SafetyClamp Extension in Control & Retrieval

• SafetyClamp is a technique that ensures a system’s entire physical extent or LLM retrieval context remains within prescribed safety boundaries.
• It employs methods such as extent-compatible control barrier functions, SOS programming, and sampling-based QP to integrate safety constraints in robotics, power converters, and adaptive cruise control.
• In retrieval-augmented generation, SafetyClamp reserves fixed slots for safety-critical documents, significantly enhancing regulatory compliance and technical recall.

A SafetyClamp extension is a technique designed to enforce rigorous safety guarantees in automation, control, and retrieval-augmented generation systems by “clamping” either the physical extent of a dynamical system or the context provided to a LLM so that critical safety constraints are satisfied at all times. Its primary function is to ensure that policy outputs (control commands or retrieved passages) explicitly respect safety boundaries, regulatory requirements, or prescribed safe sets, often by reserving or enforcing dedicated content or constraint slots. This approach has been significantly advanced in robotics, power converter control, adaptive cruise control, and decision support systems for offshore wind maintenance.

1. Conceptual Foundation of SafetyClamp

The core principle underlying a SafetyClamp extension is the transformation of pointwise safety constraints—common in traditional control and retrieval systems—into setwise or slotwise guarantees that explicitly address physical extent or modular content. In dynamical systems, this involves ensuring that not merely the representative system state remains within a designated safe set, but that the entire physical body (or extent) is constrained. In retrieval-augmented generation, SafetyClamp enforces the inclusion of both technical and safety-critical documents in the context window supplied to the downstream LLM.

In robotics and control, SafetyClamp is closely associated with the concept of extent-compatible control barrier functions (Ec-CBFs) (Srinivasan et al., 2020). In retrieval systems for LLMs, SafetyClamp refers to fixed slot reservations and “hard-clamping” mechanisms within hybrid technical-safety retrieval routines (Walker et al., 3 Sep 2025). Across domains, SafetyClamp provides stronger and more realistic guarantees compared to conventional pointwise or unconstrained methods.

2. Extent-Compatible Control Barrier Functions and Physical Safety Clamping

SafetyClamp for dynamical systems explicitly incorporates the physical volume of the system within the safety constraints. This is realized through Ec-CBFs that combine a safe set $C = \{x \mid h(x) \geq 0\}$ with an extent function $E(x, y)$, defining the system’s occupied volume $$\mathcal{E}(x) = \{y \in \mathcal{D} : E(x, y) \leq 0\}$$. The formal safety condition requires that for every boundary point $y$ of the extent (i.e., $y \in \partial \mathcal{E}(x)$), an inequality involving the system dynamics and locally Lipschitz functions is satisfied for some control input $u$:

$$\mathcal{M}(x, y, u) := (\partial E(x, y)/\partial x) \cdot (f(x) + g(x) u) + \alpha_1(E(x, y)) + \alpha_2(h(y)) \geq 0.$$

This approach ensures that the entire footprint of robots, vehicles, or other agents remains within $C$ (the safe region) during all movements—especially relevant for collision avoidance and operation in tight environments (Srinivasan et al., 2020).

3. Methodological Realizations: SOS and Sampling-Based Control

The technical realization of SafetyClamp in control-governed systems leverages two principal approaches:

Sum-of-Squares (SOS) Programming:

The infinite set of safety constraints (over $y \in C$ or $y \in \partial \mathcal{E}(x)$) is translated into tractable sum-of-squares optimization. Here, a polynomial $s(y)$ is found so that the constraint polynomial augmented with $-s(y) h(y)$ is SOS, thus ensuring non-negativity:

$$(\partial E(x, y)/\partial x)(f(x)+g(x)u) + \alpha_1(E(x, y)) + \alpha_2(h(y)) - s(y)h(y) \in \Sigma[y],$$

where $\Sigma[y]$ denotes the set of SOS polynomials in $y$ (Srinivasan et al., 2020). Selecting safe $u$ is done via a quadratic program, minimizing deviation from a nominal controller.

Sampling-Based QP:

To circumvent computational intensity of SOS programs, a sampling-based routine enforces the constraint at a finite number of boundary points $\partial\mathcal{E}_\tau(x)$, with resolution $\tau$. This results in a QP with finitely many linear constraints and tunable trade-off between computational cost and conservatism. For sufficiently dense sampling ($\tau$ small), the method preserves the safety guarantees for the entire extent (Srinivasan et al., 2020).

