\section{Computational Methods}
\label{CM}

Problem \ref{problem1} could be addressed via solving the following optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}:
\begin{equation}
\label{qua_asym0}
\begin{split}
        &\bm{u}(\bm{x})=\arg\min_{\bm{u}\in \mathbb{R}^m} \frac{1}{2}\|\bm{u}-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|^2\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,   \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}

\section{Computational Methods}
\label{CM}

Problem \ref{problem1} could be addressed via solving the following optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}:
\begin{equation}
\label{qua_asym0}
\begin{split}
        &\bm{u}(\bm{x})=\arg\min_{\bm{u}\in \mathbb{R}^m} \frac{1}{2}\|\bm{u}-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|^2\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,   \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}

\subsection{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis}
\label{OTRACS}
In this section we elucidate our methods on synthesizing reach-avoid controllers by solving optimization \eqref{q_P0}. The methods are built upon three control (i.e., exponential, asymptotic and lax) guidance-barrier functions.

\subsubsection{Exponential Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
\label{egbf}
In this subsection we introduce exponential control guidance-barrier functions for the synthesis of reach-avoid controllers. This function is derived from the exponential guidance-barrier function in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification}.

\begin{definition}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and tareget set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an exponential control guidance-barrier function if there exists $\lambda>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}}\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \lambda h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})=\bigtriangledown_{\bm{x}}h(\bm{x})\cdot \bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bigtriangledown_{\bm{x}} h(\bm{x})\cdot \bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u}(\bm{x})$. $\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{definition}

The exponential control guidance-barrier function will facilitate the construction of constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers, which are formulated in Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{exponential_control_pro}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$  satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, if the function $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an exponential control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz continuous controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ such that $\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{K}_e(\bm{x})$  is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\[
\mathcal{K}_e(\bm{x})=\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}\mid \text{constraint}~\eqref{exponential_control}~\text{holds}\}
\]
with
\begin{equation}
\label{exponential_control}
\begin{cases}
    \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
    \lambda>0.
    \end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
\label{remark1}
When the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ is compact, i.e., $\mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n \mid h(\bm{x})\geq 0\}$, a slight modification to constraint \eqref{exponential_control} is to replace  the `greater than or equal to sign' with the `greater sign' in the first condition $ \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
  \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda>0$. This modification is to enforce the reachability objective for states on the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$.   $\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
\label{smaller}
    It is observed that the smaller $\lambda$ is, the weaker constraint \eqref{exponential_control} is. However, $\lambda$ cannot be zero.
It is also observed that an exponential control guidance-barrier function complements a zeroing control barrier function satisfying \[
\begin{cases}
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}}\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \lambda h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}},\\
&\lambda<0.
\end{cases}\]
Such a zeroing control barrier function facilitates the design of controllers only for enforcing safety.
\end{remark}

 The set $\mathcal{K}_e$ is convex, thus a direct computation of a locally Lipschitz continuous feedback controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraint \eqref{exponential_control} using convex optimization is possible. Based on the exponential guidance-barrier function $h(\bm{x})$ and Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro},  Problem \ref{problem1} could be addressed via solving the following  program \eqref{qu}.
\begin{equation}
\label{qu}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\lambda,\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
&\delta\geq 0;\\
&\lambda\geq \xi_0,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, $\xi_0$ is a user-defined positive value which is to enforce the strict positivity of $\lambda$, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes safety/reachability violations.  As commented in Remark \ref{smaller}, the smaller $\xi_0$ is, the weaker the constraint in \eqref{qu} is.  However, $\xi_0$ cannot be zero. Thus, in numerical computations, we do not recommend the use of too small $\xi_0$ due to numerical errors. The optimization is not sensitive to the $c$ value as long as it is very large (e.g., $10^{12}$), such that the constraint
violations are heavily penalized. When $\delta>0$, it provides graceful degradation  when the reach-avoid objective cannot be enforced.  Via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, we have the following conclusion.
\begin{proposition}
\label{deltadayu0_ex}
        Suppose $(\bm{u}_0(\bm{x}),\lambda,\delta)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{qu}, and $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is locally Lipschitz continuous,
        \begin{enumerate}
            \item If $\delta=0$, $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
            \item If $\delta>0$ and $\mathcal{D}\cap \mathcal{X}_r\neq \emptyset$, where $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\mid h(\bm{x})>\frac{\delta}{\lambda}\}$,  $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is the reach-avoid controller with respect to the set $\mathcal{D}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
        \end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

If $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_e(\bm{x})$, it will drive system \eqref{control_system} to enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ at an exponential rate of $\lambda$. Besides, it requires $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))$ to be strictly monotonically increasing with respect to $t$ before the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$. Thus, if there exists $\bm{y}\in \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ such that $h(\bm{y})\geq \sup_{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{X}_r}h(\bm{x})$, we cannot obtain a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ via solving \eqref{qu}.
Therefore,  solving \eqref{qu} may either obtain a pessimistic reach-avoid controller or lead to $\delta>0$. In the following we will  obtain a new optimization with a set of weaker constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.

\subsubsection{Asymptotic Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
\label{ACGBF}
In this subsection we introduce asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions for the synthesis of reach-avoid controllers. The asymptotic control guidance-barrier function is derived from the asymptotic guidance-barrier function in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification}, which corresponds to the case that $\lambda=0$ in constraint \eqref{exponential_control}.

\begin{definition}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, then $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, if there exists a continuously differentiable function $w(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
    \begin{split}
\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \min\big\{ \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}), \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\big\}\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.  \hfill\blacksquare
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}

The asymptotic control guidance-barrier function also facilitates the construction of constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers, which are formulated in Theorem \ref{asymp_control}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{asymp_control}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, if the function $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz continuous controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ such that $\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{K}_a(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}_a(\bm{x})=\left\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U} \middle|\; \text{constraint}~\eqref{control_g_b_f}~\text{holds}
\right
\}
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{control_g_b_f}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

According to Theorem \ref{asymp_control}, Problem \ref{problem1} could be addressed via solving the following optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}:
\begin{equation}
\label{qua_asym0}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},w(\bm{x}),\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,   \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\delta\geq 0,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown paramteres, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes reachability violations.

Via comparing constraints \eqref{control_g_b_f} and \eqref{exponential_control}, it is easy to observe that constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} is more expressive and thus admits more feasible feedback controllers, since constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} will be reduced to \eqref{exponential_control} when $w(\bm{x})=\frac{h(\bm{x})}{\lambda}$. Consequently, it is more likely to either obtain a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, or improve the obtained  reach-avoid controller when using constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} for computations and thus lead to smaller $\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$. Besides, comapred to exponential control guidance-barrier functions, a reach-avoid controller generated by  an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function requires $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))$ to be monotonically non-decreasing with respect to $t$ rather than strictly monotonically increasing before the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, thereby diversifying the application scenarios. However, the synthesis of a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ via solving constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} is a nonlinear problem due to the existence of the term $\bigtriangledown_{\bm{x}}w(\bm{x})\cdot g(\bm{x})\bm{u}$. We can adopt an iterative algorithm to solve optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} by decomposing it into two convex sub-problems based on two cases, which correspond to whether a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is obtained via solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} or not.

The iterative algorithm for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} is elucidated in the following.

\textbf{Case 1: a reach-avoid controller is returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, that is, $\delta=0$ in \eqref{qu}.}
According to the comparison between constraints \eqref{control_g_b_f} and \eqref{exponential_control} above, a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ from optimization \eqref{qu} is also a solution to optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}. Consequently, we can adopt the iterative algorithm in Alg. \ref{alg_0} to solve optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} for improving the controller $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$.

\begin{algorithm}
\caption{An iterative procedure for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} when a reach-avoid controller is returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}.}
 Let $\bm{u}_0(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ be computed via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, and
$\epsilon'>0$ be a specified  threshold.
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $\xi_0:=\|\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| $;
\STATE $i:=0$;
\WHILE{TRUE}
    \STATE compute $w_i^*(\bm{x})$ such that
    \[ \mathcal{L}_{w_i,\bm{u}_i}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\]
    \STATE solve the following program to obtain $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$:
    \begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w_i^*,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};
        \end{split}
\end{equation*}
    \IF{$\xi_{i+1}-\xi_i\leq -\epsilon'$, where $\xi_{i+1}=\|\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$}
    \STATE  $i:=i+1$;
    \ELSE
    \STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
    \ENDIF
    \ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg_0}
\end{algorithm}

\textbf{Case 2: a reach-avoid controller is not returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, that is, $\delta>0$ in \eqref{qu}.}
When a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is not computed via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, one reason leading to this failure is due to the strictness of constraint \eqref{exponential_control} and the other one is the potential conflict between reachability and safety. At all events,  in safety-critical systems the safety has the highest priority.

One of advantages of constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} over \eqref{exponential_control} lies in its ability of characterizing safety and reachability separately. The condition
\begin{equation}
\label{asymp_safety}
\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}
\end{equation}
ensures safety, i.e., trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ will either stay inside the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time or enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually while staying inside the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ before the first target hitting time.  We term the Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraint \eqref{asymp_safety} a safe controller.
On the other hand, the condition
\begin{equation}
\label{asymp_performance}
    \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0,\forall \bm{x}\in \overline{ \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}
\end{equation}
ensures reachability, i.e., trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ will eventually enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.  It is worth remarking that a function $w(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraint \eqref{asymp_performance} is not a Lyapunov function as in \cite{ames2016control} since the function $w(\bm{x})$ itself is not required to be sign definite.

Constraint \eqref{asymp_safety} is convex, i.e., the set of controllers satisfying constraint \eqref{asymp_safety} is convex. Therefore, we first synthesize a safe controller to ensure safety of system \eqref{control_system} via solving the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
\label{step_1}
\begin{split}
        &\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})=\arg\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|\\
s.t.&~\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}

After computing a safe controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$,  we then solve the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
\label{step_2}
\begin{split}
        &(w^*(\bm{x}),\delta^*)=\arg\min_{w(\bm{x}),\delta} \delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}^*}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
&\delta\geq 0.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}

If $\delta^*=0$, the controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller  with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.  Otherwise,  the controller $\bm{u}^{*}(\bm{x})$ degrades the reachability proformance.
\begin{proposition}
\label{deltada0}
Suppose $\delta^*\in [0,\infty)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{step_2}. If the set $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>\delta^*\}$ has nonempty intersection with the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, the controller $\bm{u}^{*}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
\label{zeroing_relax}
Like zeroing control barrier functions in \cite{ames2016control}, a relaxation of the first condition, i.e., $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, in constraint  \eqref{control_g_b_f} is
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\beta>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
In such circumstances, we have to intensify the second condition, i.e., $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, in constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} using \[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\] Consequently, a set of new constraints, which can replace the set of constraints \eqref{control_g_b_f}, is given below:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\beta>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Further, since $h(\bm{x})\geq 0$ for $\bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, the above constraints can be weakened by
\begin{equation}
\label{zeroing_barrer}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\beta>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
However, if we replace  the constraint in \eqref{step_1} with
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
\beta>0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
 to obtain a safe controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$,  we cannot obtain a conclusion as in Proposition \ref{deltada0} via solving \eqref{step_2} with constraints $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}^*}(\bm{x})>-\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ and $\delta\geq 0$ when $\delta^*>0$.  $\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{remark}

If $\delta^*>0$, we  proceed to obtain a new  controller $\bm{u}^{**(}\bm{x})$ and a smaller $\delta^{**}$ via solving optimization \eqref{q_P_r} with $w^*(\bm{x})$.

\begin{equation}
    \label{q_P_r}
     \begin{split}
        &(\bm{u}^{**}(\bm{x}),\delta^{**})=\arg\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\|\delta\|\\
        s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w^*,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\delta\geq 0.
     \end{split}
     \end{equation}
     where $c$ is a large constant that penalizes reachability violations, similar to the one in optimization \eqref{qu}.

Repeating the above procedure leads to an iterative algorithm for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}, which is summarized in Alg. \ref{alg_1}. When $\delta=0$, a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_a(\bm{x})$ is generated successfully.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{An iterative procedure for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} when a reach-avoid controller is not returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}.}
Let $\epsilon', \epsilon^*>0$  be specified thresholds.
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $i:=0$;
\STATE solve optimization \eqref{step_1} to obtain a safe controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$;
\WHILE{TRUE}
\STATE compute $(w_i(\bm{x}),\delta_i)$ via solving optimization \eqref{step_2} with $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$;
\STATE compute $(\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x}),\delta_{i+1})$  via solving  \eqref{q_P_r} with $w_i(\bm{x})$;
\IF {$\delta_i=\delta_{i+1}=0$}
\IF{$\xi_{i+1}-\xi_i \leq -\epsilon'$, where $\xi_{i+1}=\|\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ELSE
\IF{$\delta_{i+1}-\delta_i\leq -\epsilon^{*}$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg_1}
\end{algorithm}

Although constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} is weaker than  \eqref{exponential_control}, it is still strict in practical applications. The condition $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$  not only ensures invariance of the set $\overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, but also enforces invariance of every positive sublevel set of the asymptotic control guidance-barrier function (if trajectories do not enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$). This is overly conservative.  Thus, solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} may lead to either a failure in synthesizing a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$,  corresponding to $\delta>0$,  or a pessimistic feedback controller, i.e., $\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$ is large.

\subsubsection{Lax Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
\label{IMCGBF}
In this subsection we will further relax constraints in asymptotic guidance-barrier functions and obtain less restrictive ones, expanding the space of reach-avoid controllers.  The construction of new constraints is based on a tightened set $\mathcal{D}$, which is a subset of the safe set $\mathcal{C}$.

The tightened set $\mathcal{D}$ can be any subset of the set $\mathcal{C}$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $\mathcal{D}\subseteq \mathcal{C}$;
    \item $\partial \mathcal{D}\cap \partial \mathcal{C}=\emptyset$;
    \item $\mathcal{D}\cap \mathcal{X}_r\neq \emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
 In this paper we take $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h'(\bm{x})\geq 0\}$, where $h'(\bm{x})=h(\bm{x})-\epsilon_0$ with $\epsilon_0>0$. It is observed that $\epsilon_0$ can be an arbitrary positive value, and $\lim_{\epsilon_0\rightarrow 0^{+}}\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{C}$.

Based on the set $\mathcal{D}$, we define a lax control guidance-barrier function.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$  satisfy Assumption \ref{assump}  and $\mathcal{D}$ be the tightened set, then $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called a lax control guidance-barrier function, if there exist a continuously differentiable function $w(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{control_g_b_f_c_new}
\begin{cases}
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}) \geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x} \in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}
\label{improved}
Let $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$  and $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfy Assumption \ref{assump}  and $\mathcal{D}$ be a tightened set defined above, if $h(\bm{x})$ is a lax control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz continuous controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ satisfying $\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{K}_l(\bm{x})$  is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}_l(\bm{x})=\left\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U} \middle|\;
\text{constraint}~\eqref{improve_control_c}~\text{holds}
\right
\}.
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{improve_control_c}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}) \geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r },\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\beta\geq 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

 \begin{remark}
 Constraint \eqref{improve_control_c} also applies to the case that the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ is compact.  $\hfill\blacksquare$
 \end{remark}

In constraint \eqref{improve_control_c}, when $\beta=0$, the condition $
\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ ensures invariance of the set $\overline{\mathcal{D}'\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ until system \eqref{control_system} enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where $\mathcal{D}'=\{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}\mid h(\bm{x})\leq \epsilon_1\}$ with $\epsilon_1\leq \epsilon_0$. It does not ensure invariance of the set $\{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}\mid h(\bm{x})\geq \epsilon_1\}$ with $\epsilon_1>\epsilon_0$, and thus it is weaker than the condition $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$
in constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f}. However, when $\beta>0$, we can just ensure invariance of the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ until system \eqref{control_system} enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$. However, since $h(\bm{x})\geq 0$ for $\bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, we cannot conclude that if $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{ \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ holds, $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ holds. It is worth remarking here that constraint \eqref{improve_control_c} is weaker than \eqref{zeroing_barrer}. Furthermore, compared to exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions, a reach-avoid controller generated by a lax one does not require $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))$ to be monotonically increasing with respect to $t$ before the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, thereby diversifying the application scenarios further.

\begin{example}
Consider  a simple system:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\dot{x}=-x+0.3,\\
&\dot{y}=-y+u_1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid (x-0.3)^2+y^2-0.01 < 0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{u_1\mid -0.1\leq u_1\leq 0.1\}$.

Since $h(0,0)=1$ and $h(x,y)=1-x^2-y^2<1$  for $(x,y)^{\top}\in \mathcal{X}_r$, we cannot obtain a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ with exponential and asymptotic guidance-barrier functions. However, we can obtain a reach-avoid controller $u_1=0$ with lax guidance-barrier functions.   $h(x,y)$ is a lax guidance-barrier function satisfying \eqref{improve_control_c} with $\beta=2$, $w(x,y)=-(x-0.3)^2-y^2$, $\mathcal{D}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 0.99-x^2-y^2\geq 0\}$, and $u_1=0$.
$\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{example}

 According to Proposition \ref{improved}, Problem \ref{problem1} can be transformed into the following optimization \eqref{q_P_i}
\begin{equation}
\label{q_P_i}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},w(\bm{x},)\delta,\beta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| +c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus\mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>-\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{ \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\delta\geq 0,\\
        &\beta\geq 0,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes reachability violations.

Similar to optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}, optimization \eqref{q_P_i} is also nonlinear. Thus, we also decompose it into two convex sub-problems and solve it using an iterative algorithm, which is described in Alg. \ref{alg_2}.

\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{An iterative procedure for solving optimization \eqref{q_P_i}.}
Let $\epsilon', \epsilon^*>0$ be specified thresholds.
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $i:=0$;
\IF{a Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is  computed via solving optimization  \eqref{qua_asym0}}
\STATE $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x}):=\bm{u}(\bm{x})$;
\ELSE
\STATE compute a Lipschitz safe controller $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ satisfying
    \begin{equation}
    \label{im_0}
        \begin{split}
           &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}}\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| \\
        \text{s.t.~}&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus\mathcal{X}_r}.
    \end{split}
      \end{equation}
\ENDIF
\WHILE{TRUE}
\STATE compute $(w_i(\bm{x}),\delta_i)$ satisfying
    \begin{equation}
    \label{im_1}
        \begin{split}
           &\min_{w(\bm{x}),\delta}\delta \\
        \text{s.t.~}&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}_i}(\bm{x})> -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\delta\geq 0.
    \end{split}
      \end{equation}
\STATE solve the following program to obtain $(\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x}),\delta_{i+1}))$:
    \begin{equation}
    \label{im_2}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\delta,\beta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~ &\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus\mathcal{X}_r},\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w_i^*,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})> -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
        &\delta\geq 0,\\
        &\beta\geq 0.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
\IF {$\delta_i=\delta_{i+1}=0$}
\IF{$\xi_{i+1}-\xi_i\leq -\epsilon'$, where $\xi_{i+1}=\|\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ELSE
\IF{$\delta_{i+1}-\delta_i\leq -\epsilon^{*}$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg_2}
\end{algorithm}

\begin{remark}
Suppose that $\delta_i$($i=1,\ldots$) is computed by solving optimization \eqref{im_1} or \eqref{im_2}.  If $\delta_i=0$, then the Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$ is a controller satisfying Theorem \ref{improved}.
Otherwise, we can neither ensure that the controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$ will drive system  \eqref{control_system} starting from $\mathcal{C}$ to enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually nor ensure that the controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$ will drive system  \eqref{control_system} starting from $\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>\delta_i\}$ to enter $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
It is observed that the smaller $\epsilon_0$ in defining $\mathcal{D}$ is, the weaker constraint \eqref{improve_control_c} is. However, $\epsilon_0$ cannot be zero. Thus, in numerical computations, we do not recommend the use of too small $\epsilon_0$ due to numerical errors.
\end{remark}

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we investigated the problem of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations and stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations, based on the notion of control guidance-barrier functions. Several control guidance-barrier functions were respectively proposed for deterministic and stochastic systems to synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.  Finally, four numerical examples demonstrated the theoretical developments of proposed methodologies.

Several factors may cause safety and reachability violations of the plant even when the Lipschitz reach-avoid controller is gained in practice. One challenge is raised by the digital/discrete implementation of a continuous-time system with continuous inputs. In a practical implementation, the system state is only observable at each sampling time, and the control signal is applied in a zero-order hold manner during each sampling period. That is, the system is implemented as a sampled-data system \cite{ghaffari2018safety}.  In future work, we would like to investigate the problem of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for sampled-data detereminstic and stochastic systems based on control guidance-barrier functions in this paper.

\section{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis for Stochastic Systems}
\label{RCSSS}

This section focuses on synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations.

\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{RCSSS_Pre}
In this subsection we introduce  stochastic systems and reach-avoid controllers synthesis problems of interest.

Consider an affine stochastic control system,
\begin{equation}
    \label{SDE}
    \begin{split}
d\bm{x}(t,\bm{w})=(\bm{f}(\bm{x}(t,\bm{w}))+&\bm{g}(\bm{x}(t,\bm{w}))\bm{u}(\bm{x}(t)))dt\\
&+\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x}(t,\bm{w})) d\bm{W}(t,\bm{w}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{f}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$, $\bm{g}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$,  and $\bm{\sigma}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n\times k}$ are locally Lipschitz continuous function; $\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ with $\mathcal{U} \subset \mathbb{R}^m$ is the admissible input; $\bm{W}(t,\bm{w}): \mathbb{R}\times \Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ is an $k$-dimensional Wiener process (standard Brownian motion), and $\Omega$, equipped with the probability measure $\mathbb{P}$,  is the sample space $\bm{w}$ belongs to.  The expectation with respect to $\mathbb{P}$ is denoted by $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$.

