SEAMLiS: Visibility-Aware Safety for Perception-Limited Multi-Robot Exploration

Autonomous exploration in unknown environments is typically driven by informative frontiers, viewpoints, or trajectories, while local safety controllers avoid obstacles represented in the current map. Under finite sensing range and limited field of view, this separation can be unsafe: an exploration stack may plan optimistically through unobserved space and steer the sensor toward information gain rather than along the direction of motion, causing hidden obstacles to be detected too late for bounded-actuation avoidance. This paper presents SEAMLiS (Safe Exploration for Autonomous Multi-Robot Systems Under Limited Sensing), a modular execution-layer safety framework for decentralized multi-robot exploration. SEAMLiS preserves the upstream exploration stack, including the goal allocator and local planner, and enforces safety at the execution layer through perception-aware attitude and positional filters. A gatekeeper-based attitude filter switches between a visibility-promoting yaw policy and a velocity-tracking backup policy to preserve visibility of the critical known-free/unknown boundary with sufficient braking margin. A Control Barrier Function (CBF)-based positional filter then avoids known obstacles, newly detected obstacles, and other robots. We provide sufficient collision-avoidance conditions and validate the framework in randomized simulation, Isaac Sim, and Crazyflie hardware experiments. Results show collision-free exploration across tested single- and multi-robot settings while retaining much of the efficiency of visibility-promoting yaw control.

Backup-Based Safety Filters: A Comparative Review of Backup CBF, Model Predictive Shielding, and gatekeeper

This paper revisits three backup-based safety filters -- Backup Control Barrier Functions (Backup CBF), Model Predictive Shielding (MPS), and gatekeeper -- through a unified comparative framework. Using a common safety-filter abstraction and shared notation, we make explicit both their common backup-policy structure and their key algorithmic differences. We compare the three methods through their filter-inactive sets, i.e., the states where the nominal policy is left unchanged. In particular, we show that MPS is a special case of gatekeeper, and we further relate gatekeeper to the interior of the Backup CBF inactive set within the implicit safe set. This unified view also highlights a key source of conservatism in backup-based safety filters: safety is often evaluated through the feasibility of a backup maneuver, rather than through the nominal policy's continued safe execution. The paper is intended as a compact tutorial and review that clarifies the theoretical connections and differences among these methods.