converter, we show that the certified safe stabilization regions obtained with the proposed approach are often less conservative than those achieved by state-of-the-art sum-of-squares (SOS) compatible CBF-CLF designs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".