Assume that each component of $\bm{f}(\bm{x})$, $\bm{g}(\bm{x})$ and $\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x})$ is locally Lipschitz continuous. Given a locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$, then for an initial state $\bm{x}_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$, a stochastic differential equation \eqref{SDE} has a unique (maximal local) strong solution over some time interval $[0,T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}))$ for $\bm{w}\in \Omega$, where $T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})$ is a positive real value or infinity. We denote it as $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\cdot): [0,T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}))\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$, which satisfies the stochastic integral equation,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
  \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)&=\bm{x}_0+ \int_{0}^t (\bm{f}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))+\bm{g}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))\bm{u}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)))d \tau\\
   &+\int_{0}^t \bm{\sigma}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)) d\bm{W}(\tau,\bm{w}).
   \end{split}
\end{equation*}

The infinitesimal generator underlying system \eqref{SDE} is presented in Definition \ref{inf_generator}.
\begin{definition}
\label{inf_generator}
Given system \eqref{SDE}  with a locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$,  the infinitesimal generator of a twice continuously differentiable function  $v(\bm{x})$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
    \begin{split}
        &\mathcal{L}_{v,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}_0)=\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\mathbb{E}[v(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-v(\bm{x}_0)}{t}\\
        &=[\frac{\partial v}{\partial \bm{x}}(\bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u}(\bm{x}))+\frac{1}{2}\textbf{tr}(\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x})^{\top}\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial \bm{x}^2} \bm{\sigma}(\bm{x}))]\mid_{\bm{x}=\bm{x}_0}.
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}

As a stochastic generalization of the Newton-Leibniz axiom, Dynkin's formula gives the expected value of any suitably smooth function of an It\^o diffusion at a stopping time.
\begin{theorem}[Dynkin's formula, \cite{oksendal2003}]
\label{dyn_theom}
Given system \eqref{SDE}  with a locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$.  Suppose $\tau$ is a stopping time with $E[\tau]<\infty$, and $v\in \mathcal{C}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with compact support. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{dyn}
\mathbb{E}[v(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))]=v(\bm{x})+\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^{\tau} \mathcal{L}_{v,\bm{u}}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}}^{\bm{w}}(s))ds].
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

In Theorem \ref{dyn_theom}, if we consider a twice continuously differentiable function $f$ defined on a bounded set  $B\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$, i.e., $v(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{C}^2(B)$, $v$ can be any twice continuously differentiable function $v(\bm{x}) \in  \mathcal{C}^2(B)$ without the assumption of compact support. In this case, the support of $v(\bm{x})$ is of course, compact, since the support of $v(\bm{x})$ is always closed and bounded.

Given a bounded and open safe set
\[\mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>0\}\] with $\partial \mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})=0\}$, and a target set
$\mathcal{X}_r$  satisfying $\mathcal{X}_r\subseteq \mathcal{C}$ and \[h(\bm{x})\leq 1, \forall \bm{x}\in \mathcal{X}_r,\] a
 reach-avoid controller is formulated in Definition \ref{RAC_s}.

\begin{definition}[Reach-avoid Controllers]
\label{RAC_s}
Given a locally Lipschitz continuous feedback controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$, the reach-avoid property with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is satisfied if, starting from any initial state $\bm{x}_0$ in $\mathcal{C}$, system \eqref{SDE} with the controller $\bm{u}(\cdot)$ will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually while staying inside $\mathcal{C}$ before the first target hitting time, with a probability being larger than $h(\bm{x}_0)$, i.e.,
\[\mathbb{P}\Bigg(\Big\{\bm{w}\in \Omega \mid
\begin{aligned}
&\exists t\geq 0. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\bigwedge \\
&\forall \tau\in [0,t]. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau) \in \mathcal{C}
\end{aligned}
\Big\}
\Bigg)\geq h(\bm{x}_0).\] Correspondingly, $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
 \end{definition}

Similar to the case for deterministic systems in Section \ref{RACS}, we wish to synthesize a reach-avoid controller in a minimally invasive fashion. The optimization problem is formulated below.

\begin{problem}
 Suppose we are given a feedback controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x}): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ for  system \eqref{SDE},  we wish to modify this controller in a minimal way so as to guarantee satisfaction of reach-avoid specifications, i.e., solve the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
    \label{q_P}
    \begin{split}
        &\bm{u}(\bm{x})=\arg\min\|\bm{u}-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|\\
        &\text{s.t.}~\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U} \text{~is a reach-avoid controller}\\
        &\text{~~~with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{X}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.}
     \end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{problem}

In the sequel, the derivation of sufficient conditions for synthesizing  a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ comes  with a new stochastic process $\{\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t), t\geq 0\}$ for $\bm{x}_0\in \overline{\mathcal{C}}$, which is a stopped process corresponding to $\{\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t), t\in [0,T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}))\}$ and the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$, i.e., \begin{equation}
\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)=
\begin{cases}
&\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t), \text{\rm~if~}t<\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}),\\
&\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})), \text{\rm~if~}t\geq \tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where \[\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})=\inf\{t\mid \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \mathcal{X}_r \wedge \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \partial \mathcal{C}\}\]
is the first time of exit of $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ from the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$. It is worth remarking here that if the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ escapes to infinity in finite time, it must touch the boundary of the bounded safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and thus $\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}) \leq T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})$. The stopped process $\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ inherits the right continuity and strong Markovian property of $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$. Moreover, the infinitesimal generator corresponding to $\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ is identical to the one corresponding to $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ on the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$, and is equal to zero outside the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$. That is,
\[\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})=    \frac{\partial h}{\partial \bm{x}}(\bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u}(\bm{x}))+\frac{1}{2}\textbf{tr}(\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x})^{\top}\frac{\partial^2 h}{\partial \bm{x}^2} \bm{\sigma}(\bm{x}))\]
for $\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$, and
\[\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})=0\]
for $\bm{x}\in \partial \mathcal{C}\cup \mathcal{X}_r$ \cite{prajna2007framework,xue2022_Stochastic}. This will be implicitly assumed throughout this paper.

\subsection{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis}
In this section, we extend our methods for deterministic systems in Subsection \ref{egbf} and \ref{ACGBF} to stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations \eqref{SDE}. The algorithms of solving the resulting optimizations are the same with the ones in Subsection \ref{egbf} and \ref{ACGBF}  and therefore, are omitted here.

\subsubsection{Exponential Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
 In this subsection we introduce the notion of exponential control guidance-barrier functions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$ be the sets defined in Subsection  \ref{RCSSS_Pre}, then $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called an exponential control guidance-barrier function, if there exists $\alpha \in (0,\infty)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \alpha h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
\end{equation}
holds.
\end{definition}

Given an exponential control guidance-barrier function, the sufficient condition for ensuring that a controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is formulated in Theorem \ref{exponential_s}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{exponential_s}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$, target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ defined  in Subsection \ref{RCSSS_Pre},  if $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an exponential control guidance-barrier function, then any  locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\cdot): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ satisfying $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_{s,e}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\[\mathcal{K}_{s,e}(\bm{x})=\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}\mid \text{constraint}~\eqref{stochastic_c_e}~\text{holds}\}\]
with
\begin{equation}
\label{stochastic_c_e}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq  \alpha h(\bm{x}),  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\alpha>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

Similarly, optimization \eqref{q_P} can be encoded into the following program,
\begin{equation}
\label{s_qu}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\alpha,\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\alpha h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&0\leq \delta<\alpha,\\
&\alpha\geq \xi_0.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, $\xi_0$ is a user-defined positive value which is to enforce the strict positivity of $\alpha$, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes safety/reachability violations.
The set $\mathcal{K}_{s,e}(\bm{x})$ is convex, thus a direct computation of a feedback controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraints in optimization  \eqref{s_qu} using convex optimization is possible.

\begin{proposition}
\label{s_e}
        Suppose $(\bm{u}_0(\bm{x}),\alpha,\delta)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{s_qu}.
       \begin{enumerate}
           \item If $\delta=0$, $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
          \item If $\delta\neq 0$ , $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the set $\mathcal{D}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\mid h'(\bm{x})>0\}$ with $h'(\bm{x})=\frac{\alpha h(\bm{x})-\delta}{\alpha-\delta}$.
      \end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\subsubsection{Asymptotic Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
In this subsection we introduce asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.

\begin{definition}
Given sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$ defined in Subsection \ref{RCSSS_Pre},  then $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, if there exists a twice continuously differentiable function $w(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

The asymptotic control guidance-barrier function facilitates the construction of constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.

\begin{theorem}
\label{asymp_s}
Given sets $\mathcal{C}$  and $\mathcal{X}_r$ defined in Subsection \ref{RCSSS}, if $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ satisfying $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_{s,a}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$,
where
\[\mathcal{K}_{s,a}(\bm{x})=\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}\mid \text{constraint}~\eqref{stochastic_c_e_a}~\text{holds}\}\]
with
\begin{equation}
\label{stochastic_c_e_a}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

According to Theorem \ref{asymp_s}, optimization \eqref{q_P} can be encoded into the following program,
   \begin{equation}
    \label{s_im_2}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},w(\bm{x}),\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~ &\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus\mathcal{X}_r},\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x})-\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\

        &0\leq \delta<1,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes safety/reachability violations.

\begin{proposition}
\label{s_im_2_pro}
Suppose  $(\bm{u}^*(\bm{x}),\delta^*)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{s_im_2}. The controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the sets $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$, where $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\mid h'(\bm{x})>0\}$ with $h'(\bm{x})=\frac{h(\bm{x})-\delta}{1-\delta}$.
\end{proposition}

\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Cyber-physical systems are becoming ubiquitous due to rapid advances in computation, communication, and memory \cite{rajkumar2010cyber}, and can be found in diverse application domains including automobiles, aviation, advanced manufacturing, and integrated medical devices \cite{baheti2011cyber}. Many of these systems  are safety-critical and thus must satisfy safety requirements, which are typically formulated as forward invariance of a given safe set \cite{ames2019control}, on their dynamic trajectories in order to  prevent economic harm and loss of life. The need for safety has motivated extensive research into verifying and synthesizing controllers to satisfy safety requirements.

 Common techniques include Lyapunov and barrier methods \cite{prajna2004safety}, discrete approximations, and direct computations of reachable sets \cite{kurzhanski2000ellipsoidal,althoff2021set}, among others, have been developed for safety verification of safety-critical systems with given controllers. However, as the systems being verified get more complicated, the traditionally verified and tuning/redesigning (``design V") iteration procedure \cite{forsberg1991relationship} becomes harder and more time-consuming. Consequently, there has been increasing interest in synthesizing controllers with provable safety guarantees in the design phase, and thus many methods emerge such as control barrier functions methods \cite{ames2019control}, Hamilton-Jacobi methods \cite{tomlin1998synthesizing}, moment based optimization methods \cite{majumdar2014convex}, and controlled invariant sets methods \cite{blanchini1999set,li2017invariance}. Such methods are instrumental in removing  bad controllers at an early state and avoiding the time-consuming ``design V" iteration, consequently reducing software development expenses. Besides safety objectives, cyber-physical systems such as autonomous vehicles, industrial robots, and chemical reactors often require simultaneous satisfaction of performance specifications. For instance, \cite{ames2016control} considers the design of controllers enforcing objective of joint safety and stability. Among the many provably correct controllers synthesis problems, there is a special one of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers. Reach-avoid controllers enforce both safety via avoiding a set of unsafe states and reachability via reaching a desired target set. Consequently, they can address many important engineering problems such as collision avoidance  \cite{margellos2010hamilton} and target surveillance, and thus have turned out to be of fundamental importance in engineering.

In this paper we investigate the reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem for continuous-time systems modelled by ordinary differential equations and stochastic differential equations. A reach-avoid controller is a controller such that the system starting from a specified safe set will eventually enter a desired target set while staying inside the safe set before the first target hitting time, in a deterministic sense for deterministic systems or in a probabilistic sense for stochastic systems. For deterministic systems, three (exponential/asymptotic/lax) control guidance-barrier functions are developed for synthesizing reach-avoid control inputs. These three functions generate three increasingly-weak sufficient conditions, which expand the space of admissible control inputs gradually. The first and second ones are termed exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions, which guarantee that every trajectory starting from the safe set will respectively enter the target set at an exponential rate and in an asymptotic way. However, it is observed that these two control guidance-barrier functions have one condition in common of enforcing invariance of its every positive sublevel set until the system enters the target set, which is rather restrict and thus limits the space of admissible controllers. Consequently, a lax control guidance-barrier function is developed and a weaker condition is obtained which does not enforce invariance of its every positive sublevel set, thus expanding the space of admissible controllers. The first two control guidance-barrier functions are then extended to stochastic systems, which is to synthesize a reach-avoid controller in a minimal fashion such that the system enters a target set eventually while staying inside a safe set before the first target hitting time in probability. Finally, several numerical examples demonstrate the theoretical developments of  proposed methods. The contributions of this work are summarized below.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item A unified framework of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for both deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations and stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations in an optimal sense is developed.
   \item Within this framework, several control guidance-barrier functions are respectively proposed for constructing sufficient conditions to synthesize reach-avoid controllers, for both deterministic systems and stochastic systems. These three conditions are becoming less restrictive gradually. Consequently, an increasingly large set of control inputs compatible with reach-avoid specifications will be obtained, which either provides more chances for synthesizing a reach-avoid controller successfully or improves the already obtained controller.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection*{Related Work}
Multiple solution techniques have been proposed for safety-critical control synthesis for cyber-physical systems, including Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs(HJI) equation \cite{tomlin1998conflict}, mixed-integer program \cite{mellinger2012mixed}, viability theory \cite{aubin2011viability},  control barrier function,  and control Lyapunov function -based methodologies \cite{ames2019control}. We do not intend to give a comprehensive review of related literature herein, but instead introduce the closest related works, which mainly center around control barrier function based methodologies.  Control barrier functions were inspired by barrier certificates, which were originally proposed for safety verification of continuous-time deterministic and stochastic systems \cite{prajna2004safety,prajna2007framework}. The control barrier functions framework has several advantages in addition to provable safety guarantees. For affine control systems, control barrier functions lead to linear constraints on the control, which can be used to design computationally tractable optimization-based controllers. They can also be easily composed with control Lyapunov functions to provide joint guarantees on stability and safety.

For deterministic systems, the notion of a barrier certificate was first extended to a control version in \cite{wieland2007constructive}. This can be thought of as being analogous to how \cite{artstein1983stabilization,sontag1989universal} extended Lyapunov functions to control Lyapunov functions in order to enable controller synthesis for stabilization tasks. Later on, various control barrier certificates such as reciprocal control barrier functions \cite{ames2014control}, zeroing control barrier functions \cite{ames2016control}, and minimal control barrier functions \cite{konda2020characterizing} have been developed to design controllers for enforcing safety. These control barrier certificates mainly differ in their expressiveness.  To address safety constraints with higher relative-degree, the method of control barrier functions was extended to position-based constraints with relative degree 2 in \cite{wu2015safety,nguyen2015safety}, and then  \cite{ames2014control} extended it to arbitrary high relative-degree systems using a backstepping based method. Recently,  exponential control barrier functions were proposed in \cite{nguyen2016exponential} to enforce high relative-degree safety constraints.

In addition to safety,  the control design of safety-critical dynamical systems in practice  often requires simultaneous satisfaction of performance specifications and safety constraints. The problem of safe stabilization, i.e., to stabilize the system while maintaining the system to stay within a given safe set, attracts wide attentions recently. In order to simultaneously achieve safety and stabilization of dynamical systems, a number of control design methods have been proposed in the literature to compose control Lyapunov functions with control barrier functions. The unification of control Lyapunov functions and control barrier functions appeared in \cite{romdlony2014uniting,romdlony2016stabilization,ames2014control,ames2016control}. The objective of the works \cite{romdlony2014uniting,romdlony2016stabilization} was to incorporate into a single feedback law the conditions required to simultaneously achieve asymptotic stability of an equilibrium point, while avoiding an unsafe set. In contrast, the approach of the works \cite{ames2014control,ames2016control} was to pose a feedback design problem that mediates safety and stabilization requirements, in the sense that safety is always guaranteed, and progress toward the stabilization objective is assured when the two requirements are not in conflict. Meanwhile, based on the combination of exponential control barrier functions and control Lyapunov functions, \cite{nguyen2016exponential} studied the safety via enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints and stability.  \cite{jankovic2018robust} further considered the relaxation on the lie derivative of control Lyapunov functions such that local asymptotic stability can be guaranteed. The present work also investigates the controllers synthesis problem for enforcing simultaneous satisfaction of joint safety and performance  objectives. However, it is different from the above mentioned works. The differences are twofold: the present work studies the problem of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers, which enforce safety via staying inside a safe set and performance via reaching a desired target set rather than approaching an equilibrium asymptotically. When the target set is a region of attraction, the synthesized reach-avoid controller is also able to enforce safety and stability; the sufficient conditions developed in this work rely on the notion of control guidance-barrier functions, which are a control version of guidance-barrier functions proposed in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification},  and these functions are not  a combination of control barrier functions and control Lyapunov functions.  In \cite{xue2022_reach_verification} exponential and asymptotic guidance-barrier functions were proposed for computing inner-approximations of reach-avoid sets for deterministic systems. Although exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions are a direct extension of the guidance-barrier functions in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification}, the present work further proposes lax control guidance-barrier functions, which are weaker than the former two control  functions.

Compared to deterministic systems, literature on control barrier functions for systems with stochastic disturbances is very scarce. When considering stochastic systems, i.e., dynamical systems involving stochastic processes, solving the controllers synthesis problem qualitatively in a non-stochastic manner usually gives pessimistic answers, since generally resultant bounds on the values of stochastic inputs will be overly conservative. It is  natural to formulate and solve probabilistic variants of controllers synthesis problems. For instance, it requires the synthesis of $p$-controllers to guarantee with probability being larger than $p$ that the dynamical system satisfies the safety requirement. \cite{tamba2021notion} examined the safety verification of stochastic systems using the notion of stochastic zeroing barrier functions. The first extension of control barrier functions for deterministic systems to stochastic systems appeared in  \cite{clark2019control}, which proposed stochastic reciprocal control barrier functions and derived sufficient conditions for the stochastic system to satisfy safety constraints with probability one. Motivated by the need to reduce potentially severe control constraints generated by stochastic reciprocal control barrier functions in the neighborhood of the safety boundary, \cite{wang2021safety} proposed a notion of stochastic control barrier functions for safety-critical control by providing the worst-case probability estimation. Recently, \cite{clark2021control} extended the results in \cite{clark2019control} by introducing stochastic zeroing control barrier functions constructions that guarantee safety with probability one. It also proposed control policies that ensure safety and stability by solving quadratic programs containing control barrier functions and stochastic control Lyapunov functions. In this work we extend the aforementioned exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions for deterministic systems to stochastic systems for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers such that the system enters a target set eventually while staying inside a specified safe set before the first target hitting time in probability.  Among these two extensions, the asymptotic control guidance-barrier function  is constructed based on guidance-barrier functions in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic}, which was developed to inner-approximating reach-avoid sets for stochastic systems.

The structure of this paper is organized as follows. Three control guidance-barrier functions  are proposed in  Section \ref{OTRACS}, which also elucidates three sufficient conditions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers of deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations. Section \ref{RCSSS} extends some control guidance-barrier functions in Section \ref{OTRACS} to stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations and proposes two sufficient conditions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers in the probabilistic setting.

The following  notations will be used throughout the rest of this paper: $\mathbb{R}^n$ denotes
the set of n-dimensional real vectors; $\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ denotes non-negative real numbers; the closure of a set $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted by $\overline{\mathcal{X}}$, the complement by $\mathcal{X}^c$ and the boundary by $\partial \mathcal{X}$; $\|\bm{x}\|$ denotes the 2-norm, i.e., $\|\bm{x}\|:=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2}$, where $\bm{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)^{\top}$; vectors are denoted by boldface letters.  For a vector function $\bm{g}(\bm{x}): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$, $\|\bm{g}(\bm{x})\|=\sqrt{\int_{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}}\bm{g}^{\top}(\bm{x})\bm{g}(\bm{x})d\bm{x}}$.

\section{Examples}
\label{exa}
This section demonstrates the theoretical developments of proposed methods numerically. The semi-definite programming tool Mosek \cite{mosek2015mosek} is employed to address the optimization involved. Some parameters are presented in Table \ref{tab11}, and the computed $\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$'s are summarized in Table \ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}. In the examples below, we attempt to synthesize a reach-avoid controller of the linear form in a minimal way of modifying the controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})=\bm{0}$.
\begin{table}
 \centering
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline  \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Optimization}\\
  \eqref{qu}/\eqref{s_qu}  & \eqref{qua_asym0}/\eqref{s_im_2}&\eqref{q_P_i}\\
 \hline     $\xi_0=10^{-3}$         &      $\epsilon'=10^{-3}$  & $\epsilon'=10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_0=10^{-3}$\\ \hline
 \end{tabular}
 \caption{Parameters in solving Optimization \eqref{qu}, \eqref{qua_asym0}, \eqref{q_P_i}, \eqref{s_qu} and \eqref{s_im_2} ($\epsilon_0$ is used to define $\mathcal{D}$). }
  \label{tab11}
 \end{table}

 \begin{table}
 \centering
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline Example & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Optimization}\\
 &\eqref{qu} & \eqref{qua_asym0}&\eqref{q_P_i}\\
 \hline 2 &      0.2329           &         0.089  &  $3.829\times 10^{-4}$\\ \hline
          3 &      3.2002          &         3.1563  &  3.1563\\ \hline
           4 &      1.7967          &         1.7912  &  1.7372\\ \hline
 \end{tabular}
 \caption{$\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$ for Examples 2-4. }
  \label{tab1}
 \end{table}

\begin{table}
 \centering
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline Example & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Optimization}\\
 &\eqref{s_qu} & \eqref{s_im_2}\\
 \hline 5 &      93.6528          &        93.4427  \\ \hline
 \end{tabular}
 \caption{$\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$ for Example 5. }
  \label{tab2}
 \end{table}

\subsection{Deterministic Case}
\begin{example}
\label{ex0}
Consider a simple mobile  robot navigation that can be described by the following equation \cite{romdlony2016stabilization}
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=u_1,\\
\dot{y}=u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 0.01(x-0.9)^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{(u_1,u_2)^{\top}\mid 10^{-3}\leq u_1\leq 1, -1\leq u_2\leq 1\}$.

 The vector fields formed by the computed controllers are visualized in Fig. \ref{fig_ex3}. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab1} that the reach-avoid controller generated by exponential guidance-barrier functions can be improved by asymptotic and lax ones, and the lax guidance-barrier function generates the best controller.

\begin{figure}
\centering
   \includegraphics[width=2.05in,height=1.2in]{ex2_com.pdf}
  \caption{An illustration of controller synthesis for Example \ref{ex0}. Red and green curves denote the boundaries of the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, respectively.  Blue, black and gray curves respectively  denote the vector fields with controllers computed via solving Optimization \eqref{qu}, \eqref{qua_asym0} and \eqref{q_P_i}, respectively.}
  \label{fig_ex3}
  \end{figure}
\end{example}

\begin{example}
\label{ex3}
Consider a second order linear model from \cite{wang2022safety},
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\dot{x}=2x+y+u_1,\\
&\dot{y}=3x+y+u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid x^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{(u_1,u_2)^{\top}\mid -3\leq u_1\leq 3,-3\leq u_2\leq 3\}$.