4. SafetyClamp in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems

SafetyClamp is also employed in retrieval routines for LLM-driven decision support, notably in the RAGuard framework for offshore wind maintenance (Walker et al., 3 Sep 2025). Here, SafetyClamp operates as follows:

• Over-Retrieval: Fetches a larger candidate pool ($k_{fetch} > K$) from dedicated knowledge and safety indices.
• Hard-Clamping: Reserves fixed slots—$k_{know}$ for technical passages and $k_{safe}$ for safety-critical passages.
• Wildcard Fill: Remaining slots are populated from the highest-scoring candidates not already allocated to technical or safety slots.

Formally, the SafetyClamp retrieval rule is specified as:

$$\text{SafetyClamp}(q; K; k_{\mathrm{know}}; k_{\mathrm{safe}}) = [ m_1, ..., m_{k_{\mathrm{know}}}, s'_1, ..., s'_{k_{\mathrm{safe}}}, r_1, ..., r_{K - (k_{\mathrm{know}} + k_{\mathrm{safe}})} ]$$

Such mechanisms guarantee that both regulatory-mandated safety passages and relevant technical information are supplied to the LLM, overcoming the risk of omission due to index sparsity or retrieval ambiguities (Walker et al., 3 Sep 2025).

5. Advanced Safety Filtering via SOS-CLF-CBF Programming

SafetyClamp concepts are expanded in safety filter designs that integrate Control Barrier Functions (CBFs) and Control Lyapunov Functions (CLFs) into a Sum-of-Squares (SOS) optimization framework (Schneeberger et al., 12 Jan 2024). Here, forward invariance and finite-time convergence are simultaneously enforced:

• Safe Set: Defined by the zero sublevel set of a barrier function $B(x)$, $\mathcal{X}_s = \{ x : B(x) \leq 0 \}$.
• Nominal Region: Defined by a CLF $V(x)$, $\mathcal{X}_n = \{ x : V(x) \leq 0 \}$.

The real-time safety filter is implemented via a Quadratically Constrained Quadratic Program (QCQP):

$$\min_{u \in \mathcal{U}} \|u - u_n(x)\|^2 \quad \text{subject to } C(x) u + b(x) \leq 0,$$

with state-dependent constraints designed to leave the nominal controller unmodified within $\mathcal{X}_n$, and “clamp” (override) only as necessary in $$\mathcal{X}_s \setminus \text{interior}(\mathcal{X}_n)$$. Regularity properties—including smooth slack functions and satisfaction of the Linear Independence Constraint Qualification (LICQ)—guarantee uniqueness and Lipschitz continuity, hence suppressing the detrimental chattering effect (Schneeberger et al., 12 Jan 2024).

6. Evaluation and Practical Significance

Empirical results demonstrate the efficacy and practical value of SafetyClamp extensions:

• In control and robotics domains, simulation and experiments confirm that Ec-CBF and sampling-based SafetyClamp controllers strictly confine the full extent of moving robots or vehicles within safe boundaries. Real-time computation is feasible, e.g., with 200 boundary samples QP optimization completes in 10–15 ms per cycle (Srinivasan et al., 2020).
• In RAG systems, SafetyClamp boosts Safety Recall@K from near 0% (in standard RAG) to over 50% in dense retrieval settings, and up to 95% in best-case configurations, while maintaining technical recall above 60%. Retrieval latency is minimally increased (sub-3 ms overhead for dense retrieval) (Walker et al., 3 Sep 2025).
• For power converters, advanced safety filters not only preserve the nominal controller’s performance in safe regions but explicitly maintain constraint satisfaction during transient and constrained inputs, outperforming traditional safety filters (Schneeberger et al., 12 Jan 2024).

These outcomes illustrate that SafetyClamp approaches yield more robust and verifiable safety assurance, especially where physical extent or modular context composition dictates critical operational boundaries.

7. Limitations and Scope

SafetyClamp extensions can incur computational burdens—particularly with high-dimensional SOS programs or large numbers of context slots. Sampling-based control and hard-clamping retrieval address tractability by trading off conservatism and complexity. In retrieval contexts, full regulatory compliance (all safety clauses present) remains challenging, with best achieved compliance at only 7% (Walker et al., 3 Sep 2025). In control, polynomial set representations and sufficient sampling density are required for theoretical guarantees; generalization to arbitrary sets can be nontrivial (Srinivasan et al., 2020).

This suggests ongoing development is needed for scalable implementations and for combining SafetyClamp methods with adaptive or hierarchical strategies, especially in systems subject to dynamic environmental changes.

---

SafetyClamp extensions represent unified methodologies to enforce strict safety properties in both control and AI-driven retrieval systems, integrating advanced optimization tools (SOS, QP, QCQP), slotwise context management, and regularity conditions, thereby advancing the state of the art in safety-critical automation and decision support.