The vector fields formed by $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$ and the computed controllers are visualized in Fig. \ref{fig_ex31}. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab1} that the reach-avoid controller generated by exponential guidance-barrier functions can be improved by asymptotic and lax ones. However,the reach-avoid controller generated by the asymptotic guidance-barrier function cannot be improved further via  the lax one.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex3.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
   \includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex3_com.pdf}
  \end{minipage}
    \caption{An illustration of controller synthesis for Example \ref{ex3}. Red and green curves denote the boundaries of the sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$, respectively. Left: the vector fields for Example \ref{ex3} with the controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$. Right: Gray and black curves respectively  denote the vector fields with controllers computed via solving Optimization \eqref{qu} and \eqref{qua_asym0}, respectively.}
      \label{fig_ex31}
  \end{figure}
\end{example}

\begin{example}
\label{ex4}
    Consider a second order polynomial nonlinear control affine system from \cite{wang2022safety},
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\dot{x}=y+(x^2+y+1)u_1,\\
&\dot{y}=x+\frac{1}{3}x^3+y+(y^2+x+1)u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid x^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{(u_1,u_2)^{\top}\mid -2\leq u_1\leq 2,-2\leq u_2\leq 2\}$.

 The vector fields formed by the computed controllers are visualized in Fig. \ref{fig_ex41}. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab1} that the reach-avoid controller generated by exponential guidance-barrier functions can be improved by asymptotic and lax ones, although the improvements are not significant..

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
   \includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex4_com.pdf}
  \end{minipage}
    \caption{An illustration of controller synthesis for Example \ref{ex4}. Red and green curves denote the boundaries of the sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$, respectively. Left: the vector fields for Example \ref{ex4} with the controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$. Right: Blue, gray and black curves respectively  denote the vector fields with controllers computed via solving Optimization \eqref{qu} and \eqref{qua_asym0}, respectively.}
      \label{fig_ex41}
  \end{figure}

\end{example}

\subsection{Stochastic Case}
\begin{example}
Consider the following stochastic system adapted from Example \ref{ex0}
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=u_1+dw,\\
\dot{y}=u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 0.01(x-0.9)^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\mathbb{R}^2$.

We synthesize a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}=(u_1,u_2)^{\top}$. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab2} that the reach-avoid controller generated by asymptotic guidance-barrier functions improve the one from exponential guidance-barrier functions.

\end{example}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{his} document is a template for \LaTeX. If you are
reading a paper or PDF version of this document, please download the
electronic file, trans\_jour.tex, from the IEEE Web site at \underline
{http://www.ieee.org/authortools/trans\_jour.tex} so you can use it to prepare your manuscript. If
you would prefer to use LaTeX, download IEEE's LaTeX style and sample files
from the same Web page. You can also explore using the Overleaf editor at
\underline
{https://www.overleaf.com/blog/278-how-to-use-overleaf-with-}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline
{ieee-collabratec-your-quick-guide-to-getting-started\#.}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline{xsVp6tpPkrKM9}

If your paper is intended for a conference, please contact your conference
editor concerning acceptable word processor formats for your particular
conference.

IEEE will do the final formatting of your paper. If your paper is intended
for a conference, please observe the conference page limits.

\subsection{Abbreviations and Acronyms}
Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text,
even after they have already been defined in the abstract. Abbreviations
such as IEEE, SI, ac, and dc do not have to be defined. Abbreviations that
incorporate periods should not have spaces: write ``C.N.R.S.,'' not ``C. N.
R. S.'' Do not use abbreviations in the title unless they are unavoidable
(for example, ``IEEE'' in the title of this article).

\subsection{Other Recommendations}
Use one space after periods and colons. Hyphenate complex modifiers:
``zero-field-cooled magnetization.'' Avoid dangling participles, such as,
``Using \eqref{eq}, the potential was calculated.'' [It is not clear who or what
used \eqref{eq}.] Write instead, ``The potential was calculated by using \eqref{eq},'' or
``Using \eqref{eq}, we calculated the potential.''

Use a zero before decimal points: ``0.25,'' not ``.25.'' Use
``cm$^{3}$,'' not ``cc.'' Indicate sample dimensions as ``0.1 cm
$\times $ 0.2 cm,'' not ``0.1 $\times $ 0.2 cm$^{2}$.'' The
abbreviation for ``seconds'' is ``s,'' not ``sec.'' Use
``Wb/m$^{2}$'' or ``webers per square meter,'' not
``webers/m$^{2}$.'' When expressing a range of values, write ``7 to
9'' or ``7--9,'' not ``7$\sim $9.''

A parenthetical statement at the end of a sentence is punctuated outside of
the closing parenthesis (like this). (A parenthetical sentence is punctuated
within the parentheses.) In American English, periods and commas are within
quotation marks, like ``this period.'' Other punctuation is ``outside''!
Avoid contractions; for example, write ``do not'' instead of ``don't.'' The
serial comma is preferred: ``A, B, and C'' instead of ``A, B and C.''

If you wish, you may write in the first person singular or plural and use
the active voice (``I observed that $\ldots$'' or ``We observed that $\ldots$''
instead of ``It was observed that $\ldots$''). Remember to check spelling. If
your native language is not English, please get a native English-speaking
colleague to carefully proofread your paper.

Try not to use too many typefaces in the same article. You're writing
scholarly papers, not ransom notes. Also please remember that MathJax
can't handle really weird typefaces.

\subsection{Equations}
Number equations consecutively with equation numbers in parentheses flush
with the right margin, as in \eqref{eq}. To make your equations more
compact, you may use the solidus (~/~), the exp function, or appropriate
exponents. Use parentheses to avoid ambiguities in denominators. Punctuate
equations when they are part of a sentence, as in
\begin{equation}E=mc^2.\label{eq}\end{equation}

Be sure that the symbols in your equation have been defined before the
equation appears or immediately following. Italicize symbols ($T$ might refer
to temperature, but T is the unit tesla). Refer to ``\eqref{eq},'' not ``Eq. \eqref{eq}''
or ``equation \eqref{eq},'' except at the beginning of a sentence: ``Equation \eqref{eq}
is $\ldots$ .''

\subsection{\LaTeX-Specific Advice}

Please use ``soft'' (e.g., \verb|\eqref{Eq}|) cross references instead
of ``hard'' references (e.g., \verb|(1)|). That will make it possible
to combine sections, add equations, or change the order of figures or
citations without having to go through the file line by line.

Please don't use the \verb|{eqnarray}| equation environment. Use
\verb|{align}| or \verb|{IEEEeqnarray}| instead. The \verb|{eqnarray}|
environment leaves unsightly spaces around relation symbols.

Please note that the \verb|{subequations}| environment in {\LaTeX}
will increment the main equation counter even when there are no
equation numbers displayed. If you forget that, you might write an
article in which the equation numbers skip from (17) to (20), causing
the copy editors to wonder if you've discovered a new method of
counting.

{\BibTeX} does not work by magic. It doesn't get the bibliographic
data from thin air but from .bib files. If you use {\BibTeX} to produce a
bibliography you must send the .bib files.

{\LaTeX} can't read your mind. If you assign the same label to a
subsubsection and a table, you might find that Table I has been cross
referenced as Table IV-B3.

{\LaTeX} does not have precognitive abilities. If you put a
\verb|\label| command before the command that updates the counter it's
supposed to be using, the label will pick up the last counter to be
cross referenced instead. In particular, a \verb|\label| command
should not go before the caption of a figure or a table.

Do not use \verb|\nonumber| inside the \verb|{array}| environment. It
will not stop equation numbers inside \verb|{array}| (there won't be
any anyway) and it might stop a wanted equation number in the
surrounding equation.

If you are submitting your paper to a colorized journal, you can use
the following two lines at the start of the article to ensure its
appearance resembles the final copy:

\smallskip\noindent
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\verb+\+\texttt{documentclass[journal,twoside,web]\{ieeecolor\}}\\
\verb+\+\texttt{usepackage\{\textit{Journal\_Name}\}}
\end{tabular}
\end{small}

\section{Units}
Use either SI (MKS) or CGS as primary units. (SI units are strongly
encouraged.) English units may be used as secondary units (in parentheses).
This applies to papers in data storage. For example, write ``15
Gb/cm$^{2}$ (100 Gb/in$^{2})$.'' An exception is when
English units are used as identifiers in trade, such as ``3\textonehalf-in
disk drive.'' Avoid combining SI and CGS units, such as current in amperes
and magnetic field in oersteds. This often leads to confusion because
equations do not balance dimensionally. If you must use mixed units, clearly
state the units for each quantity in an equation.

The SI unit for magnetic field strength $H$ is A/m. However, if you wish to use
units of T, either refer to magnetic flux density $B$ or magnetic field
strength symbolized as $\mu _{0}H$. Use the center dot to separate
compound units, e.g., ``A$\cdot $m$^{2}$.''

\section{Some Common Mistakes}
The word ``data'' is plural, not singular. The subscript for the
permeability of vacuum $\mu _{0}$ is zero, not a lowercase letter
``o.'' The term for residual magnetization is ``remanence''; the adjective
is ``remanent''; do not write ``remnance'' or ``remnant.'' Use the word
``micrometer'' instead of ``micron.'' A graph within a graph is an
``inset,'' not an ``insert.'' The word ``alternatively'' is preferred to the
word ``alternately'' (unless you really mean something that alternates). Use
the word ``whereas'' instead of ``while'' (unless you are referring to
simultaneous events). Do not use the word ``essentially'' to mean
``approximately'' or ``effectively.'' Do not use the word ``issue'' as a
euphemism for ``problem.'' When compositions are not specified, separate
chemical symbols by en-dashes; for example, ``NiMn'' indicates the
intermetallic compound Ni$_{0.5}$Mn$_{0.5}$ whereas
``Ni--Mn'' indicates an alloy of some composition
Ni$_{x}$Mn$_{1-x}$.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.png}}
\caption{Magnetization as a function of applied field.
It is good practice to explain the significance of the figure in the caption.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

Be aware of the different meanings of the homophones ``affect'' (usually a
verb) and ``effect'' (usually a noun), ``complement'' and ``compliment,''
``discreet'' and ``discrete,'' ``principal'' (e.g., ``principal
investigator'') and ``principle'' (e.g., ``principle of measurement''). Do
not confuse ``imply'' and ``infer.''

Prefixes such as ``non,'' ``sub,'' ``micro,'' ``multi,'' and ``ultra'' are
not independent words; they should be joined to the words they modify,
usually without a hyphen. There is no period after the ``et'' in the Latin
abbreviation ``\emph{et al.}'' (it is also italicized). The abbreviation ``i.e.,'' means
``that is,'' and the abbreviation ``e.g.,'' means ``for example'' (these
abbreviations are not italicized).

A general IEEE styleguide is available at \underline{http://www.ieee.org/authortools}.

\section{Guidelines for Graphics Preparation and Submission}
\label{sec:guidelines}

\subsection{Types of Graphics}
The following list outlines the different types of graphics published in
IEEE journals. They are categorized based on their construction, and use of
color/shades of gray:

\subsubsection{Color/Grayscale figures}
{Figures that are meant to appear in color, or shades of black/gray. Such
figures may include photographs, illustrations, multicolor graphs, and
flowcharts.}

\subsubsection{Line Art figures}
{Figures that are composed of only black lines and shapes. These figures
should have no shades or half-tones of gray, only black and white.}

\subsubsection{Author photos}
{Head and shoulders shots of authors that appear at the end of our papers. }

\subsubsection{Tables}
{Data charts which are typically black and white, but sometimes include
color.}

\begin{table}
\caption{Units for Magnetic Properties}
\label{table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{|p{25pt}|p{75pt}|p{115pt}|}
\hline
Symbol&
Quantity&
Conversion from Gaussian and \par CGS EMU to SI $^{\mathrm{a}}$ \\
\hline
$\Phi $&
magnetic flux&
1 Mx $\to  10^{-8}$ Wb $= 10^{-8}$ V$\cdot $s \\
$B$&
magnetic flux density, \par magnetic induction&
1 G $\to  10^{-4}$ T $= 10^{-4}$ Wb/m$^{2}$ \\
$H$&
magnetic field strength&
1 Oe $\to  10^{3}/(4\pi )$ A/m \\
$m$&
magnetic moment&
1 erg/G $=$ 1 emu \par $\to 10^{-3}$ A$\cdot $m$^{2} = 10^{-3}$ J/T \\
$M$&
magnetization&
1 erg/(G$\cdot $cm$^{3}) =$ 1 emu/cm$^{3}$ \par $\to 10^{3}$ A/m \\
4$\pi M$&
magnetization&
1 G $\to  10^{3}/(4\pi )$ A/m \\
$\sigma $&
specific magnetization&
1 erg/(G$\cdot $g) $=$ 1 emu/g $\to $ 1 A$\cdot $m$^{2}$/kg \\
$j$&
magnetic dipole \par moment&
1 erg/G $=$ 1 emu \par $\to 4\pi \times  10^{-10}$ Wb$\cdot $m \\
$J$&
magnetic polarization&
1 erg/(G$\cdot $cm$^{3}) =$ 1 emu/cm$^{3}$ \par $\to 4\pi \times  10^{-4}$ T \\
$\chi , \kappa $&
susceptibility&
1 $\to  4\pi $ \\
$\chi_{\rho }$&
mass susceptibility&
1 cm$^{3}$/g $\to  4\pi \times  10^{-3}$ m$^{3}$/kg \\
$\mu $&
permeability&
1 $\to  4\pi \times  10^{-7}$ H/m \par $= 4\pi \times  10^{-7}$ Wb/(A$\cdot $m) \\
$\mu_{r}$&
relative permeability&
$\mu \to \mu_{r}$ \\
$w, W$&
energy density&
1 erg/cm$^{3} \to  10^{-1}$ J/m$^{3}$ \\
$N, D$&
demagnetizing factor&
1 $\to  1/(4\pi )$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{p{251pt}}{Vertical lines are optional in tables. Statements that serve as captions for
the entire table do not need footnote letters. }\\
\multicolumn{3}{p{251pt}}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$Gaussian units are the same as cg emu for magnetostatics; Mx
$=$ maxwell, G $=$ gauss, Oe $=$ oersted; Wb $=$ weber, V $=$ volt, s $=$
second, T $=$ tesla, m $=$ meter, A $=$ ampere, J $=$ joule, kg $=$
kilogram, H $=$ henry.}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}

\subsection{Multipart figures}
Figures compiled of more than one sub-figure presented side-by-side, or
stacked. If a multipart figure is made up of multiple figure
types (one part is lineart, and another is grayscale or color) the figure
should meet the stricter guidelines.

\subsection{File Formats For Graphics}\label{formats}
Format and save your graphics using a suitable graphics processing program
that will allow you to create the images as PostScript (PS), Encapsulated
PostScript (.EPS), Tagged Image File Format (.TIFF), Portable Document
Format (.PDF), Portable Network Graphics (.PNG), or Metapost (.MPS), sizes them, and adjusts
the resolution settings. When
submitting your final paper, your graphics should all be submitted
individually in one of these formats along with the manuscript.

\subsection{Sizing of Graphics}
Most charts, graphs, and tables are one column wide (3.5 inches/88
millimeters/21 picas) or page wide (7.16 inches/181 millimeters/43
picas). The maximum depth a graphic can be is 8.5 inches (216 millimeters/54
picas). When choosing the depth of a graphic, please allow space for a
caption. Figures can be sized between column and page widths if the author
chooses, however it is recommended that figures are not sized less than
column width unless when necessary.

There is currently one publication with column measurements that do not
coincide with those listed above. Proceedings of the IEEE has a column
measurement of 3.25 inches (82.5 millimeters/19.5 picas).

The final printed size of author photographs is exactly
1 inch wide by 1.25 inches tall (25.4 millimeters$\,\times\,$31.75 millimeters/6
picas$\,\times\,$7.5 picas). Author photos printed in editorials measure 1.59 inches
wide by 2 inches tall (40 millimeters$\,\times\,$50 millimeters/9.5 picas$\,\times\,$12
picas).

\subsection{Resolution }
The proper resolution of your figures will depend on the type of figure it
is as defined in the ``Types of Figures'' section. Author photographs,
color, and grayscale figures should be at least 300dpi. Line art, including
tables should be a minimum of 600dpi.

\subsection{Vector Art}
In order to preserve the figures' integrity across multiple computer
platforms, we accept files in the following formats: .EPS/.PDF/.PS. All
fonts must be embedded or text converted to outlines in order to achieve the
best-quality results.

\subsection{Color Space}
The term color space refers to the entire sum of colors that can be
represented within the said medium. For our purposes, the three main color
spaces are Grayscale, RGB (red/green/blue) and CMYK
(cyan/magenta/yellow/black). RGB is generally used with on-screen graphics,
whereas CMYK is used for printing purposes.

All color figures should be generated in RGB or CMYK color space. Grayscale
images should be submitted in Grayscale color space. Line art may be
provided in grayscale OR bitmap colorspace. Note that ``bitmap colorspace''
and ``bitmap file format'' are not the same thing. When bitmap color space
is selected, .TIF/.TIFF/.PNG are the recommended file formats.

\subsection{Accepted Fonts Within Figures}
When preparing your graphics IEEE suggests that you use of one of the
following Open Type fonts: Times New Roman, Helvetica, Arial, Cambria, and
Symbol. If you are supplying EPS, PS, or PDF files all fonts must be
embedded. Some fonts may only be native to your operating system; without
the fonts embedded, parts of the graphic may be distorted or missing.

A safe option when finalizing your figures is to strip out the fonts before
you save the files, creating ``outline'' type. This converts fonts to
artwork what will appear uniformly on any screen.

\subsection{Using Labels Within Figures}

\subsubsection{Figure Axis labels }
Figure axis labels are often a source of confusion. Use words rather than
symbols. As an example, write the quantity ``Magnetization,'' or
``Magnetization M,'' not just ``M.'' Put units in parentheses. Do not label
axes only with units. As in Fig. 1, for example, write ``Magnetization
(A/m)'' or ``Magnetization (A$\cdot$m$^{-1}$),'' not just ``A/m.'' Do not label axes with a ratio of quantities and
units. For example, write ``Temperature (K),'' not ``Temperature/K.''

Multipliers can be especially confusing. Write ``Magnetization (kA/m)'' or
``Magnetization (10$^{3}$ A/m).'' Do not write ``Magnetization
(A/m)$\,\times\,$1000'' because the reader would not know whether the top
axis label in Fig. 1 meant 16000 A/m or 0.016 A/m. Figure labels should be
legible, approximately 8 to 10 point type.

\subsubsection{Subfigure Labels in Multipart Figures and Tables}
Multipart figures should be combined and labeled before final submission.
Labels should appear centered below each subfigure in 8 point Times New
Roman font in the format of (a) (b) (c).

\subsection{File Naming}
Figures (line artwork or photographs) should be named starting with the
first 5 letters of the author's last name. The next characters in the
filename should be the number that represents the sequential
location of this image in your article. For example, in author
``Anderson's'' paper, the first three figures would be named ander1.tif,
ander2.tif, and ander3.ps.

Tables should contain only the body of the table (not the caption) and
should be named similarly to figures, except that `.t' is inserted
in-between the author's name and the table number. For example, author
Anderson's first three tables would be named ander.t1.tif, ander.t2.ps,
ander.t3.eps.

Author photographs should be named using the first five characters of the
pictured author's last name. For example, four author photographs for a
paper may be named: oppen.ps, moshc.tif, chen.eps, and duran.pdf.

If two authors or more have the same last name, their first initial(s) can
be substituted for the fifth, fourth, third$\ldots$ letters of their surname
until the degree where there is differentiation. For example, two authors
Michael and Monica Oppenheimer's photos would be named oppmi.tif, and
oppmo.eps.

\subsection{Referencing a Figure or Table Within Your Paper}
When referencing your figures and tables within your paper, use the
abbreviation ``Fig.'' even at the beginning of a sentence. Do not abbreviate
``Table.'' Tables should be numbered with Roman Numerals.

\subsection{Checking Your Figures: The IEEE Graphics Analyzer}
The IEEE Graphics Analyzer enables authors to pre-screen their graphics for
compliance with IEEE Transactions and Journals standards before submission.
The online tool, located at
\underline{http://graphicsqc.ieee.org/}, allows authors to
upload their graphics in order to check that each file is the correct file
format, resolution, size and colorspace; that no fonts are missing or
corrupt; that figures are not compiled in layers or have transparency, and
that they are named according to the IEEE Transactions and Journals naming
convention. At the end of this automated process, authors are provided with
a detailed report on each graphic within the web applet, as well as by
email.

For more information on using the Graphics Analyzer or any other graphics
related topic, contact the IEEE Graphics Help Desk by e-mail at
graphics@ieee.org.

\subsection{Submitting Your Graphics}
Because IEEE will do the final formatting of your paper,
you do not need to position figures and tables at the top and bottom of each
column. In fact, all figures, figure captions, and tables can be placed at
the end of your paper. In addition to, or even in lieu of submitting figures
within your final manuscript, figures should be submitted individually,
separate from the manuscript in one of the file formats listed above in
Section \ref{formats}. Place figure captions below the figures; place table titles
above the tables. Please do not include captions as part of the figures, or
put them in ``text boxes'' linked to the figures. Also, do not place borders
around the outside of your figures.

\subsection{Color Processing/Printing in IEEE Journals}
All IEEE Transactions, Journals, and Letters allow an author to publish
color figures on IEEE Xplore\textregistered\ at no charge, and automatically
convert them to grayscale for print versions. In most journals, figures and
tables may alternatively be printed in color if an author chooses to do so.
Please note that this service comes at an extra expense to the author. If
you intend to have print color graphics, include a note with your final
paper indicating which figures or tables you would like to be handled that
way, and stating that you are willing to pay the additional fee.

\section{Conclusion}
A conclusion section is not required. Although a conclusion may review the
main points of the paper, do not replicate the abstract as the conclusion. A
conclusion might elaborate on the importance of the work or suggest
applications and extensions.

\appendices

Appendixes, if needed, appear before the acknowledgment.

\section*{Acknowledgment}

The preferred spelling of the word ``acknowledgment'' in American English is
without an ``e'' after the ``g.'' Use the singular heading even if you have
many acknowledgments. Avoid expressions such as ``One of us (S.B.A.) would
like to thank $\ldots$ .'' Instead, write ``F. A. Author thanks $\ldots$ .'' In most
cases, sponsor and financial support acknowledgments are placed in the
unnumbered footnote on the first page, not here.

\section*{References and Footnotes}

\subsection{References}
References need not be cited in text. When they are, they appear on the
line, in square brackets, inside the punctuation. Multiple references are
each numbered with separate brackets. When citing a section in a book,
please give the relevant page numbers. In text, refer simply to the
reference number. Do not use ``Ref.'' or ``reference'' except at the
beginning of a sentence: ``Reference \cite{b3} shows $\ldots$ .'' Please do not use
automatic endnotes in \emph{Word}, rather, type the reference list at the end of the
paper using the ``References'' style.

Reference numbers are set flush left and form a column of their own, hanging
out beyond the body of the reference. The reference numbers are on the line,
enclosed in square brackets. In all references, the given name of the author
or editor is abbreviated to the initial only and precedes the last name. Use
them all; use \emph{et al.} only if names are not given. Use commas around Jr.,
Sr., and III in names. Abbreviate conference titles. When citing IEEE
transactions, provide the issue number, page range, volume number, year,
and/or month if available. When referencing a patent, provide the day and
the month of issue, or application. References may not include all
information; please obtain and include relevant information. Do not combine
references. There must be only one reference with each number. If there is a
URL included with the print reference, it can be included at the end of the
reference.

Other than books, capitalize only the first word in a paper title, except
for proper nouns and element symbols. For papers published in translation
journals, please give the English citation first, followed by the original
foreign-language citation See the end of this document for formats and
examples of common references. For a complete discussion of references and
their formats, see the IEEE style manual at
\underline{http://www.ieee.org/authortools}.

\subsection{Footnotes}
Number footnotes separately in superscript numbers.\footnote{It is recommended that footnotes be avoided (except for
the unnumbered footnote with the receipt date on the first page). Instead,
try to integrate the footnote information into the text.} Place the actual
footnote at the bottom of the column in which it is cited; do not put
footnotes in the reference list (endnotes). Use letters for table footnotes
(see Table \ref{table}).

\section{Submitting Your Paper for Review}

\subsection{Final Stage}
When you submit your final version (after your paper has been accepted),
print it in two-column format, including figures and tables. You must also
send your final manuscript on a disk, via e-mail, or through a Web
manuscript submission system as directed by the society contact. You may use
\emph{Zip} for large files, or compress files using \emph{Compress, Pkzip, Stuffit,} or \emph{Gzip.}

Also, send a sheet of paper or PDF with complete contact information for all
authors. Include full mailing addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and
e-mail addresses. This information will be used to send each author a
complimentary copy of the journal in which the paper appears. In addition,
designate one author as the ``corresponding author.'' This is the author to
whom proofs of the paper will be sent. Proofs are sent to the corresponding
author only.

\subsection{Review Stage Using ScholarOne\textregistered\ Manuscripts}
Contributions to the Transactions, Journals, and Letters may be submitted
electronically on IEEE's on-line manuscript submission and peer-review
system, ScholarOne\textregistered\ Manuscripts. You can get a listing of the
publications that participate in ScholarOne at
\underline{http://www.ieee.org/publications\_standards/publications/}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline{authors/authors\_submission.html}.
First check if you have an existing account. If there is none, please create
a new account. After logging in, go to your Author Center and click ``Submit
First Draft of a New Manuscript.''

Along with other information, you will be asked to select the subject from a
pull-down list. Depending on the journal, there are various steps to the
submission process; you must complete all steps for a complete submission.
At the end of each step you must click ``Save and Continue''; just uploading
the paper is not sufficient. After the last step, you should see a
confirmation that the submission is complete. You should also receive an
e-mail confirmation. For inquiries regarding the submission of your paper on
ScholarOne Manuscripts, please contact oprs-support@ieee.org or call +1 732
465 5861.

ScholarOne Manuscripts will accept files for review in various formats.
Please check the guidelines of the specific journal for which you plan to
submit.

You will be asked to file an electronic copyright form immediately upon
completing the submission process (authors are responsible for obtaining any
security clearances). Failure to submit the electronic copyright could
result in publishing delays later. You will also have the opportunity to
designate your article as ``open access'' if you agree to pay the IEEE open
access fee.

\subsection{Final Stage Using ScholarOne Manuscripts}
Upon acceptance, you will receive an email with specific instructions
regarding the submission of your final files. To avoid any delays in
publication, please be sure to follow these instructions. Most journals
require that final submissions be uploaded through ScholarOne Manuscripts,
although some may still accept final submissions via email. Final
submissions should include source files of your accepted manuscript, high
quality graphic files, and a formatted pdf file. If you have any questions
regarding the final submission process, please contact the administrative
contact for the journal.

In addition to this, upload a file with complete contact information for all
authors. Include full mailing addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and
e-mail addresses. Designate the author who submitted the manuscript on
ScholarOne Manuscripts as the ``corresponding author.'' This is the only
author to whom proofs of the paper will be sent.

\subsection{Copyright Form}
Authors must submit an electronic IEEE Copyright Form (eCF) upon submitting
their final manuscript files. You can access the eCF system through your
manuscript submission system or through the Author Gateway. You are
responsible for obtaining any necessary approvals and/or security
clearances. For additional information on intellectual property rights,
visit the IEEE Intellectual Property Rights department web page at
\underline{http://www.ieee.org/publications\_standards/publications/rights/}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline{index.html}.

\section{IEEE Publishing Policy}
The general IEEE policy requires that authors should only submit original
work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor is under
review for another refereed publication. The submitting author must disclose
all prior publication(s) and current submissions when submitting a
manuscript. Do not publish ``preliminary'' data or results. The submitting
author is responsible for obtaining agreement of all coauthors and any
consent required from employers or sponsors before submitting an article.
The IEEE Transactions and Journals Department strongly discourages courtesy
authorship; it is the obligation of the authors to cite only relevant prior
work.

The IEEE Transactions and Journals Department does not publish conference
records or proceedings, but can publish articles related to conferences that
have undergone rigorous peer review. Minimally, two reviews are required for
every article submitted for peer review.

\section{Publication Principles}
The two types of contents of that are published are; 1) peer-reviewed and 2)
archival. The Transactions and Journals Department publishes scholarly
articles of archival value as well as tutorial expositions and critical
reviews of classical subjects and topics of current interest.

Authors should consider the following points:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Technical papers submitted for publication must advance the state of knowledge and must cite relevant prior work.
\item The length of a submitted paper should be commensurate with the importance, or appropriate to the complexity, of the work. For example, an obvious extension of previously published work might not be appropriate for publication or might be adequately treated in just a few pages.
\item Authors must convince both peer reviewers and the editors of the scientific and technical merit of a paper; the standards of proof are higher when extraordinary or unexpected results are reported.
\item Because replication is required for scientific progress, papers submitted for publication must provide sufficient information to allow readers to perform similar experiments or calculations and
use the reported results. Although not everything need be disclosed, a paper
must contain new, useable, and fully described information. For example, a
specimen's chemical composition need not be reported if the main purpose of
a paper is to introduce a new measurement technique. Authors should expect
to be challenged by reviewers if the results are not supported by adequate
data and critical details.
\item Papers that describe ongoing work or announce the latest technical achievement, which are suitable for presentation at a professional conference, may not be appropriate for publication.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Reference Examples}

\begin{itemize}

\item \emph{Basic format for books:}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of chapter in the book,'' in \emph{Title of His Published Book, x}th ed. City of Publisher, (only U.S. State), Country: Abbrev. of Publisher, year, ch. $x$, sec. $x$, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx.}\\
See \cite{b1,b2}.

\item \emph{Basic format for periodicals:}\\
J. K. Author, ``Name of paper,'' \emph{Abbrev. Title of Periodical}, vol. \emph{x, no}. $x, $pp\emph{. xxx--xxx, }Abbrev. Month, year, DOI. 10.1109.\emph{XXX}.123456.\\
See \cite{b3}--\cite{b5}.

\item \emph{Basic format for reports:}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of report,'' Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev. State, Country, Rep. \emph{xxx}, year.\\
See \cite{b6,b7}.

\item \emph{Basic format for handbooks:}\\
\emph{Name of Manual/Handbook, x} ed., Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev. State, Country, year, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx.}\\
See \cite{b8,b9}.

\item \emph{Basic format for books (when available online):}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of chapter in the book,'' in \emph{Title of
Published Book}, $x$th ed. City of Publisher, State, Country: Abbrev.
of Publisher, year, ch. $x$, sec. $x$, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx}. [Online].
Available: \underline{http://www.web.com}\\
See \cite{b10}--\cite{b13}.

\item \emph{Basic format for journals (when available online):}\\
J. K. Author, ``Name of paper,'' \emph{Abbrev. Title of Periodical}, vol. $x$, no. $x$, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx}, Abbrev. Month, year. Accessed on: Month, Day, year, DOI: 10.1109.\emph{XXX}.123456, [Online].\\
See \cite{b14}--\cite{b16}.

\item \emph{Basic format for papers presented at conferences (when available online): }\\
J.K. Author. (year, month). Title. presented at abbrev. conference title. [Type of Medium]. Available: site/path/file\\
See \cite{b17}.

\item \emph{Basic format for reports and handbooks (when available online):}\\
J. K. Author. ``Title of report,'' Company. City, State, Country. Rep. no., (optional: vol./issue), Date. [Online] Available: site/path/file\\
See \cite{b18,b19}.

\item \emph{Basic format for computer programs and electronic documents (when available online): }\\
Legislative body. Number of Congress, Session. (year, month day). \emph{Number of bill or resolution}, \emph{Title}. [Type of medium]. Available: site/path/file\\
\textbf{\emph{NOTE: }ISO recommends that capitalization follow the accepted practice for the language or script in which the information is given.}\\
See \cite{b20}.

\item \emph{Basic format for patents (when available online):}\\
Name of the invention, by inventor's name. (year, month day). Patent Number [Type of medium]. Available: site/path/file\\
See \cite{b21}.

\item \emph{Basic format}\emph{for conference proceedings (published):}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' in \emph{Abbreviated Name of Conf.}, City of Conf., Abbrev. State (if given), Country, year, pp. \emph{xxxxxx.}\\
See \cite{b22}.

\item \emph{Example for papers presented at conferences (unpublished):}\\
See \cite{b23}.

\item \emph{Basic format for patents}$:$\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of patent,'' U.S. Patent \emph{x xxx xxx}, Abbrev. Month, day, year.\\
See \cite{b24}.

\item \emph{Basic format for theses (M.S.) and dissertations (Ph.D.):}
\begin{enumerate}
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of thesis,'' M.S. thesis, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of dissertation,'' Ph.D. dissertation, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.
\end{enumerate}
See \cite{b25,b26}.

\item \emph{Basic format for the most common types of unpublished references:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item J. K. Author, private communication, Abbrev. Month, year.
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' unpublished.
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' to be published.
\end{enumerate}
See \cite{b27}--\cite{b29}.

\item \emph{Basic formats for standards:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Title of Standard}, Standard number, date.
\item \emph{Title of Standard}, Standard number, Corporate author, location, date.
\end{enumerate}
See \cite{b30,b31}.

\item \emph{Article number in~reference examples:}\\
See \cite{b32,b33}.

\item \emph{Example when using et al.:}\\
See \cite{b34}.

\end{itemize}

\section{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis for Deterministic Systems}
\label{RACS}
In this section we focus our attention on solving the reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem for deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations.

\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{CBF}
In this section we give an introduction on the system and reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem of interest.

Consider an affine control system,
\begin{equation}
    \label{control_system}
    \dot{\bm{x}}=\bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u},
\end{equation}
with $\bm{f}$ and $\bm{g}$ locally Lipschitz, $\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\bm{u}\in \mathcal{U}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$ is the set of admissible control inputs.

Let $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ be a feedback controller such that the resulting system \eqref{control_system} is locally Lipschitz. Then for any initial condition $\bm{x}_0:=\bm{x}(0)\in \mathbb{R}^n$, there exists a maximum time interval $I(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u})=[0,\tau_{\max})$ such that $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\cdot): I(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u})\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ is the unique solution to system \eqref{control_system}, where $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(0)=\bm{x}_0$ and $\tau_{\max}$ is the explosion time with \[\lim_{t\rightarrow  \tau_{\max}}\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)=\infty. \]

Given a bounded open safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and a target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, the reach-avoid property with respect to them and associated reach-avoid controllers are formulated in Definition \ref{RAC}.

\begin{definition}[Reach-avoid Controllers]
\label{RAC}
Given a feedback controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$, the reach-avoid property with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is satisfied if, starting from any initial state in $\mathcal{C}$, system \eqref{control_system} with this controller will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually while staying inside $\mathcal{C}$ before the first target hitting time.  If $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is locally Lipschitz continuous, it is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
 \end{definition}

 Then, we formulate our  reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem.
 \begin{problem}[Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis]
 \label{problem1}
Given a feedback control $\bm{u}=\bm{k}(\bm{x})$ for the control system \eqref{control_system}, which may not be a reach-avoid controller, we wish to synthesize a reach-avoid controller in a minimally invasive fashion, i.e., modify the existing controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$ in a minimal way so as to guarantee satisfaction of the reach-avoid specification via solving the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
    \label{q_P0}
    \begin{split}
        &\bm{u}(\bm{x})=\arg\min \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| \\
        &s.t.~\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U} \text{~is a reach-avoid controller.}
     \end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{problem}

Besides, we impose the following assumptions on the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

\begin{assumption}
\label{assump}
The safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $\mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>0\}$,
    \item $\overline{\mathcal{C}}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n \mid  h(\bm{x})\geq 0\}$,
    \item $\partial \mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})=0\}$,
\end{enumerate}
where $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuously differentiable function, and
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $\mathcal{C}$ has no isolated point,
\item $\mathcal{C}\cap \mathcal{X}_r$ is not empty and has no isolated point.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}

Although this work studies the reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem, the proposed methods can also be directly extended to the synthesis of controllers enforcing safety and stability as in \cite{ames2016control}, with the assumption that the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is a region of attraction.

\begin{remark}
In this paper we focus our attention on the assumption that the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ is open. Some of our methods proposed in this paper also work with a compact set $\mathcal{C}$. We will remark this extension in an appropriate place in the sequel.
\end{remark}

\section{Appendix}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}:}

\begin{proof}
Constraint \eqref{exponential_control} implies
\[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))\geq e^{\lambda t}h(\bm{x}_0)>0\]
if $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau)\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ for $\tau\in [0,t]$, where $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$. Therefore, trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot touch the boundary  $\partial \mathcal{C}$ and thus cannot leave $\mathcal{C}$ before entering the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.  Due to the fact that $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is compact and the function $h(\bm{x})$ is continuously differentiable, we have that trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot stay inside $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time and thus they will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually. Consequently, $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$  is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Proposition \ref{deltadayu0_ex}:}
\begin{proof}
The conclusion with $\delta=0$ follows from Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}.

For the case that $\delta>0$, let $h'(\bm{x})=h(\bm{x})-\frac{\delta}{\lambda}$. Thus, we have that \[\mathcal{L}_{h',\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h'(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{D}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\]
Thus, as argued in Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{asymp_control}:}

\begin{proof}
The constraint $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ implies
\[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))\geq h(\bm{x}_0)>0\]
if $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau)\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ for $\tau\in [0,t]$, where $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$. Therefore, trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot touch the boundary  $\partial \mathcal{C}$ and thus cannot leave  $\mathcal{C}$ before entering the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

Also, \[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}\] implies that
\[w(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))-w(\bm{x}_0)\geq \int_{0}^{t}h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau))d\tau\geq h(\bm{x}_0)t\]
if $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau)\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ for $\tau\in [0,t]$. Due to the fact that $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is compact and the function $w(\bm{x})$ is continuously differentiable, we have that trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot stay inside $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time and thus they will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually. Thus,  $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Proposition \ref{deltada0}:}

\begin{proof}
Let $h'(\bm{x})=h(\bm{x})-\delta^*$. Following the arguments in Theorem \ref{asymp_control}, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{improved}:}

\begin{proof}
Firstly, we show that trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}$ cannot leave $\mathcal{C}$ if they do not enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

Assume that this is not true, that is, there exists a trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ starting from $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$, which will touch the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$ and stay inside the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ before touching the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$.  Since if $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{D}$,  the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ will enter the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D}$ before touching the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$. Therefore, we just consider $\bm{x}_0 \in \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D}$. Assume that the first time instant of touching the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$ is $\tau>0$. Consequently, \[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau))=0\] and  \[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))>0\] for $t\in [0,\tau)$. However, $h(\bm{x}_0)>0$. This contradicts the first condition, i.e., \[\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}) \geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r },\] in constraint \eqref{improve_control_c}, which implies that $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau))\geq e^{-\beta \tau} h(\bm{x}_0)>0$. Thus, trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}$ will stay inside $\mathcal{C}$ for all the time if they do not enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

 Assume that there exists a trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$, which stays inside $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time. Since
\[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})> 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}\]
and the set $\overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ is compact,  we have that there exists $\delta>0$ such that
\[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\]
Consequently,
\[w(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))-w(\bm{x}_0) \geq \delta t, \forall t\in [0,+\infty)\]
and thus \[w(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))\geq t\delta +w(\bm{x}_0), \forall t\in [0,\infty),\] which contradicts that $w(\bm{x})$ is bounded over the compact set $\mathcal{C}$ since $w(\bm{x})$ is continuously differentiable.

In summary, the conclusion holds.
 \end{proof}

 \textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{exponential_s}:}

 \begin{proof}
Assume that $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$.  According to Lemma 1 in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
    &\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\bigwedge \forall \tau\in [0,t]. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau) \in \mathcal{C}\})\\
    &=\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\}).
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
Consequently, we just need to show that
\[\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\})\geq h(\bm{x}_0).\]

From constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e} and Theorem \ref{dyn_theom}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{leq}
h(\bm{x}_0)\leq \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))], \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}.
\end{equation}
Also, due to the fact that $h(\bm{x})\leq 1$ for $\bm{x}\in \mathcal{X}_r$,  constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e} indicates that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\alpha h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))\leq \alpha 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))+\mathcal{L}_{\bm{h},\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
holds for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ and $\bm{w}\in \Omega$.
Thus, we have that  for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\alpha \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d \tau]&\leq \alpha \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]\\
&+ \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)) d\tau]
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and thus
\[
\begin{split}
&\alpha \int_{0}^t \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))]d \tau
\\
&\leq \alpha\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]+ \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}
\]

Combining with \eqref{leq} we further have that
\[
\begin{split}
\alpha h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \alpha\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \frac{\mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0)}{t} , \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}
\end{split}
\]
and thus
\begin{equation}
\label{ineqa11}
\begin{split}
\alpha h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \alpha\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0)}{t}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Since $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0)}{t}=0$ (from the compactness of the set $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$),  we have
\[
\begin{split}
&\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \mathcal{X}_r\})\\
&=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\geq h(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}
\] Consequently, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Proposition \ref{s_e}:}

\begin{proof}
The conclusion can be justified by following the proof of Theorem  \ref{exponential_s} with $h(\bm{x})=h'(\bm{x})$.

\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{asymp_s}:}

\begin{proof}
The conclusion can be assured by following arguments in Theorem \ref{exponential_s} with small modifications.

Assume that $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$.  According to Lemma 1 in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
    &\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega \mid \exists t\geq 0. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\bigwedge \forall \tau\in [0,t]. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau) \in \mathcal{C}\})\\
    &=\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\}).
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
Consequently, we just need to show that
\[\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\})\geq h(\bm{x}_0).\]

From constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e_a} and Lemma 3 in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{leq_a}
h(\bm{x}_0)\leq \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))], \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}.
\end{equation}
Also, constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e_a} indicates that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))\leq 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))+\mathcal{L}_{\bm{w},\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
holds for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ and $\bm{w}\in \Omega$.
Thus, we have that  for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d \tau]&\leq \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]\\
&+ \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)) d\tau]
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and thus
\[
\begin{split}
&\int_{0}^t \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))]d \tau
\\
&\leq \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]+ \mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}
\]

Combining with \eqref{leq_a} we further have that
\[
\begin{split}
h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \frac{\mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0)}{t} , \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}
\end{split}
\]
and thus
\begin{equation}
\label{ineqa11_a}
\begin{split}
h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0)}{t}, \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Since $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0)}{t}=0$,  we have
\[
\begin{split}
&\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \mathcal{X}_r\})\\
&=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\geq h(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}\] Consequently, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\section{Appendix}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}:}

\begin{proof}
Constraint \eqref{exponential_control} implies
\[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))\geq e^{\lambda t}h(\bm{x}_0)>0\]
if $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau)\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ for $\tau\in [0,t]$, where $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$. Therefore, trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot touch the boundary  $\partial \mathcal{C}$ and thus cannot leave $\mathcal{C}$ before entering the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.  Due to the fact that $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is compact and the function $h(\bm{x})$ is continuously differentiable, we have that trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot stay inside $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time and thus they will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually. Consequently, $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$  is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Proposition \ref{deltadayu0_ex}:}
\begin{proof}
The conclusion with $\delta=0$ follows from Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}.

For the case that $\delta>0$, let $h'(\bm{x})=h(\bm{x})-\frac{\delta}{\lambda}$. Thus, we have that \[\mathcal{L}_{h',\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h'(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{D}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\]
Thus, as argued in Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{asymp_control}:}

\begin{proof}
The constraint $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ implies
\[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))\geq h(\bm{x}_0)>0\]
if $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau)\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ for $\tau\in [0,t]$, where $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$. Therefore, trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot touch the boundary  $\partial \mathcal{C}$ and thus cannot leave  $\mathcal{C}$ before entering the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

Also, \[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}\] implies that
\[w(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))-w(\bm{x}_0)\geq \int_{0}^{t}h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau))d\tau\geq h(\bm{x}_0)t\]
if $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau)\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ for $\tau\in [0,t]$. Due to the fact that $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is compact and the function $w(\bm{x})$ is continuously differentiable, we have that trajectories starting from the set $\mathcal{C}$ cannot stay inside $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time and thus they will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually. Thus,  $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Proposition \ref{deltada0}:}

\begin{proof}
Let $h'(\bm{x})=h(\bm{x})-\delta^*$. Following the arguments in Theorem \ref{asymp_control}, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{improved}:}

\begin{proof}
Firstly, we show that trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}$ cannot leave $\mathcal{C}$ if they do not enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

Assume that this is not true, that is, there exists a trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ starting from $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$, which will touch the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$ and stay inside the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ before touching the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$.  Since if $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{D}$,  the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ will enter the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D}$ before touching the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$. Therefore, we just consider $\bm{x}_0 \in \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D}$. Assume that the first time instant of touching the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$ is $\tau>0$. Consequently, \[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau))=0\] and  \[h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))>0\] for $t\in [0,\tau)$. However, $h(\bm{x}_0)>0$. This contradicts the first condition, i.e., \[\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}) \geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r },\] in constraint \eqref{improve_control_c}, which implies that $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\tau))\geq e^{-\beta \tau} h(\bm{x}_0)>0$. Thus, trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}$ will stay inside $\mathcal{C}$ for all the time if they do not enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

 Assume that there exists a trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$, which stays inside $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time. Since
\[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})> 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}\]
and the set $\overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ is compact,  we have that there exists $\delta>0$ such that
\[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\]
Consequently,
\[w(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))-w(\bm{x}_0) \geq \delta t, \forall t\in [0,+\infty)\]
and thus \[w(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))\geq t\delta +w(\bm{x}_0), \forall t\in [0,\infty),\] which contradicts that $w(\bm{x})$ is bounded over the compact set $\mathcal{C}$ since $w(\bm{x})$ is continuously differentiable.

In summary, the conclusion holds.
 \end{proof}

 \textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{exponential_s}:}

 \begin{proof}
Assume that $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$.  According to Lemma 1 in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
    &\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\bigwedge \forall \tau\in [0,t]. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau) \in \mathcal{C}\})\\
    &=\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\}).
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
Consequently, we just need to show that
\[\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\})\geq h(\bm{x}_0).\]

From constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e} and Theorem \ref{dyn_theom}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{leq}
h(\bm{x}_0)\leq \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))], \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}.
\end{equation}
Also, due to the fact that $h(\bm{x})\leq 1$ for $\bm{x}\in \mathcal{X}_r$,  constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e} indicates that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\alpha h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))\leq \alpha 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))+\mathcal{L}_{\bm{h},\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
holds for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ and $\bm{w}\in \Omega$.
Thus, we have that  for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\alpha \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d \tau]&\leq \alpha \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]\\
&+ \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)) d\tau]
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and thus
\[
\begin{split}
&\alpha \int_{0}^t \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))]d \tau
\\
&\leq \alpha\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]+ \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}
\]

Combining with \eqref{leq} we further have that
\[
\begin{split}
\alpha h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \alpha\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \frac{\mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0)}{t} , \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}
\end{split}
\]
and thus
\begin{equation}
\label{ineqa11}
\begin{split}
\alpha h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \alpha\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0)}{t}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Since $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-h(\bm{x}_0)}{t}=0$ (from the compactness of the set $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$),  we have
\[
\begin{split}
&\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \mathcal{X}_r\})\\
&=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\geq h(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}
\] Consequently, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Proposition \ref{s_e}:}

\begin{proof}
The conclusion can be justified by following the proof of Theorem  \ref{exponential_s} with $h(\bm{x})=h'(\bm{x})$.

\end{proof}

\textbf{The proof of Theorem \ref{asymp_s}:}

\begin{proof}
The conclusion can be assured by following arguments in Theorem \ref{exponential_s} with small modifications.

Assume that $\bm{x}_0\in \mathcal{C}$.  According to Lemma 1 in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic},
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
    &\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega \mid \exists t\geq 0. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\bigwedge \forall \tau\in [0,t]. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau) \in \mathcal{C}\})\\
    &=\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\}).
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
Consequently, we just need to show that
\[\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\})\geq h(\bm{x}_0).\]

From constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e_a} and Lemma 3 in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic}, we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{leq_a}
h(\bm{x}_0)\leq \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))], \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}.
\end{equation}
Also, constraint \eqref{stochastic_c_e_a} indicates that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
 h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))\leq 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))+\mathcal{L}_{\bm{w},\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
holds for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ and $\bm{w}\in \Omega$.
Thus, we have that  for $t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d \tau]&\leq \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]\\
&+ \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)) d\tau]
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
and thus
\[
\begin{split}
&\int_{0}^t \mathbb{E}[h(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))]d \tau
\\
&\leq \mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]+ \mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}
\]

Combining with \eqref{leq_a} we further have that
\[
\begin{split}
h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \frac{\mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0)}{t} , \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}
\end{split}
\]
and thus
\begin{equation}
\label{ineqa11_a}
\begin{split}
h(\bm{x}_0)&\leq \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\\
&+ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0)}{t}, \forall t\in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Since $ \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[w(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-w(\bm{x}_0)}{t}=0$,  we have
\[
\begin{split}
&\mathbb{P}(\{\bm{w}\in \Omega\mid \exists t\geq 0. \widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \mathcal{X}_r\})\\
&=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\frac{\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^t 1_{\mathcal{X}_r}(\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))d\tau]}{t}\geq h(\bm{x}_0).
\end{split}\] Consequently, we have the conclusion.
\end{proof}

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we investigated the problem of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations and stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations, based on the notion of control guidance-barrier functions. Several control guidance-barrier functions were respectively proposed for deterministic and stochastic systems to synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.  Finally, four numerical examples demonstrated the theoretical developments of proposed methodologies.

Several factors may cause safety and reachability violations of the plant even when the Lipschitz reach-avoid controller is gained in practice. One challenge is raised by the digital/discrete implementation of a continuous-time system with continuous inputs. In a practical implementation, the system state is only observable at each sampling time, and the control signal is applied in a zero-order hold manner during each sampling period. That is, the system is implemented as a sampled-data system \cite{ghaffari2018safety}.  In future work, we would like to investigate the problem of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for sampled-data detereminstic and stochastic systems based on control guidance-barrier functions in this paper.

\subsection{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis}
\label{OTRACS}
In this section we elucidate our methods on synthesizing reach-avoid controllers by solving optimization \eqref{q_P0}. The methods are built upon three control (i.e., exponential, asymptotic and lax) guidance-barrier functions.

\subsubsection{Exponential Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
\label{egbf}
In this subsection we introduce exponential control guidance-barrier functions for the synthesis of reach-avoid controllers. This function is derived from the exponential guidance-barrier function in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification}.

\begin{definition}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and tareget set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an exponential control guidance-barrier function if there exists $\lambda>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}}\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \lambda h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})=\bigtriangledown_{\bm{x}}h(\bm{x})\cdot \bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bigtriangledown_{\bm{x}} h(\bm{x})\cdot \bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u}(\bm{x})$. $\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{definition}

The exponential control guidance-barrier function will facilitate the construction of constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers, which are formulated in Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{exponential_control_pro}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$  satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, if the function $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an exponential control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz continuous controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ such that $\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{K}_e(\bm{x})$  is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\[
\mathcal{K}_e(\bm{x})=\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}\mid \text{constraint}~\eqref{exponential_control}~\text{holds}\}
\]
with
\begin{equation}
\label{exponential_control}
\begin{cases}
    \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
    \lambda>0.
    \end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
\label{remark1}
When the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ is compact, i.e., $\mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n \mid h(\bm{x})\geq 0\}$, a slight modification to constraint \eqref{exponential_control} is to replace  the `greater than or equal to sign' with the `greater sign' in the first condition $ \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
  \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda>0$. This modification is to enforce the reachability objective for states on the boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$.   $\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
\label{smaller}
    It is observed that the smaller $\lambda$ is, the weaker constraint \eqref{exponential_control} is. However, $\lambda$ cannot be zero.
It is also observed that an exponential control guidance-barrier function complements a zeroing control barrier function satisfying \[
\begin{cases}
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}}\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \lambda h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}},\\
&\lambda<0.
\end{cases}\]
Such a zeroing control barrier function facilitates the design of controllers only for enforcing safety.
\end{remark}

 The set $\mathcal{K}_e$ is convex, thus a direct computation of a locally Lipschitz continuous feedback controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraint \eqref{exponential_control} using convex optimization is possible. Based on the exponential guidance-barrier function $h(\bm{x})$ and Theorem \ref{exponential_control_pro},  Problem \ref{problem1} could be addressed via solving the following  program \eqref{qu}.
\begin{equation}
\label{qu}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\lambda,\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\lambda h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
&\delta\geq 0;\\
&\lambda\geq \xi_0,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, $\xi_0$ is a user-defined positive value which is to enforce the strict positivity of $\lambda$, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes safety/reachability violations.  As commented in Remark \ref{smaller}, the smaller $\xi_0$ is, the weaker the constraint in \eqref{qu} is.  However, $\xi_0$ cannot be zero. Thus, in numerical computations, we do not recommend the use of too small $\xi_0$ due to numerical errors. The optimization is not sensitive to the $c$ value as long as it is very large (e.g., $10^{12}$), such that the constraint
violations are heavily penalized. When $\delta>0$, it provides graceful degradation  when the reach-avoid objective cannot be enforced.  Via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, we have the following conclusion.
\begin{proposition}
\label{deltadayu0_ex}
        Suppose $(\bm{u}_0(\bm{x}),\lambda,\delta)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{qu}, and $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is locally Lipschitz continuous,
        \begin{enumerate}
            \item If $\delta=0$, $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
            \item If $\delta>0$ and $\mathcal{D}\cap \mathcal{X}_r\neq \emptyset$, where $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\mid h(\bm{x})>\frac{\delta}{\lambda}\}$,  $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is the reach-avoid controller with respect to the set $\mathcal{D}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
        \end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

If $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_e(\bm{x})$, it will drive system \eqref{control_system} to enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ at an exponential rate of $\lambda$. Besides, it requires $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))$ to be strictly monotonically increasing with respect to $t$ before the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$. Thus, if there exists $\bm{y}\in \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ such that $h(\bm{y})\geq \sup_{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{X}_r}h(\bm{x})$, we cannot obtain a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ via solving \eqref{qu}.
Therefore,  solving \eqref{qu} may either obtain a pessimistic reach-avoid controller or lead to $\delta>0$. In the following we will  obtain a new optimization with a set of weaker constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.

\subsubsection{Asymptotic Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
\label{ACGBF}
In this subsection we introduce asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions for the synthesis of reach-avoid controllers. The asymptotic control guidance-barrier function is derived from the asymptotic guidance-barrier function in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification}, which corresponds to the case that $\lambda=0$ in constraint \eqref{exponential_control}.

\begin{definition}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, then $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, if there exists a continuously differentiable function $w(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
    \begin{split}
\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \min\big\{ \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}), \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\big\}\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.  \hfill\blacksquare
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}

The asymptotic control guidance-barrier function also facilitates the construction of constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers, which are formulated in Theorem \ref{asymp_control}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{asymp_control}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfying Assumption \ref{assump}, if the function $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz continuous controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ such that $\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{K}_a(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}_a(\bm{x})=\left\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U} \middle|\; \text{constraint}~\eqref{control_g_b_f}~\text{holds}
\right
\}
\end{equation*}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{control_g_b_f}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

According to Theorem \ref{asymp_control}, Problem \ref{problem1} could be addressed via solving the following optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}:
\begin{equation}
\label{qua_asym0}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},w(\bm{x}),\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,   \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\delta\geq 0,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown paramteres, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes reachability violations.

Via comparing constraints \eqref{control_g_b_f} and \eqref{exponential_control}, it is easy to observe that constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} is more expressive and thus admits more feasible feedback controllers, since constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} will be reduced to \eqref{exponential_control} when $w(\bm{x})=\frac{h(\bm{x})}{\lambda}$. Consequently, it is more likely to either obtain a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, or improve the obtained  reach-avoid controller when using constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} for computations and thus lead to smaller $\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$. Besides, comapred to exponential control guidance-barrier functions, a reach-avoid controller generated by  an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function requires $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))$ to be monotonically non-decreasing with respect to $t$ rather than strictly monotonically increasing before the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, thereby diversifying the application scenarios. However, the synthesis of a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ via solving constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} is a nonlinear problem due to the existence of the term $\bigtriangledown_{\bm{x}}w(\bm{x})\cdot g(\bm{x})\bm{u}$. We can adopt an iterative algorithm to solve optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} by decomposing it into two convex sub-problems based on two cases, which correspond to whether a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is obtained via solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} or not.

The iterative algorithm for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} is elucidated in the following.

\textbf{Case 1: a reach-avoid controller is returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, that is, $\delta=0$ in \eqref{qu}.}
According to the comparison between constraints \eqref{control_g_b_f} and \eqref{exponential_control} above, a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ from optimization \eqref{qu} is also a solution to optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}. Consequently, we can adopt the iterative algorithm in Alg. \ref{alg_0} to solve optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} for improving the controller $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$.

\begin{algorithm}
\caption{An iterative procedure for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} when a reach-avoid controller is returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}.}
 Let $\bm{u}_0(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ be computed via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, and
$\epsilon'>0$ be a specified  threshold.
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $\xi_0:=\|\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| $;
\STATE $i:=0$;
\WHILE{TRUE}
    \STATE compute $w_i^*(\bm{x})$ such that
    \[ \mathcal{L}_{w_i,\bm{u}_i}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\]
    \STATE solve the following program to obtain $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$:
    \begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w_i^*,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};
        \end{split}
\end{equation*}
    \IF{$\xi_{i+1}-\xi_i\leq -\epsilon'$, where $\xi_{i+1}=\|\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$}
    \STATE  $i:=i+1$;
    \ELSE
    \STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
    \ENDIF
    \ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg_0}
\end{algorithm}

\textbf{Case 2: a reach-avoid controller is not returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, that is, $\delta>0$ in \eqref{qu}.}
When a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is not computed via solving optimization \eqref{qu}, one reason leading to this failure is due to the strictness of constraint \eqref{exponential_control} and the other one is the potential conflict between reachability and safety. At all events,  in safety-critical systems the safety has the highest priority.

One of advantages of constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} over \eqref{exponential_control} lies in its ability of characterizing safety and reachability separately. The condition
\begin{equation}
\label{asymp_safety}
\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}
\end{equation}
ensures safety, i.e., trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ will either stay inside the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ for all the time or enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually while staying inside the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ before the first target hitting time.  We term the Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraint \eqref{asymp_safety} a safe controller.
On the other hand, the condition
\begin{equation}
\label{asymp_performance}
    \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0,\forall \bm{x}\in \overline{ \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}
\end{equation}
ensures reachability, i.e., trajectories starting from $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ will eventually enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.  It is worth remarking that a function $w(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraint \eqref{asymp_performance} is not a Lyapunov function as in \cite{ames2016control} since the function $w(\bm{x})$ itself is not required to be sign definite.

Constraint \eqref{asymp_safety} is convex, i.e., the set of controllers satisfying constraint \eqref{asymp_safety} is convex. Therefore, we first synthesize a safe controller to ensure safety of system \eqref{control_system} via solving the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
\label{step_1}
\begin{split}
        &\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})=\arg\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|\\
s.t.&~\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}

After computing a safe controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$,  we then solve the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
\label{step_2}
\begin{split}
        &(w^*(\bm{x}),\delta^*)=\arg\min_{w(\bm{x}),\delta} \delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}^*}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
&\delta\geq 0.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}

If $\delta^*=0$, the controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller  with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.  Otherwise,  the controller $\bm{u}^{*}(\bm{x})$ degrades the reachability proformance.
\begin{proposition}
\label{deltada0}
Suppose $\delta^*\in [0,\infty)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{step_2}. If the set $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>\delta^*\}$ has nonempty intersection with the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, the controller $\bm{u}^{*}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
\label{zeroing_relax}
Like zeroing control barrier functions in \cite{ames2016control}, a relaxation of the first condition, i.e., $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, in constraint  \eqref{control_g_b_f} is
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\beta>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
In such circumstances, we have to intensify the second condition, i.e., $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, in constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} using \[\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\] Consequently, a set of new constraints, which can replace the set of constraints \eqref{control_g_b_f}, is given below:
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\beta>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Further, since $h(\bm{x})\geq 0$ for $\bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, the above constraints can be weakened by
\begin{equation}
\label{zeroing_barrer}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}, \\
&\beta>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
However, if we replace  the constraint in \eqref{step_1} with
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
\beta>0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
 to obtain a safe controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$,  we cannot obtain a conclusion as in Proposition \ref{deltada0} via solving \eqref{step_2} with constraints $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}^*}(\bm{x})>-\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ and $\delta\geq 0$ when $\delta^*>0$.  $\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{remark}

If $\delta^*>0$, we  proceed to obtain a new  controller $\bm{u}^{**(}\bm{x})$ and a smaller $\delta^{**}$ via solving optimization \eqref{q_P_r} with $w^*(\bm{x})$.

\begin{equation}
    \label{q_P_r}
     \begin{split}
        &(\bm{u}^{**}(\bm{x}),\delta^{**})=\arg\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\|\delta\|\\
        s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w^*,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta,  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\delta\geq 0.
     \end{split}
     \end{equation}
     where $c$ is a large constant that penalizes reachability violations, similar to the one in optimization \eqref{qu}.

Repeating the above procedure leads to an iterative algorithm for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}, which is summarized in Alg. \ref{alg_1}. When $\delta=0$, a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_a(\bm{x})$ is generated successfully.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{An iterative procedure for solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} when a reach-avoid controller is not returned via solving optimization \eqref{qu}.}
Let $\epsilon', \epsilon^*>0$  be specified thresholds.
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $i:=0$;
\STATE solve optimization \eqref{step_1} to obtain a safe controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$;
\WHILE{TRUE}
\STATE compute $(w_i(\bm{x}),\delta_i)$ via solving optimization \eqref{step_2} with $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$;
\STATE compute $(\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x}),\delta_{i+1})$  via solving  \eqref{q_P_r} with $w_i(\bm{x})$;
\IF {$\delta_i=\delta_{i+1}=0$}
\IF{$\xi_{i+1}-\xi_i \leq -\epsilon'$, where $\xi_{i+1}=\|\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ELSE
\IF{$\delta_{i+1}-\delta_i\leq -\epsilon^{*}$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg_1}
\end{algorithm}

Although constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f} is weaker than  \eqref{exponential_control}, it is still strict in practical applications. The condition $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$  not only ensures invariance of the set $\overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, but also enforces invariance of every positive sublevel set of the asymptotic control guidance-barrier function (if trajectories do not enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$). This is overly conservative.  Thus, solving optimization \eqref{qua_asym0} may lead to either a failure in synthesizing a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$,  corresponding to $\delta>0$,  or a pessimistic feedback controller, i.e., $\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$ is large.

\subsubsection{Lax Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
\label{IMCGBF}
In this subsection we will further relax constraints in asymptotic guidance-barrier functions and obtain less restrictive ones, expanding the space of reach-avoid controllers.  The construction of new constraints is based on a tightened set $\mathcal{D}$, which is a subset of the safe set $\mathcal{C}$.

The tightened set $\mathcal{D}$ can be any subset of the set $\mathcal{C}$ satisfying the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $\mathcal{D}\subseteq \mathcal{C}$;
    \item $\partial \mathcal{D}\cap \partial \mathcal{C}=\emptyset$;
    \item $\mathcal{D}\cap \mathcal{X}_r\neq \emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
 In this paper we take $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h'(\bm{x})\geq 0\}$, where $h'(\bm{x})=h(\bm{x})-\epsilon_0$ with $\epsilon_0>0$. It is observed that $\epsilon_0$ can be an arbitrary positive value, and $\lim_{\epsilon_0\rightarrow 0^{+}}\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{C}$.

Based on the set $\mathcal{D}$, we define a lax control guidance-barrier function.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$  satisfy Assumption \ref{assump}  and $\mathcal{D}$ be the tightened set, then $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called a lax control guidance-barrier function, if there exist a continuously differentiable function $w(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $\beta \geq 0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{control_g_b_f_c_new}
\begin{cases}
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}) \geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x} \in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

\begin{theorem}
\label{improved}
Let $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$  and $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfy Assumption \ref{assump}  and $\mathcal{D}$ be a tightened set defined above, if $h(\bm{x})$ is a lax control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz continuous controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ satisfying $\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{K}_l(\bm{x})$  is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{K}_l(\bm{x})=\left\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U} \middle|\;
\text{constraint}~\eqref{improve_control_c}~\text{holds}
\right
\}.
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{improve_control_c}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}) \geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r },\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\beta\geq 0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

 \begin{remark}
 Constraint \eqref{improve_control_c} also applies to the case that the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ is compact.  $\hfill\blacksquare$
 \end{remark}

In constraint \eqref{improve_control_c}, when $\beta=0$, the condition $
\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ ensures invariance of the set $\overline{\mathcal{D}'\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ until system \eqref{control_system} enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where $\mathcal{D}'=\{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}\mid h(\bm{x})\leq \epsilon_1\}$ with $\epsilon_1\leq \epsilon_0$. It does not ensure invariance of the set $\{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}\mid h(\bm{x})\geq \epsilon_1\}$ with $\epsilon_1>\epsilon_0$, and thus it is weaker than the condition $\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$
in constraint \eqref{control_g_b_f}. However, when $\beta>0$, we can just ensure invariance of the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$ until system \eqref{control_system} enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$. However, since $h(\bm{x})\geq 0$ for $\bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$, we cannot conclude that if $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{ \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ holds, $\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}$ holds. It is worth remarking here that constraint \eqref{improve_control_c} is weaker than \eqref{zeroing_barrer}. Furthermore, compared to exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions, a reach-avoid controller generated by a lax one does not require $h(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t))$ to be monotonically increasing with respect to $t$ before the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)$ enters the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, thereby diversifying the application scenarios further.

\begin{example}
Consider  a simple system:
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\dot{x}=-x+0.3,\\
&\dot{y}=-y+u_1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid (x-0.3)^2+y^2-0.01 < 0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{u_1\mid -0.1\leq u_1\leq 0.1\}$.

Since $h(0,0)=1$ and $h(x,y)=1-x^2-y^2<1$  for $(x,y)^{\top}\in \mathcal{X}_r$, we cannot obtain a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ with exponential and asymptotic guidance-barrier functions. However, we can obtain a reach-avoid controller $u_1=0$ with lax guidance-barrier functions.   $h(x,y)$ is a lax guidance-barrier function satisfying \eqref{improve_control_c} with $\beta=2$, $w(x,y)=-(x-0.3)^2-y^2$, $\mathcal{D}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 0.99-x^2-y^2\geq 0\}$, and $u_1=0$.
$\hfill\blacksquare$
\end{example}

 According to Proposition \ref{improved}, Problem \ref{problem1} can be transformed into the following optimization \eqref{q_P_i}
\begin{equation}
\label{q_P_i}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},w(\bm{x},)\delta,\beta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| +c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus\mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})>-\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{ \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\delta\geq 0,\\
        &\beta\geq 0,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes reachability violations.

Similar to optimization \eqref{qua_asym0}, optimization \eqref{q_P_i} is also nonlinear. Thus, we also decompose it into two convex sub-problems and solve it using an iterative algorithm, which is described in Alg. \ref{alg_2}.

\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{An iterative procedure for solving optimization \eqref{q_P_i}.}
Let $\epsilon', \epsilon^*>0$ be specified thresholds.
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE $i:=0$;
\IF{a Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is  computed via solving optimization  \eqref{qua_asym0}}
\STATE $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x}):=\bm{u}(\bm{x})$;
\ELSE
\STATE compute a Lipschitz safe controller $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ satisfying
    \begin{equation}
    \label{im_0}
        \begin{split}
           &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}}\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| \\
        \text{s.t.~}&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus\mathcal{X}_r}.
    \end{split}
      \end{equation}
\ENDIF
\WHILE{TRUE}
\STATE compute $(w_i(\bm{x}),\delta_i)$ satisfying
    \begin{equation}
    \label{im_1}
        \begin{split}
           &\min_{w(\bm{x}),\delta}\delta \\
        \text{s.t.~}&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}_i}(\bm{x})> -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r};\\
        &\delta\geq 0.
    \end{split}
      \end{equation}
\STATE solve the following program to obtain $(\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x}),\delta_{i+1}))$:
    \begin{equation}
    \label{im_2}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\delta,\beta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~ &\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq -\beta h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{(\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{D})\setminus\mathcal{X}_r},\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w_i^*,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})> -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
        &\delta\geq 0,\\
        &\beta\geq 0.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
\IF {$\delta_i=\delta_{i+1}=0$}
\IF{$\xi_{i+1}-\xi_i\leq -\epsilon'$, where $\xi_{i+1}=\|\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ELSE
\IF{$\delta_{i+1}-\delta_i\leq -\epsilon^{*}$}
\STATE $i:=i+1$;
\ELSE
\STATE return $\bm{u}_{i+1}(\bm{x})$ and terminate;
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDWHILE
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg_2}
\end{algorithm}

\begin{remark}
Suppose that $\delta_i$($i=1,\ldots$) is computed by solving optimization \eqref{im_1} or \eqref{im_2}.  If $\delta_i=0$, then the Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$ is a controller satisfying Theorem \ref{improved}.
Otherwise, we can neither ensure that the controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$ will drive system  \eqref{control_system} starting from $\mathcal{C}$ to enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually nor ensure that the controller $\bm{u}_i(\bm{x})$ will drive system  \eqref{control_system} starting from $\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>\delta_i\}$ to enter $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
It is observed that the smaller $\epsilon_0$ in defining $\mathcal{D}$ is, the weaker constraint \eqref{improve_control_c} is. However, $\epsilon_0$ cannot be zero. Thus, in numerical computations, we do not recommend the use of too small $\epsilon_0$ due to numerical errors.
\end{remark}

\section{Examples}
\label{exa}
This section demonstrates the theoretical developments of proposed methods numerically. The semi-definite programming tool Mosek \cite{mosek2015mosek} is employed to address the optimization involved. Some parameters are presented in Table \ref{tab11}, and the computed $\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$'s are summarized in Table \ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}. In the examples below, we attempt to synthesize a reach-avoid controller of the linear form in a minimal way of modifying the controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})=\bm{0}$.
\begin{table}
 \centering
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline  \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Optimization}\\
  \eqref{qu}/\eqref{s_qu}  & \eqref{qua_asym0}/\eqref{s_im_2}&\eqref{q_P_i}\\
 \hline     $\xi_0=10^{-3}$         &      $\epsilon'=10^{-3}$  & $\epsilon'=10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_0=10^{-3}$\\ \hline
 \end{tabular}
 \caption{Parameters in solving Optimization \eqref{qu}, \eqref{qua_asym0}, \eqref{q_P_i}, \eqref{s_qu} and \eqref{s_im_2} ($\epsilon_0$ is used to define $\mathcal{D}$). }
  \label{tab11}
 \end{table}

 \begin{table}
 \centering
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline Example & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Optimization}\\
 &\eqref{qu} & \eqref{qua_asym0}&\eqref{q_P_i}\\
 \hline 2 &      0.2329           &         0.089  &  $3.829\times 10^{-4}$\\ \hline
          3 &      3.2002          &         3.1563  &  3.1563\\ \hline
           4 &      1.7967          &         1.7912  &  1.7372\\ \hline
 \end{tabular}
 \caption{$\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$ for Examples 2-4. }
  \label{tab1}
 \end{table}

\begin{table}
 \centering
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline Example & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Optimization}\\
 &\eqref{s_qu} & \eqref{s_im_2}\\
 \hline 5 &      93.6528          &        93.4427  \\ \hline
 \end{tabular}
 \caption{$\|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|$ for Example 5. }
  \label{tab2}
 \end{table}

\subsection{Deterministic Case}
\begin{example}
\label{ex0}
Consider a simple mobile  robot navigation that can be described by the following equation \cite{romdlony2016stabilization}
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=u_1,\\
\dot{y}=u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 0.01(x-0.9)^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{(u_1,u_2)^{\top}\mid 10^{-3}\leq u_1\leq 1, -1\leq u_2\leq 1\}$.

 The vector fields formed by the computed controllers are visualized in Fig. \ref{fig_ex3}. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab1} that the reach-avoid controller generated by exponential guidance-barrier functions can be improved by asymptotic and lax ones, and the lax guidance-barrier function generates the best controller.

\begin{figure}
\centering
   \includegraphics[width=2.05in,height=1.2in]{ex2_com.pdf}
  \caption{An illustration of controller synthesis for Example \ref{ex0}. Red and green curves denote the boundaries of the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, respectively.  Blue, black and gray curves respectively  denote the vector fields with controllers computed via solving Optimization \eqref{qu}, \eqref{qua_asym0} and \eqref{q_P_i}, respectively.}
  \label{fig_ex3}
  \end{figure}
\end{example}

\begin{example}
\label{ex3}
Consider a second order linear model from \cite{wang2022safety},
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\dot{x}=2x+y+u_1,\\
&\dot{y}=3x+y+u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid x^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{(u_1,u_2)^{\top}\mid -3\leq u_1\leq 3,-3\leq u_2\leq 3\}$.

The vector fields formed by $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$ and the computed controllers are visualized in Fig. \ref{fig_ex31}. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab1} that the reach-avoid controller generated by exponential guidance-barrier functions can be improved by asymptotic and lax ones. However,the reach-avoid controller generated by the asymptotic guidance-barrier function cannot be improved further via  the lax one.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex3.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
   \includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex3_com.pdf}
  \end{minipage}
    \caption{An illustration of controller synthesis for Example \ref{ex3}. Red and green curves denote the boundaries of the sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$, respectively. Left: the vector fields for Example \ref{ex3} with the controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$. Right: Gray and black curves respectively  denote the vector fields with controllers computed via solving Optimization \eqref{qu} and \eqref{qua_asym0}, respectively.}
      \label{fig_ex31}
  \end{figure}
\end{example}

\begin{example}
\label{ex4}
    Consider a second order polynomial nonlinear control affine system from \cite{wang2022safety},
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\dot{x}=y+(x^2+y+1)u_1,\\
&\dot{y}=x+\frac{1}{3}x^3+y+(y^2+x+1)u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid x^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\{(u_1,u_2)^{\top}\mid -2\leq u_1\leq 2,-2\leq u_2\leq 2\}$.

 The vector fields formed by the computed controllers are visualized in Fig. \ref{fig_ex41}. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab1} that the reach-avoid controller generated by exponential guidance-barrier functions can be improved by asymptotic and lax ones, although the improvements are not significant..

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex4.pdf}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.2\textwidth}
   \includegraphics[width=1.5in,height=1.2in]{ex4_com.pdf}
  \end{minipage}
    \caption{An illustration of controller synthesis for Example \ref{ex4}. Red and green curves denote the boundaries of the sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$, respectively. Left: the vector fields for Example \ref{ex4} with the controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$. Right: Blue, gray and black curves respectively  denote the vector fields with controllers computed via solving Optimization \eqref{qu} and \eqref{qua_asym0}, respectively.}
      \label{fig_ex41}
  \end{figure}

\end{example}

\subsection{Stochastic Case}
\begin{example}
Consider the following stochastic system adapted from Example \ref{ex0}
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
\dot{x}=u_1+dw,\\
\dot{y}=u_2,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 1-x^2-y^2>0\}$, $\mathcal{X}_r=\{(x,y)^{\top}\mid 0.01(x-0.9)^2+y^2-0.01<0\}$, and $\mathcal{U}=\mathbb{R}^2$.

We synthesize a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}=(u_1,u_2)^{\top}$. It is concluded from Table \ref{tab2} that the reach-avoid controller generated by asymptotic guidance-barrier functions improve the one from exponential guidance-barrier functions.

\end{example}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{his} document is a template for \LaTeX. If you are
reading a paper or PDF version of this document, please download the
electronic file, trans\_jour.tex, from the IEEE Web site at \underline
{http://www.ieee.org/authortools/trans\_jour.tex} so you can use it to prepare your manuscript. If
you would prefer to use LaTeX, download IEEE's LaTeX style and sample files
from the same Web page. You can also explore using the Overleaf editor at
\underline
{https://www.overleaf.com/blog/278-how-to-use-overleaf-with-}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline
{ieee-collabratec-your-quick-guide-to-getting-started\#.}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline{xsVp6tpPkrKM9}

If your paper is intended for a conference, please contact your conference
editor concerning acceptable word processor formats for your particular
conference.

IEEE will do the final formatting of your paper. If your paper is intended
for a conference, please observe the conference page limits.

\subsection{Abbreviations and Acronyms}
Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text,
even after they have already been defined in the abstract. Abbreviations
such as IEEE, SI, ac, and dc do not have to be defined. Abbreviations that
incorporate periods should not have spaces: write ``C.N.R.S.,'' not ``C. N.
R. S.'' Do not use abbreviations in the title unless they are unavoidable
(for example, ``IEEE'' in the title of this article).

\subsection{Other Recommendations}
Use one space after periods and colons. Hyphenate complex modifiers:
``zero-field-cooled magnetization.'' Avoid dangling participles, such as,
``Using \eqref{eq}, the potential was calculated.'' [It is not clear who or what
used \eqref{eq}.] Write instead, ``The potential was calculated by using \eqref{eq},'' or
``Using \eqref{eq}, we calculated the potential.''

Use a zero before decimal points: ``0.25,'' not ``.25.'' Use
``cm$^{3}$,'' not ``cc.'' Indicate sample dimensions as ``0.1 cm
$\times $ 0.2 cm,'' not ``0.1 $\times $ 0.2 cm$^{2}$.'' The
abbreviation for ``seconds'' is ``s,'' not ``sec.'' Use
``Wb/m$^{2}$'' or ``webers per square meter,'' not
``webers/m$^{2}$.'' When expressing a range of values, write ``7 to
9'' or ``7--9,'' not ``7$\sim $9.''

A parenthetical statement at the end of a sentence is punctuated outside of
the closing parenthesis (like this). (A parenthetical sentence is punctuated
within the parentheses.) In American English, periods and commas are within
quotation marks, like ``this period.'' Other punctuation is ``outside''!
Avoid contractions; for example, write ``do not'' instead of ``don't.'' The
serial comma is preferred: ``A, B, and C'' instead of ``A, B and C.''

If you wish, you may write in the first person singular or plural and use
the active voice (``I observed that $\ldots$'' or ``We observed that $\ldots$''
instead of ``It was observed that $\ldots$''). Remember to check spelling. If
your native language is not English, please get a native English-speaking
colleague to carefully proofread your paper.

Try not to use too many typefaces in the same article. You're writing
scholarly papers, not ransom notes. Also please remember that MathJax
can't handle really weird typefaces.

\subsection{Equations}
Number equations consecutively with equation numbers in parentheses flush
with the right margin, as in \eqref{eq}. To make your equations more
compact, you may use the solidus (~/~), the exp function, or appropriate
exponents. Use parentheses to avoid ambiguities in denominators. Punctuate
equations when they are part of a sentence, as in
\begin{equation}E=mc^2.\label{eq}\end{equation}

Be sure that the symbols in your equation have been defined before the
equation appears or immediately following. Italicize symbols ($T$ might refer
to temperature, but T is the unit tesla). Refer to ``\eqref{eq},'' not ``Eq. \eqref{eq}''
or ``equation \eqref{eq},'' except at the beginning of a sentence: ``Equation \eqref{eq}
is $\ldots$ .''

\subsection{\LaTeX-Specific Advice}

Please use ``soft'' (e.g., \verb|\eqref{Eq}|) cross references instead
of ``hard'' references (e.g., \verb|(1)|). That will make it possible
to combine sections, add equations, or change the order of figures or
citations without having to go through the file line by line.

Please don't use the \verb|{eqnarray}| equation environment. Use
\verb|{align}| or \verb|{IEEEeqnarray}| instead. The \verb|{eqnarray}|
environment leaves unsightly spaces around relation symbols.

Please note that the \verb|{subequations}| environment in {\LaTeX}
will increment the main equation counter even when there are no
equation numbers displayed. If you forget that, you might write an
article in which the equation numbers skip from (17) to (20), causing
the copy editors to wonder if you've discovered a new method of
counting.

{\BibTeX} does not work by magic. It doesn't get the bibliographic
data from thin air but from .bib files. If you use {\BibTeX} to produce a
bibliography you must send the .bib files.

{\LaTeX} can't read your mind. If you assign the same label to a
subsubsection and a table, you might find that Table I has been cross
referenced as Table IV-B3.

{\LaTeX} does not have precognitive abilities. If you put a
\verb|\label| command before the command that updates the counter it's
supposed to be using, the label will pick up the last counter to be
cross referenced instead. In particular, a \verb|\label| command
should not go before the caption of a figure or a table.

Do not use \verb|\nonumber| inside the \verb|{array}| environment. It
will not stop equation numbers inside \verb|{array}| (there won't be
any anyway) and it might stop a wanted equation number in the
surrounding equation.

If you are submitting your paper to a colorized journal, you can use
the following two lines at the start of the article to ensure its
appearance resembles the final copy:

\smallskip\noindent
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{l}
\verb+\+\texttt{documentclass[journal,twoside,web]\{ieeecolor\}}\\
\verb+\+\texttt{usepackage\{\textit{Journal\_Name}\}}
\end{tabular}
\end{small}

\section{Units}
Use either SI (MKS) or CGS as primary units. (SI units are strongly
encouraged.) English units may be used as secondary units (in parentheses).
This applies to papers in data storage. For example, write ``15
Gb/cm$^{2}$ (100 Gb/in$^{2})$.'' An exception is when
English units are used as identifiers in trade, such as ``3\textonehalf-in
disk drive.'' Avoid combining SI and CGS units, such as current in amperes
and magnetic field in oersteds. This often leads to confusion because
equations do not balance dimensionally. If you must use mixed units, clearly
state the units for each quantity in an equation.

The SI unit for magnetic field strength $H$ is A/m. However, if you wish to use
units of T, either refer to magnetic flux density $B$ or magnetic field
strength symbolized as $\mu _{0}H$. Use the center dot to separate
compound units, e.g., ``A$\cdot $m$^{2}$.''

\section{Some Common Mistakes}
The word ``data'' is plural, not singular. The subscript for the
permeability of vacuum $\mu _{0}$ is zero, not a lowercase letter
``o.'' The term for residual magnetization is ``remanence''; the adjective
is ``remanent''; do not write ``remnance'' or ``remnant.'' Use the word
``micrometer'' instead of ``micron.'' A graph within a graph is an
``inset,'' not an ``insert.'' The word ``alternatively'' is preferred to the
word ``alternately'' (unless you really mean something that alternates). Use
the word ``whereas'' instead of ``while'' (unless you are referring to
simultaneous events). Do not use the word ``essentially'' to mean
``approximately'' or ``effectively.'' Do not use the word ``issue'' as a
euphemism for ``problem.'' When compositions are not specified, separate
chemical symbols by en-dashes; for example, ``NiMn'' indicates the
intermetallic compound Ni$_{0.5}$Mn$_{0.5}$ whereas
``Ni--Mn'' indicates an alloy of some composition
Ni$_{x}$Mn$_{1-x}$.

\begin{figure}[!t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.png}}
\caption{Magnetization as a function of applied field.
It is good practice to explain the significance of the figure in the caption.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

Be aware of the different meanings of the homophones ``affect'' (usually a
verb) and ``effect'' (usually a noun), ``complement'' and ``compliment,''
``discreet'' and ``discrete,'' ``principal'' (e.g., ``principal
investigator'') and ``principle'' (e.g., ``principle of measurement''). Do
not confuse ``imply'' and ``infer.''

Prefixes such as ``non,'' ``sub,'' ``micro,'' ``multi,'' and ``ultra'' are
not independent words; they should be joined to the words they modify,
usually without a hyphen. There is no period after the ``et'' in the Latin
abbreviation ``\emph{et al.}'' (it is also italicized). The abbreviation ``i.e.,'' means
``that is,'' and the abbreviation ``e.g.,'' means ``for example'' (these
abbreviations are not italicized).

A general IEEE styleguide is available at \underline{http://www.ieee.org/authortools}.

\section{Guidelines for Graphics Preparation and Submission}
\label{sec:guidelines}

\subsection{Types of Graphics}
The following list outlines the different types of graphics published in
IEEE journals. They are categorized based on their construction, and use of
color/shades of gray:

\subsubsection{Color/Grayscale figures}
{Figures that are meant to appear in color, or shades of black/gray. Such
figures may include photographs, illustrations, multicolor graphs, and
flowcharts.}

\subsubsection{Line Art figures}
{Figures that are composed of only black lines and shapes. These figures
should have no shades or half-tones of gray, only black and white.}

\subsubsection{Author photos}
{Head and shoulders shots of authors that appear at the end of our papers. }

\subsubsection{Tables}
{Data charts which are typically black and white, but sometimes include
color.}

\begin{table}
\caption{Units for Magnetic Properties}
\label{table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{|p{25pt}|p{75pt}|p{115pt}|}
\hline
Symbol&
Quantity&
Conversion from Gaussian and \par CGS EMU to SI $^{\mathrm{a}}$ \\
\hline
$\Phi $&
magnetic flux&
1 Mx $\to  10^{-8}$ Wb $= 10^{-8}$ V$\cdot $s \\
$B$&
magnetic flux density, \par magnetic induction&
1 G $\to  10^{-4}$ T $= 10^{-4}$ Wb/m$^{2}$ \\
$H$&
magnetic field strength&
1 Oe $\to  10^{3}/(4\pi )$ A/m \\
$m$&
magnetic moment&
1 erg/G $=$ 1 emu \par $\to 10^{-3}$ A$\cdot $m$^{2} = 10^{-3}$ J/T \\
$M$&
magnetization&
1 erg/(G$\cdot $cm$^{3}) =$ 1 emu/cm$^{3}$ \par $\to 10^{3}$ A/m \\
4$\pi M$&
magnetization&
1 G $\to  10^{3}/(4\pi )$ A/m \\
$\sigma $&
specific magnetization&
1 erg/(G$\cdot $g) $=$ 1 emu/g $\to $ 1 A$\cdot $m$^{2}$/kg \\
$j$&
magnetic dipole \par moment&
1 erg/G $=$ 1 emu \par $\to 4\pi \times  10^{-10}$ Wb$\cdot $m \\
$J$&
magnetic polarization&
1 erg/(G$\cdot $cm$^{3}) =$ 1 emu/cm$^{3}$ \par $\to 4\pi \times  10^{-4}$ T \\
$\chi , \kappa $&
susceptibility&
1 $\to  4\pi $ \\
$\chi_{\rho }$&
mass susceptibility&
1 cm$^{3}$/g $\to  4\pi \times  10^{-3}$ m$^{3}$/kg \\
$\mu $&
permeability&
1 $\to  4\pi \times  10^{-7}$ H/m \par $= 4\pi \times  10^{-7}$ Wb/(A$\cdot $m) \\
$\mu_{r}$&
relative permeability&
$\mu \to \mu_{r}$ \\
$w, W$&
energy density&
1 erg/cm$^{3} \to  10^{-1}$ J/m$^{3}$ \\
$N, D$&
demagnetizing factor&
1 $\to  1/(4\pi )$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{p{251pt}}{Vertical lines are optional in tables. Statements that serve as captions for
the entire table do not need footnote letters. }\\
\multicolumn{3}{p{251pt}}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$Gaussian units are the same as cg emu for magnetostatics; Mx
$=$ maxwell, G $=$ gauss, Oe $=$ oersted; Wb $=$ weber, V $=$ volt, s $=$
second, T $=$ tesla, m $=$ meter, A $=$ ampere, J $=$ joule, kg $=$
kilogram, H $=$ henry.}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}

\subsection{Multipart figures}
Figures compiled of more than one sub-figure presented side-by-side, or
stacked. If a multipart figure is made up of multiple figure
types (one part is lineart, and another is grayscale or color) the figure
should meet the stricter guidelines.

\subsection{File Formats For Graphics}\label{formats}
Format and save your graphics using a suitable graphics processing program
that will allow you to create the images as PostScript (PS), Encapsulated
PostScript (.EPS), Tagged Image File Format (.TIFF), Portable Document
Format (.PDF), Portable Network Graphics (.PNG), or Metapost (.MPS), sizes them, and adjusts
the resolution settings. When
submitting your final paper, your graphics should all be submitted
individually in one of these formats along with the manuscript.

\subsection{Sizing of Graphics}
Most charts, graphs, and tables are one column wide (3.5 inches/88
millimeters/21 picas) or page wide (7.16 inches/181 millimeters/43
picas). The maximum depth a graphic can be is 8.5 inches (216 millimeters/54
picas). When choosing the depth of a graphic, please allow space for a
caption. Figures can be sized between column and page widths if the author
chooses, however it is recommended that figures are not sized less than
column width unless when necessary.

There is currently one publication with column measurements that do not
coincide with those listed above. Proceedings of the IEEE has a column
measurement of 3.25 inches (82.5 millimeters/19.5 picas).

The final printed size of author photographs is exactly
1 inch wide by 1.25 inches tall (25.4 millimeters$\,\times\,$31.75 millimeters/6
picas$\,\times\,$7.5 picas). Author photos printed in editorials measure 1.59 inches
wide by 2 inches tall (40 millimeters$\,\times\,$50 millimeters/9.5 picas$\,\times\,$12
picas).

\subsection{Resolution }
The proper resolution of your figures will depend on the type of figure it
is as defined in the ``Types of Figures'' section. Author photographs,
color, and grayscale figures should be at least 300dpi. Line art, including
tables should be a minimum of 600dpi.

\subsection{Vector Art}
In order to preserve the figures' integrity across multiple computer
platforms, we accept files in the following formats: .EPS/.PDF/.PS. All
fonts must be embedded or text converted to outlines in order to achieve the
best-quality results.

\subsection{Color Space}
The term color space refers to the entire sum of colors that can be
represented within the said medium. For our purposes, the three main color
spaces are Grayscale, RGB (red/green/blue) and CMYK
(cyan/magenta/yellow/black). RGB is generally used with on-screen graphics,
whereas CMYK is used for printing purposes.

All color figures should be generated in RGB or CMYK color space. Grayscale
images should be submitted in Grayscale color space. Line art may be
provided in grayscale OR bitmap colorspace. Note that ``bitmap colorspace''
and ``bitmap file format'' are not the same thing. When bitmap color space
is selected, .TIF/.TIFF/.PNG are the recommended file formats.

\subsection{Accepted Fonts Within Figures}
When preparing your graphics IEEE suggests that you use of one of the
following Open Type fonts: Times New Roman, Helvetica, Arial, Cambria, and
Symbol. If you are supplying EPS, PS, or PDF files all fonts must be
embedded. Some fonts may only be native to your operating system; without
the fonts embedded, parts of the graphic may be distorted or missing.

A safe option when finalizing your figures is to strip out the fonts before
you save the files, creating ``outline'' type. This converts fonts to
artwork what will appear uniformly on any screen.

\subsection{Using Labels Within Figures}

\subsubsection{Figure Axis labels }
Figure axis labels are often a source of confusion. Use words rather than
symbols. As an example, write the quantity ``Magnetization,'' or
``Magnetization M,'' not just ``M.'' Put units in parentheses. Do not label
axes only with units. As in Fig. 1, for example, write ``Magnetization
(A/m)'' or ``Magnetization (A$\cdot$m$^{-1}$),'' not just ``A/m.'' Do not label axes with a ratio of quantities and
units. For example, write ``Temperature (K),'' not ``Temperature/K.''

Multipliers can be especially confusing. Write ``Magnetization (kA/m)'' or
``Magnetization (10$^{3}$ A/m).'' Do not write ``Magnetization
(A/m)$\,\times\,$1000'' because the reader would not know whether the top
axis label in Fig. 1 meant 16000 A/m or 0.016 A/m. Figure labels should be
legible, approximately 8 to 10 point type.

\subsubsection{Subfigure Labels in Multipart Figures and Tables}
Multipart figures should be combined and labeled before final submission.
Labels should appear centered below each subfigure in 8 point Times New
Roman font in the format of (a) (b) (c).

\subsection{File Naming}
Figures (line artwork or photographs) should be named starting with the
first 5 letters of the author's last name. The next characters in the
filename should be the number that represents the sequential
location of this image in your article. For example, in author
``Anderson's'' paper, the first three figures would be named ander1.tif,
ander2.tif, and ander3.ps.

Tables should contain only the body of the table (not the caption) and
should be named similarly to figures, except that `.t' is inserted
in-between the author's name and the table number. For example, author
Anderson's first three tables would be named ander.t1.tif, ander.t2.ps,
ander.t3.eps.

Author photographs should be named using the first five characters of the
pictured author's last name. For example, four author photographs for a
paper may be named: oppen.ps, moshc.tif, chen.eps, and duran.pdf.

If two authors or more have the same last name, their first initial(s) can
be substituted for the fifth, fourth, third$\ldots$ letters of their surname
until the degree where there is differentiation. For example, two authors
Michael and Monica Oppenheimer's photos would be named oppmi.tif, and
oppmo.eps.

\subsection{Referencing a Figure or Table Within Your Paper}
When referencing your figures and tables within your paper, use the
abbreviation ``Fig.'' even at the beginning of a sentence. Do not abbreviate
``Table.'' Tables should be numbered with Roman Numerals.

\subsection{Checking Your Figures: The IEEE Graphics Analyzer}
The IEEE Graphics Analyzer enables authors to pre-screen their graphics for
compliance with IEEE Transactions and Journals standards before submission.
The online tool, located at
\underline{http://graphicsqc.ieee.org/}, allows authors to
upload their graphics in order to check that each file is the correct file
format, resolution, size and colorspace; that no fonts are missing or
corrupt; that figures are not compiled in layers or have transparency, and
that they are named according to the IEEE Transactions and Journals naming
convention. At the end of this automated process, authors are provided with
a detailed report on each graphic within the web applet, as well as by
email.

For more information on using the Graphics Analyzer or any other graphics
related topic, contact the IEEE Graphics Help Desk by e-mail at
graphics@ieee.org.

\subsection{Submitting Your Graphics}
Because IEEE will do the final formatting of your paper,
you do not need to position figures and tables at the top and bottom of each
column. In fact, all figures, figure captions, and tables can be placed at
the end of your paper. In addition to, or even in lieu of submitting figures
within your final manuscript, figures should be submitted individually,
separate from the manuscript in one of the file formats listed above in
Section \ref{formats}. Place figure captions below the figures; place table titles
above the tables. Please do not include captions as part of the figures, or
put them in ``text boxes'' linked to the figures. Also, do not place borders
around the outside of your figures.

\subsection{Color Processing/Printing in IEEE Journals}
All IEEE Transactions, Journals, and Letters allow an author to publish
color figures on IEEE Xplore\textregistered\ at no charge, and automatically
convert them to grayscale for print versions. In most journals, figures and
tables may alternatively be printed in color if an author chooses to do so.
Please note that this service comes at an extra expense to the author. If
you intend to have print color graphics, include a note with your final
paper indicating which figures or tables you would like to be handled that
way, and stating that you are willing to pay the additional fee.

\section{Conclusion}
A conclusion section is not required. Although a conclusion may review the
main points of the paper, do not replicate the abstract as the conclusion. A
conclusion might elaborate on the importance of the work or suggest
applications and extensions.

\appendices

Appendixes, if needed, appear before the acknowledgment.

\section*{Acknowledgment}

The preferred spelling of the word ``acknowledgment'' in American English is
without an ``e'' after the ``g.'' Use the singular heading even if you have
many acknowledgments. Avoid expressions such as ``One of us (S.B.A.) would
like to thank $\ldots$ .'' Instead, write ``F. A. Author thanks $\ldots$ .'' In most
cases, sponsor and financial support acknowledgments are placed in the
unnumbered footnote on the first page, not here.

\section*{References and Footnotes}

\subsection{References}
References need not be cited in text. When they are, they appear on the
line, in square brackets, inside the punctuation. Multiple references are
each numbered with separate brackets. When citing a section in a book,
please give the relevant page numbers. In text, refer simply to the
reference number. Do not use ``Ref.'' or ``reference'' except at the
beginning of a sentence: ``Reference \cite{b3} shows $\ldots$ .'' Please do not use
automatic endnotes in \emph{Word}, rather, type the reference list at the end of the
paper using the ``References'' style.

Reference numbers are set flush left and form a column of their own, hanging
out beyond the body of the reference. The reference numbers are on the line,
enclosed in square brackets. In all references, the given name of the author
or editor is abbreviated to the initial only and precedes the last name. Use
them all; use \emph{et al.} only if names are not given. Use commas around Jr.,
Sr., and III in names. Abbreviate conference titles. When citing IEEE
transactions, provide the issue number, page range, volume number, year,
and/or month if available. When referencing a patent, provide the day and
the month of issue, or application. References may not include all
information; please obtain and include relevant information. Do not combine
references. There must be only one reference with each number. If there is a
URL included with the print reference, it can be included at the end of the
reference.

Other than books, capitalize only the first word in a paper title, except
for proper nouns and element symbols. For papers published in translation
journals, please give the English citation first, followed by the original
foreign-language citation See the end of this document for formats and
examples of common references. For a complete discussion of references and
their formats, see the IEEE style manual at
\underline{http://www.ieee.org/authortools}.

\subsection{Footnotes}
Number footnotes separately in superscript numbers.\footnote{It is recommended that footnotes be avoided (except for
the unnumbered footnote with the receipt date on the first page). Instead,
try to integrate the footnote information into the text.} Place the actual
footnote at the bottom of the column in which it is cited; do not put
footnotes in the reference list (endnotes). Use letters for table footnotes
(see Table \ref{table}).

\section{Submitting Your Paper for Review}

\subsection{Final Stage}
When you submit your final version (after your paper has been accepted),
print it in two-column format, including figures and tables. You must also
send your final manuscript on a disk, via e-mail, or through a Web
manuscript submission system as directed by the society contact. You may use
\emph{Zip} for large files, or compress files using \emph{Compress, Pkzip, Stuffit,} or \emph{Gzip.}

Also, send a sheet of paper or PDF with complete contact information for all
authors. Include full mailing addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and
e-mail addresses. This information will be used to send each author a
complimentary copy of the journal in which the paper appears. In addition,
designate one author as the ``corresponding author.'' This is the author to
whom proofs of the paper will be sent. Proofs are sent to the corresponding
author only.

\subsection{Review Stage Using ScholarOne\textregistered\ Manuscripts}
Contributions to the Transactions, Journals, and Letters may be submitted
electronically on IEEE's on-line manuscript submission and peer-review
system, ScholarOne\textregistered\ Manuscripts. You can get a listing of the
publications that participate in ScholarOne at
\underline{http://www.ieee.org/publications\_standards/publications/}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline{authors/authors\_submission.html}.
First check if you have an existing account. If there is none, please create
a new account. After logging in, go to your Author Center and click ``Submit
First Draft of a New Manuscript.''

Along with other information, you will be asked to select the subject from a
pull-down list. Depending on the journal, there are various steps to the
submission process; you must complete all steps for a complete submission.
At the end of each step you must click ``Save and Continue''; just uploading
the paper is not sufficient. After the last step, you should see a
confirmation that the submission is complete. You should also receive an
e-mail confirmation. For inquiries regarding the submission of your paper on
ScholarOne Manuscripts, please contact oprs-support@ieee.org or call +1 732
465 5861.

ScholarOne Manuscripts will accept files for review in various formats.
Please check the guidelines of the specific journal for which you plan to
submit.

You will be asked to file an electronic copyright form immediately upon
completing the submission process (authors are responsible for obtaining any
security clearances). Failure to submit the electronic copyright could
result in publishing delays later. You will also have the opportunity to
designate your article as ``open access'' if you agree to pay the IEEE open
access fee.

\subsection{Final Stage Using ScholarOne Manuscripts}
Upon acceptance, you will receive an email with specific instructions
regarding the submission of your final files. To avoid any delays in
publication, please be sure to follow these instructions. Most journals
require that final submissions be uploaded through ScholarOne Manuscripts,
although some may still accept final submissions via email. Final
submissions should include source files of your accepted manuscript, high
quality graphic files, and a formatted pdf file. If you have any questions
regarding the final submission process, please contact the administrative
contact for the journal.

In addition to this, upload a file with complete contact information for all
authors. Include full mailing addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and
e-mail addresses. Designate the author who submitted the manuscript on
ScholarOne Manuscripts as the ``corresponding author.'' This is the only
author to whom proofs of the paper will be sent.

\subsection{Copyright Form}
Authors must submit an electronic IEEE Copyright Form (eCF) upon submitting
their final manuscript files. You can access the eCF system through your
manuscript submission system or through the Author Gateway. You are
responsible for obtaining any necessary approvals and/or security
clearances. For additional information on intellectual property rights,
visit the IEEE Intellectual Property Rights department web page at
\underline{http://www.ieee.org/publications\_standards/publications/rights/}\discretionary{}{}{}\underline{index.html}.

\section{IEEE Publishing Policy}
The general IEEE policy requires that authors should only submit original
work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor is under
review for another refereed publication. The submitting author must disclose
all prior publication(s) and current submissions when submitting a
manuscript. Do not publish ``preliminary'' data or results. The submitting
author is responsible for obtaining agreement of all coauthors and any
consent required from employers or sponsors before submitting an article.
The IEEE Transactions and Journals Department strongly discourages courtesy
authorship; it is the obligation of the authors to cite only relevant prior
work.

The IEEE Transactions and Journals Department does not publish conference
records or proceedings, but can publish articles related to conferences that
have undergone rigorous peer review. Minimally, two reviews are required for
every article submitted for peer review.

\section{Publication Principles}
The two types of contents of that are published are; 1) peer-reviewed and 2)
archival. The Transactions and Journals Department publishes scholarly
articles of archival value as well as tutorial expositions and critical
reviews of classical subjects and topics of current interest.

Authors should consider the following points:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Technical papers submitted for publication must advance the state of knowledge and must cite relevant prior work.
\item The length of a submitted paper should be commensurate with the importance, or appropriate to the complexity, of the work. For example, an obvious extension of previously published work might not be appropriate for publication or might be adequately treated in just a few pages.
\item Authors must convince both peer reviewers and the editors of the scientific and technical merit of a paper; the standards of proof are higher when extraordinary or unexpected results are reported.
\item Because replication is required for scientific progress, papers submitted for publication must provide sufficient information to allow readers to perform similar experiments or calculations and
use the reported results. Although not everything need be disclosed, a paper
must contain new, useable, and fully described information. For example, a
specimen's chemical composition need not be reported if the main purpose of
a paper is to introduce a new measurement technique. Authors should expect
to be challenged by reviewers if the results are not supported by adequate
data and critical details.
\item Papers that describe ongoing work or announce the latest technical achievement, which are suitable for presentation at a professional conference, may not be appropriate for publication.
\end{enumerate}

\section{Reference Examples}

\begin{itemize}

\item \emph{Basic format for books:}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of chapter in the book,'' in \emph{Title of His Published Book, x}th ed. City of Publisher, (only U.S. State), Country: Abbrev. of Publisher, year, ch. $x$, sec. $x$, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx.}\\
See \cite{b1,b2}.

\item \emph{Basic format for periodicals:}\\
J. K. Author, ``Name of paper,'' \emph{Abbrev. Title of Periodical}, vol. \emph{x, no}. $x, $pp\emph{. xxx--xxx, }Abbrev. Month, year, DOI. 10.1109.\emph{XXX}.123456.\\
See \cite{b3}--\cite{b5}.

\item \emph{Basic format for reports:}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of report,'' Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev. State, Country, Rep. \emph{xxx}, year.\\
See \cite{b6,b7}.

\item \emph{Basic format for handbooks:}\\
\emph{Name of Manual/Handbook, x} ed., Abbrev. Name of Co., City of Co., Abbrev. State, Country, year, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx.}\\
See \cite{b8,b9}.

\item \emph{Basic format for books (when available online):}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of chapter in the book,'' in \emph{Title of
Published Book}, $x$th ed. City of Publisher, State, Country: Abbrev.
of Publisher, year, ch. $x$, sec. $x$, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx}. [Online].
Available: \underline{http://www.web.com}\\
See \cite{b10}--\cite{b13}.

\item \emph{Basic format for journals (when available online):}\\
J. K. Author, ``Name of paper,'' \emph{Abbrev. Title of Periodical}, vol. $x$, no. $x$, pp. \emph{xxx--xxx}, Abbrev. Month, year. Accessed on: Month, Day, year, DOI: 10.1109.\emph{XXX}.123456, [Online].\\
See \cite{b14}--\cite{b16}.

\item \emph{Basic format for papers presented at conferences (when available online): }\\
J.K. Author. (year, month). Title. presented at abbrev. conference title. [Type of Medium]. Available: site/path/file\\
See \cite{b17}.

\item \emph{Basic format for reports and handbooks (when available online):}\\
J. K. Author. ``Title of report,'' Company. City, State, Country. Rep. no., (optional: vol./issue), Date. [Online] Available: site/path/file\\
See \cite{b18,b19}.

\item \emph{Basic format for computer programs and electronic documents (when available online): }\\
Legislative body. Number of Congress, Session. (year, month day). \emph{Number of bill or resolution}, \emph{Title}. [Type of medium]. Available: site/path/file\\
\textbf{\emph{NOTE: }ISO recommends that capitalization follow the accepted practice for the language or script in which the information is given.}\\
See \cite{b20}.

\item \emph{Basic format for patents (when available online):}\\
Name of the invention, by inventor's name. (year, month day). Patent Number [Type of medium]. Available: site/path/file\\
See \cite{b21}.

\item \emph{Basic format}\emph{for conference proceedings (published):}\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' in \emph{Abbreviated Name of Conf.}, City of Conf., Abbrev. State (if given), Country, year, pp. \emph{xxxxxx.}\\
See \cite{b22}.

\item \emph{Example for papers presented at conferences (unpublished):}\\
See \cite{b23}.

\item \emph{Basic format for patents}$:$\\
J. K. Author, ``Title of patent,'' U.S. Patent \emph{x xxx xxx}, Abbrev. Month, day, year.\\
See \cite{b24}.

\item \emph{Basic format for theses (M.S.) and dissertations (Ph.D.):}
\begin{enumerate}
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of thesis,'' M.S. thesis, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of dissertation,'' Ph.D. dissertation, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.
\end{enumerate}
See \cite{b25,b26}.

\item \emph{Basic format for the most common types of unpublished references:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item J. K. Author, private communication, Abbrev. Month, year.
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' unpublished.
\item J. K. Author, ``Title of paper,'' to be published.
\end{enumerate}
See \cite{b27}--\cite{b29}.

\item \emph{Basic formats for standards:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Title of Standard}, Standard number, date.
\item \emph{Title of Standard}, Standard number, Corporate author, location, date.
\end{enumerate}
See \cite{b30,b31}.

\item \emph{Article number in~reference examples:}\\
See \cite{b32,b33}.

\item \emph{Example when using et al.:}\\
See \cite{b34}.

\end{itemize}

\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Cyber-physical systems are becoming ubiquitous due to rapid advances in computation, communication, and memory \cite{rajkumar2010cyber}, and can be found in diverse application domains including automobiles, aviation, advanced manufacturing, and integrated medical devices \cite{baheti2011cyber}. Many of these systems  are safety-critical and thus must satisfy safety requirements, which are typically formulated as forward invariance of a given safe set \cite{ames2019control}, on their dynamic trajectories in order to  prevent economic harm and loss of life. The need for safety has motivated extensive research into verifying and synthesizing controllers to satisfy safety requirements.

 Common techniques include Lyapunov and barrier methods \cite{prajna2004safety}, discrete approximations, and direct computations of reachable sets \cite{kurzhanski2000ellipsoidal,althoff2021set}, among others, have been developed for safety verification of safety-critical systems with given controllers. However, as the systems being verified get more complicated, the traditionally verified and tuning/redesigning (``design V") iteration procedure \cite{forsberg1991relationship} becomes harder and more time-consuming. Consequently, there has been increasing interest in synthesizing controllers with provable safety guarantees in the design phase, and thus many methods emerge such as control barrier functions methods \cite{ames2019control}, Hamilton-Jacobi methods \cite{tomlin1998synthesizing}, moment based optimization methods \cite{majumdar2014convex}, and controlled invariant sets methods \cite{blanchini1999set,li2017invariance}. Such methods are instrumental in removing  bad controllers at an early state and avoiding the time-consuming ``design V" iteration, consequently reducing software development expenses. Besides safety objectives, cyber-physical systems such as autonomous vehicles, industrial robots, and chemical reactors often require simultaneous satisfaction of performance specifications. For instance, \cite{ames2016control} considers the design of controllers enforcing objective of joint safety and stability. Among the many provably correct controllers synthesis problems, there is a special one of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers. Reach-avoid controllers enforce both safety via avoiding a set of unsafe states and reachability via reaching a desired target set. Consequently, they can address many important engineering problems such as collision avoidance  \cite{margellos2010hamilton} and target surveillance, and thus have turned out to be of fundamental importance in engineering.

In this paper we investigate the reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem for continuous-time systems modelled by ordinary differential equations and stochastic differential equations. A reach-avoid controller is a controller such that the system starting from a specified safe set will eventually enter a desired target set while staying inside the safe set before the first target hitting time, in a deterministic sense for deterministic systems or in a probabilistic sense for stochastic systems. For deterministic systems, three (exponential/asymptotic/lax) control guidance-barrier functions are developed for synthesizing reach-avoid control inputs. These three functions generate three increasingly-weak sufficient conditions, which expand the space of admissible control inputs gradually. The first and second ones are termed exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions, which guarantee that every trajectory starting from the safe set will respectively enter the target set at an exponential rate and in an asymptotic way. However, it is observed that these two control guidance-barrier functions have one condition in common of enforcing invariance of its every positive sublevel set until the system enters the target set, which is rather restrict and thus limits the space of admissible controllers. Consequently, a lax control guidance-barrier function is developed and a weaker condition is obtained which does not enforce invariance of its every positive sublevel set, thus expanding the space of admissible controllers. The first two control guidance-barrier functions are then extended to stochastic systems, which is to synthesize a reach-avoid controller in a minimal fashion such that the system enters a target set eventually while staying inside a safe set before the first target hitting time in probability. Finally, several numerical examples demonstrate the theoretical developments of  proposed methods. The contributions of this work are summarized below.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item A unified framework of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for both deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations and stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations in an optimal sense is developed.
   \item Within this framework, several control guidance-barrier functions are respectively proposed for constructing sufficient conditions to synthesize reach-avoid controllers, for both deterministic systems and stochastic systems. These three conditions are becoming less restrictive gradually. Consequently, an increasingly large set of control inputs compatible with reach-avoid specifications will be obtained, which either provides more chances for synthesizing a reach-avoid controller successfully or improves the already obtained controller.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection*{Related Work}
Multiple solution techniques have been proposed for safety-critical control synthesis for cyber-physical systems, including Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman-Isaacs(HJI) equation \cite{tomlin1998conflict}, mixed-integer program \cite{mellinger2012mixed}, viability theory \cite{aubin2011viability},  control barrier function,  and control Lyapunov function -based methodologies \cite{ames2019control}. We do not intend to give a comprehensive review of related literature herein, but instead introduce the closest related works, which mainly center around control barrier function based methodologies.  Control barrier functions were inspired by barrier certificates, which were originally proposed for safety verification of continuous-time deterministic and stochastic systems \cite{prajna2004safety,prajna2007framework}. The control barrier functions framework has several advantages in addition to provable safety guarantees. For affine control systems, control barrier functions lead to linear constraints on the control, which can be used to design computationally tractable optimization-based controllers. They can also be easily composed with control Lyapunov functions to provide joint guarantees on stability and safety.

For deterministic systems, the notion of a barrier certificate was first extended to a control version in \cite{wieland2007constructive}. This can be thought of as being analogous to how \cite{artstein1983stabilization,sontag1989universal} extended Lyapunov functions to control Lyapunov functions in order to enable controller synthesis for stabilization tasks. Later on, various control barrier certificates such as reciprocal control barrier functions \cite{ames2014control}, zeroing control barrier functions \cite{ames2016control}, and minimal control barrier functions \cite{konda2020characterizing} have been developed to design controllers for enforcing safety. These control barrier certificates mainly differ in their expressiveness.  To address safety constraints with higher relative-degree, the method of control barrier functions was extended to position-based constraints with relative degree 2 in \cite{wu2015safety,nguyen2015safety}, and then  \cite{ames2014control} extended it to arbitrary high relative-degree systems using a backstepping based method. Recently,  exponential control barrier functions were proposed in \cite{nguyen2016exponential} to enforce high relative-degree safety constraints.

In addition to safety,  the control design of safety-critical dynamical systems in practice  often requires simultaneous satisfaction of performance specifications and safety constraints. The problem of safe stabilization, i.e., to stabilize the system while maintaining the system to stay within a given safe set, attracts wide attentions recently. In order to simultaneously achieve safety and stabilization of dynamical systems, a number of control design methods have been proposed in the literature to compose control Lyapunov functions with control barrier functions. The unification of control Lyapunov functions and control barrier functions appeared in \cite{romdlony2014uniting,romdlony2016stabilization,ames2014control,ames2016control}. The objective of the works \cite{romdlony2014uniting,romdlony2016stabilization} was to incorporate into a single feedback law the conditions required to simultaneously achieve asymptotic stability of an equilibrium point, while avoiding an unsafe set. In contrast, the approach of the works \cite{ames2014control,ames2016control} was to pose a feedback design problem that mediates safety and stabilization requirements, in the sense that safety is always guaranteed, and progress toward the stabilization objective is assured when the two requirements are not in conflict. Meanwhile, based on the combination of exponential control barrier functions and control Lyapunov functions, \cite{nguyen2016exponential} studied the safety via enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints and stability.  \cite{jankovic2018robust} further considered the relaxation on the lie derivative of control Lyapunov functions such that local asymptotic stability can be guaranteed. The present work also investigates the controllers synthesis problem for enforcing simultaneous satisfaction of joint safety and performance  objectives. However, it is different from the above mentioned works. The differences are twofold: the present work studies the problem of synthesizing reach-avoid controllers, which enforce safety via staying inside a safe set and performance via reaching a desired target set rather than approaching an equilibrium asymptotically. When the target set is a region of attraction, the synthesized reach-avoid controller is also able to enforce safety and stability; the sufficient conditions developed in this work rely on the notion of control guidance-barrier functions, which are a control version of guidance-barrier functions proposed in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification},  and these functions are not  a combination of control barrier functions and control Lyapunov functions.  In \cite{xue2022_reach_verification} exponential and asymptotic guidance-barrier functions were proposed for computing inner-approximations of reach-avoid sets for deterministic systems. Although exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions are a direct extension of the guidance-barrier functions in \cite{xue2022_reach_verification}, the present work further proposes lax control guidance-barrier functions, which are weaker than the former two control  functions.

Compared to deterministic systems, literature on control barrier functions for systems with stochastic disturbances is very scarce. When considering stochastic systems, i.e., dynamical systems involving stochastic processes, solving the controllers synthesis problem qualitatively in a non-stochastic manner usually gives pessimistic answers, since generally resultant bounds on the values of stochastic inputs will be overly conservative. It is  natural to formulate and solve probabilistic variants of controllers synthesis problems. For instance, it requires the synthesis of $p$-controllers to guarantee with probability being larger than $p$ that the dynamical system satisfies the safety requirement. \cite{tamba2021notion} examined the safety verification of stochastic systems using the notion of stochastic zeroing barrier functions. The first extension of control barrier functions for deterministic systems to stochastic systems appeared in  \cite{clark2019control}, which proposed stochastic reciprocal control barrier functions and derived sufficient conditions for the stochastic system to satisfy safety constraints with probability one. Motivated by the need to reduce potentially severe control constraints generated by stochastic reciprocal control barrier functions in the neighborhood of the safety boundary, \cite{wang2021safety} proposed a notion of stochastic control barrier functions for safety-critical control by providing the worst-case probability estimation. Recently, \cite{clark2021control} extended the results in \cite{clark2019control} by introducing stochastic zeroing control barrier functions constructions that guarantee safety with probability one. It also proposed control policies that ensure safety and stability by solving quadratic programs containing control barrier functions and stochastic control Lyapunov functions. In this work we extend the aforementioned exponential and asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions for deterministic systems to stochastic systems for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers such that the system enters a target set eventually while staying inside a specified safe set before the first target hitting time in probability.  Among these two extensions, the asymptotic control guidance-barrier function  is constructed based on guidance-barrier functions in \cite{xue2022_Stochastic}, which was developed to inner-approximating reach-avoid sets for stochastic systems.

The structure of this paper is organized as follows. Three control guidance-barrier functions  are proposed in  Section \ref{OTRACS}, which also elucidates three sufficient conditions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers of deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations. Section \ref{RCSSS} extends some control guidance-barrier functions in Section \ref{OTRACS} to stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations and proposes two sufficient conditions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers in the probabilistic setting.

The following  notations will be used throughout the rest of this paper: $\mathbb{R}^n$ denotes
the set of n-dimensional real vectors; $\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ denotes non-negative real numbers; the closure of a set $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted by $\overline{\mathcal{X}}$, the complement by $\mathcal{X}^c$ and the boundary by $\partial \mathcal{X}$; $\|\bm{x}\|$ denotes the 2-norm, i.e., $\|\bm{x}\|:=\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2}$, where $\bm{x}=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)^{\top}$; vectors are denoted by boldface letters.  For a vector function $\bm{g}(\bm{x}): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$, $\|\bm{g}(\bm{x})\|=\sqrt{\int_{\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}}\bm{g}^{\top}(\bm{x})\bm{g}(\bm{x})d\bm{x}}$.

\section{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis for Deterministic Systems}
\label{RACS}
In this section we focus our attention on solving the reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem for deterministic systems modelled by ordinary differential equations.

\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{CBF}
In this section we give an introduction on the system and reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem of interest.

Consider an affine control system,
\begin{equation}
    \label{control_system}
    \dot{\bm{x}}=\bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u},
\end{equation}
with $\bm{f}$ and $\bm{g}$ locally Lipschitz, $\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\bm{u}\in \mathcal{U}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^m$ is the set of admissible control inputs.

Let $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ be a feedback controller such that the resulting system \eqref{control_system} is locally Lipschitz. Then for any initial condition $\bm{x}_0:=\bm{x}(0)\in \mathbb{R}^n$, there exists a maximum time interval $I(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u})=[0,\tau_{\max})$ such that $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(\cdot): I(\bm{x}_0,\bm{u})\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ is the unique solution to system \eqref{control_system}, where $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(0)=\bm{x}_0$ and $\tau_{\max}$ is the explosion time with \[\lim_{t\rightarrow  \tau_{\max}}\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}(t)=\infty. \]

Given a bounded open safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and a target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, the reach-avoid property with respect to them and associated reach-avoid controllers are formulated in Definition \ref{RAC}.

\begin{definition}[Reach-avoid Controllers]
\label{RAC}
Given a feedback controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$, the reach-avoid property with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is satisfied if, starting from any initial state in $\mathcal{C}$, system \eqref{control_system} with this controller will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually while staying inside $\mathcal{C}$ before the first target hitting time.  If $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is locally Lipschitz continuous, it is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
 \end{definition}

 Then, we formulate our  reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem.
 \begin{problem}[Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis]
 \label{problem1}
Given a feedback control $\bm{u}=\bm{k}(\bm{x})$ for the control system \eqref{control_system}, which may not be a reach-avoid controller, we wish to synthesize a reach-avoid controller in a minimally invasive fashion, i.e., modify the existing controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x})$ in a minimal way so as to guarantee satisfaction of the reach-avoid specification via solving the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
    \label{q_P0}
    \begin{split}
        &\bm{u}(\bm{x})=\arg\min \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\| \\
        &s.t.~\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U} \text{~is a reach-avoid controller.}
     \end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{problem}

Besides, we impose the following assumptions on the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.

\begin{assumption}
\label{assump}
The safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $\mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>0\}$,
    \item $\overline{\mathcal{C}}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n \mid  h(\bm{x})\geq 0\}$,
    \item $\partial \mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})=0\}$,
\end{enumerate}
where $h(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuously differentiable function, and
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $\mathcal{C}$ has no isolated point,
\item $\mathcal{C}\cap \mathcal{X}_r$ is not empty and has no isolated point.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}

Although this work studies the reach-avoid controllers synthesis problem, the proposed methods can also be directly extended to the synthesis of controllers enforcing safety and stability as in \cite{ames2016control}, with the assumption that the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is a region of attraction.

\begin{remark}
In this paper we focus our attention on the assumption that the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ is open. Some of our methods proposed in this paper also work with a compact set $\mathcal{C}$. We will remark this extension in an appropriate place in the sequel.
\end{remark}

\section{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis for Stochastic Systems}
\label{RCSSS}

This section focuses on synthesizing reach-avoid controllers for stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations.

\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{RCSSS_Pre}
In this subsection we introduce  stochastic systems and reach-avoid controllers synthesis problems of interest.

Consider an affine stochastic control system,
\begin{equation}
    \label{SDE}
    \begin{split}
d\bm{x}(t,\bm{w})=(\bm{f}(\bm{x}(t,\bm{w}))+&\bm{g}(\bm{x}(t,\bm{w}))\bm{u}(\bm{x}(t)))dt\\
&+\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x}(t,\bm{w})) d\bm{W}(t,\bm{w}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{f}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$, $\bm{g}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$,  and $\bm{\sigma}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n\times k}$ are locally Lipschitz continuous function; $\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ with $\mathcal{U} \subset \mathbb{R}^m$ is the admissible input; $\bm{W}(t,\bm{w}): \mathbb{R}\times \Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^k$ is an $k$-dimensional Wiener process (standard Brownian motion), and $\Omega$, equipped with the probability measure $\mathbb{P}$,  is the sample space $\bm{w}$ belongs to.  The expectation with respect to $\mathbb{P}$ is denoted by $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$.

Assume that each component of $\bm{f}(\bm{x})$, $\bm{g}(\bm{x})$ and $\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x})$ is locally Lipschitz continuous. Given a locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$, then for an initial state $\bm{x}_0\in \mathbb{R}^n$, a stochastic differential equation \eqref{SDE} has a unique (maximal local) strong solution over some time interval $[0,T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}))$ for $\bm{w}\in \Omega$, where $T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})$ is a positive real value or infinity. We denote it as $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\cdot): [0,T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}))\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$, which satisfies the stochastic integral equation,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
  \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)&=\bm{x}_0+ \int_{0}^t (\bm{f}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))+\bm{g}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))\bm{u}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)))d \tau\\
   &+\int_{0}^t \bm{\sigma}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau)) d\bm{W}(\tau,\bm{w}).
   \end{split}
\end{equation*}

The infinitesimal generator underlying system \eqref{SDE} is presented in Definition \ref{inf_generator}.
\begin{definition}
\label{inf_generator}
Given system \eqref{SDE}  with a locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$,  the infinitesimal generator of a twice continuously differentiable function  $v(\bm{x})$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
    \begin{split}
        &\mathcal{L}_{v,\bm{u}}(\bm{x}_0)=\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\frac{\mathbb{E}[v(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t))]-v(\bm{x}_0)}{t}\\
        &=[\frac{\partial v}{\partial \bm{x}}(\bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u}(\bm{x}))+\frac{1}{2}\textbf{tr}(\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x})^{\top}\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial \bm{x}^2} \bm{\sigma}(\bm{x}))]\mid_{\bm{x}=\bm{x}_0}.
    \end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}

As a stochastic generalization of the Newton-Leibniz axiom, Dynkin's formula gives the expected value of any suitably smooth function of an It\^o diffusion at a stopping time.
\begin{theorem}[Dynkin's formula, \cite{oksendal2003}]
\label{dyn_theom}
Given system \eqref{SDE}  with a locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$.  Suppose $\tau$ is a stopping time with $E[\tau]<\infty$, and $v\in \mathcal{C}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with compact support. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{dyn}
\mathbb{E}[v(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}}^{\bm{w}}(\tau))]=v(\bm{x})+\mathbb{E}[\int_{0}^{\tau} \mathcal{L}_{v,\bm{u}}(\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}}^{\bm{w}}(s))ds].
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

In Theorem \ref{dyn_theom}, if we consider a twice continuously differentiable function $f$ defined on a bounded set  $B\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$, i.e., $v(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{C}^2(B)$, $v$ can be any twice continuously differentiable function $v(\bm{x}) \in  \mathcal{C}^2(B)$ without the assumption of compact support. In this case, the support of $v(\bm{x})$ is of course, compact, since the support of $v(\bm{x})$ is always closed and bounded.

Given a bounded and open safe set
\[\mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})>0\}\] with $\partial \mathcal{C}=\{\bm{x}\in \mathbb{R}^n\mid h(\bm{x})=0\}$, and a target set
$\mathcal{X}_r$  satisfying $\mathcal{X}_r\subseteq \mathcal{C}$ and \[h(\bm{x})\leq 1, \forall \bm{x}\in \mathcal{X}_r,\] a
 reach-avoid controller is formulated in Definition \ref{RAC_s}.

\begin{definition}[Reach-avoid Controllers]
\label{RAC_s}
Given a locally Lipschitz continuous feedback controller $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$, the reach-avoid property with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is satisfied if, starting from any initial state $\bm{x}_0$ in $\mathcal{C}$, system \eqref{SDE} with the controller $\bm{u}(\cdot)$ will enter the target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ eventually while staying inside $\mathcal{C}$ before the first target hitting time, with a probability being larger than $h(\bm{x}_0)$, i.e.,
\[\mathbb{P}\Bigg(\Big\{\bm{w}\in \Omega \mid
\begin{aligned}
&\exists t\geq 0. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t) \in \mathcal{X}_r\bigwedge \\
&\forall \tau\in [0,t]. \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau) \in \mathcal{C}
\end{aligned}
\Big\}
\Bigg)\geq h(\bm{x}_0).\] Correspondingly, $\bm{u}(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
 \end{definition}

Similar to the case for deterministic systems in Section \ref{RACS}, we wish to synthesize a reach-avoid controller in a minimally invasive fashion. The optimization problem is formulated below.

\begin{problem}
 Suppose we are given a feedback controller $\bm{k}(\bm{x}): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m$ for  system \eqref{SDE},  we wish to modify this controller in a minimal way so as to guarantee satisfaction of reach-avoid specifications, i.e., solve the following optimization:
\begin{equation}
    \label{q_P}
    \begin{split}
        &\bm{u}(\bm{x})=\arg\min\|\bm{u}-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|\\
        &\text{s.t.}~\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow \mathcal{U} \text{~is a reach-avoid controller}\\
        &\text{~~~with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{X}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.}
     \end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{problem}

In the sequel, the derivation of sufficient conditions for synthesizing  a reach-avoid controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ comes  with a new stochastic process $\{\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t), t\geq 0\}$ for $\bm{x}_0\in \overline{\mathcal{C}}$, which is a stopped process corresponding to $\{\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t), t\in [0,T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}))\}$ and the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$, i.e., \begin{equation}
\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)=
\begin{cases}
&\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t), \text{\rm~if~}t<\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}),\\
&\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})), \text{\rm~if~}t\geq \tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where \[\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})=\inf\{t\mid \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \mathcal{X}_r \wedge \bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)\in \partial \mathcal{C}\}\]
is the first time of exit of $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ from the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$. It is worth remarking here that if the trajectory $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ escapes to infinity in finite time, it must touch the boundary of the bounded safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and thus $\tau^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w}) \leq T^{\bm{x}_0}(\bm{w})$. The stopped process $\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ inherits the right continuity and strong Markovian property of $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$. Moreover, the infinitesimal generator corresponding to $\widehat{\bm{\phi}}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ is identical to the one corresponding to $\bm{\phi}_{\bm{x}_0}^{\bm{w}}(t)$ on the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$, and is equal to zero outside the set $\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$. That is,
\[\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})=    \frac{\partial h}{\partial \bm{x}}(\bm{f}(\bm{x})+\bm{g}(\bm{x})\bm{u}(\bm{x}))+\frac{1}{2}\textbf{tr}(\bm{\sigma}(\bm{x})^{\top}\frac{\partial^2 h}{\partial \bm{x}^2} \bm{\sigma}(\bm{x}))\]
for $\bm{x}\in \mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r$, and
\[\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})=0\]
for $\bm{x}\in \partial \mathcal{C}\cup \mathcal{X}_r$ \cite{prajna2007framework,xue2022_Stochastic}. This will be implicitly assumed throughout this paper.

\subsection{Reach-avoid Controllers Synthesis}
In this section, we extend our methods for deterministic systems in Subsection \ref{egbf} and \ref{ACGBF} to stochastic systems modelled by stochastic differential equations \eqref{SDE}. The algorithms of solving the resulting optimizations are the same with the ones in Subsection \ref{egbf} and \ref{ACGBF}  and therefore, are omitted here.

\subsubsection{Exponential Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
 In this subsection we introduce the notion of exponential control guidance-barrier functions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$ be the sets defined in Subsection  \ref{RCSSS_Pre}, then $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called an exponential control guidance-barrier function, if there exists $\alpha \in (0,\infty)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq \alpha h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
\end{equation}
holds.
\end{definition}

Given an exponential control guidance-barrier function, the sufficient condition for ensuring that a controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ is formulated in Theorem \ref{exponential_s}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{exponential_s}
Given the safe set $\mathcal{C}$, target set $\mathcal{X}_r$ defined  in Subsection \ref{RCSSS_Pre},  if $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an exponential control guidance-barrier function, then any  locally Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\cdot): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ satisfying $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_{s,e}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where
\[\mathcal{K}_{s,e}(\bm{x})=\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}\mid \text{constraint}~\eqref{stochastic_c_e}~\text{holds}\}\]
with
\begin{equation}
\label{stochastic_c_e}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq  \alpha h(\bm{x}),  \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\alpha>0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

Similarly, optimization \eqref{q_P} can be encoded into the following program,
\begin{equation}
\label{s_qu}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},\alpha,\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})-\alpha h(\bm{x})\geq -\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&0\leq \delta<\alpha,\\
&\alpha\geq \xi_0.
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, $\xi_0$ is a user-defined positive value which is to enforce the strict positivity of $\alpha$, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes safety/reachability violations.
The set $\mathcal{K}_{s,e}(\bm{x})$ is convex, thus a direct computation of a feedback controller $\bm{u}(\bm{x})$ satisfying constraints in optimization  \eqref{s_qu} using convex optimization is possible.

\begin{proposition}
\label{s_e}
        Suppose $(\bm{u}_0(\bm{x}),\alpha,\delta)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{s_qu}.
       \begin{enumerate}
           \item If $\delta=0$, $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$.
          \item If $\delta\neq 0$ , $\bm{u}_0(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the set $\mathcal{D}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$, where $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\mid h'(\bm{x})>0\}$ with $h'(\bm{x})=\frac{\alpha h(\bm{x})-\delta}{\alpha-\delta}$.
      \end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\subsubsection{Asymptotic Control Guidance-barrier Functions}
In this subsection we introduce asymptotic control guidance-barrier functions for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.

\begin{definition}
Given sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$ defined in Subsection \ref{RCSSS_Pre},  then $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, if there exists a twice continuously differentiable function $w(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\begin{cases}
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\sup_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

The asymptotic control guidance-barrier function facilitates the construction of constraints for synthesizing reach-avoid controllers.

\begin{theorem}
\label{asymp_s}
Given sets $\mathcal{C}$  and $\mathcal{X}_r$ defined in Subsection \ref{RCSSS}, if $h(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an asymptotic control guidance-barrier function, then any Lipschitz controller $\bm{u}(\cdot): \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ satisfying $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) \in \mathcal{K}_{s,a}(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the safe set $\mathcal{C}$ and target set $\mathcal{X}_r$,
where
\[\mathcal{K}_{s,a}(\bm{x})=\{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U}\mid \text{constraint}~\eqref{stochastic_c_e_a}~\text{holds}\}\]
with
\begin{equation}
\label{stochastic_c_e_a}
\begin{cases}
&\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\
&\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x}), \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r}.\\
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

According to Theorem \ref{asymp_s}, optimization \eqref{q_P} can be encoded into the following program,
   \begin{equation}
    \label{s_im_2}
\begin{split}
        &\min_{\bm{u}(\bm{x})\in \mathcal{U},w(\bm{x}),\delta} \|\bm{u}(\bm{x})-\bm{k}(\bm{x})\|+c\delta\\
s.t.~ &\mathcal{L}_{h,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq 0, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus\mathcal{X}_r},\\
        &\mathcal{L}_{w,\bm{u}}(\bm{x})\geq h(\bm{x})-\delta, \forall \bm{x}\in \overline{\mathcal{C}\setminus \mathcal{X}_r},\\

        &0\leq \delta<1,
        \end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{u}(\bm{x}): \overline{\mathcal{C}}\rightarrow \mathcal{U}$ is a locally Lipschitz parameterized function with some unknown parameters, and $c$ is a large constant that penalizes safety/reachability violations.

\begin{proposition}
\label{s_im_2_pro}
Suppose  $(\bm{u}^*(\bm{x}),\delta^*)$ is obtained by solving optimization \eqref{s_im_2}. The controller $\bm{u}^*(\bm{x})$ is a reach-avoid controller with respect to the sets $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{X}_r$, where $\mathcal{D}=\{\bm{x}\mid h'(\bm{x})>0\}$ with $h'(\bm{x})=\frac{h(\bm{x})-\delta}{1-\delta}$.
\end{proposition}