Artificial pancreas systems (APSs) have transformed insulin delivery for individuals with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus. However, these systems remain vulnerable to both physiological disturbances (meal) and cyber-physical threats such as Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks that block insulin delivery actuation channel. This work presents a robust control framework using control barrier functions (CBFs) to enforce glucose safety constraints without violating hyper- or hypoglycemia, even under attack-induced uncertainties. We develop both standard and robust CBFs based on the physiological model of glucose-insulin interactions. We introduce a novel insulin-adaptive safety filter that anticipates delayed insulin action for improved closed-loop response. The proposed method guarantees for forward invariance and input-to-state safety. To counteract actuation-layer DoS attacks, we propose a fallback defense mechanism. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in maintaining glucose levels within safe bounds, ensuring resilience and reliability in APS operation.
AhmadIMunirFMunirMF (2019) An adaptive backstepping based non-linear controller for artificial pancreas in type 1 diabetes patients. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control47: 49–56.
2.
AmesADCooganSEgerstedtM, et al. (2019) Control Barrier Functions: Theory and applications. In: 2019 18th European control conference (ECC), Naples, 24–27 June, pp. 3420–3431. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
3.
AmesADXuXGrizzleJW, et al. (2016) Control Barrier Function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control62(8): 3861–3876.
4.
AutenriebJAnnaswamyA (2023) Safe and stable adaptive control for a class of dynamic systems. In: 2023 62nd IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC), Singapore, 13–15 December, pp. 5059–5066. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
5.
BelmonAPAuxilliaJ (2020) An adaptive technique based blood glucose control in type-1 diabetes mellitus patients. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering36(8): e3371.
6.
BergmanRN (2021) Origins and history of the minimal model of glucose regulation. Frontiers in Endocrinology11: 583016.
7.
BergmanRNIderYZBowdenCR, et al. (1979) Quantitative estimation of insulin sensitivity. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism236(6): E667.
8.
BergmanRNPhillipsLSCobelliC, et al. (1981) Physiologic evaluation of factors controlling glucose tolerance in man: Measurement of insulin sensitivity and beta-cell glucose sensitivity from the response to intravenous glucose. The Journal of Clinical Investigation68(6): 1456–1467.
9.
BhonsleSSaxenaS (2020) A review on control-relevant glucose–insulin dynamics models and regulation strategies. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering234(5): 596–608.
10.
BlauwHKeith-HynesPKoopsR, et al. (2016) A review of safety and design requirements of the artificial pancreas. Annals of Biomedical Engineering44(11): 3158–3172.
BulasaraPKSahooSGuptaN, et al. (2025) The internet of bio-nano things with insulin-glucose, security and research challenges: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys57(5): 1–42.
13.
CamerlingoNVettorettiMDel FaveroS, et al. (2021) Mathematical models of meal amount and timing variability with implementation in the type-1 diabetes patient decision simulator. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology15(2): 346–359.
14.
ChangPKrishVRahmatiA (2023) Security analysis of RL-based artificial pancreas systems. In: Proceedings of the 2024 workshop on cybersecurity in healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, 14–18 October, pp. 69–76. New York: ACM.
15.
CheeFFernandoT (2007) Closed-Loop Control of Blood Glucose, volume 368. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
16.
ChoiJJLeeDSreenathK, et al. (2021) Robust control barrier–value functions for safety-critical control. In: 2021 60th IEEE conference on decision and control (CDC), Virtual Event, December, pp. 6814–6821. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
17.
Dalla ManCRizzaRACobelliC (2007) Meal simulation model of the glucose-insulin system. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering54(10): 1740–1749.
18.
FerragutiFLandiCTSingletaryA, et al. (2022) Safety and efficiency in robotics: The Control Barrier Functions approach. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine29(3): 139–151.
19.
GargKPanagouD (2021) Robust control barrier and control Lyapunov functions with fixed-time convergence guarantees. In: 2021 American control conference (ACC), Virtual Event, 25–28 May, pp. 2292–2297. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
20.
GondhalekarRDassauEDoyle IIIFJ (2016) Periodic zone-MPC with asymmetric costs for outpatient-ready safety of an artificial pancreas to treat type 1 diabetes. Automatica71: 237–246.
21.
GondhalekarRDassauEDoyle IIIFJ (2018) Velocity-weighting & velocity-penalty MPC of an artificial pancreas: Improved safety & performance. Automatica91: 105–117.
22.
HajizadehIRashidMTurksoyK, et al. (2017) Plasma insulin estimation in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research56(35): 9846–9857.
23.
KangSLHwangYNKwonJY, et al. (2022) Effectiveness and safety of a model predictive control (MPC) algorithm for an artificial pancreas system in outpatients with type 1 diabetes (T1D): Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome14(1): 187.
KlonoffDC (2015) Cybersecurity for connected diabetes devices. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology9(5): 1143–1147.
26.
KovatchevB (2019) A century of diabetes technology: Signals, models, and artificial pancreas control. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism30(7): 432–444.
27.
MahmoudiZBoirouxDHagdrupM, et al. (2016) Application of the continuous-discrete extended Kalman filter for fault detection in continuous glucose monitors for type 1 diabetes. In: 2016 European control conference (ECC), Aalborg, 29 June–1 July, pp. 714–719. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
28.
MarchettiGBaroloMJovanovicL, et al. (2008) An improved PID switching control strategy for type 1 diabetes. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering55(3): 857–865.
29.
MughalISPatanèLCaponettoR (2024) A comprehensive review of models and nonlinear control strategies for blood glucose regulation in artificial pancreas. Annual Reviews in Control57: 100937.
30.
NathADeyRAguilar-AvelarC (2019) Observer based nonlinear control design for glucose regulation in type 1 diabetic patients: An LMI approach. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control47: 7–15.
31.
NiuYLamSK (2025) Securing automated insulin delivery systems: A review of security threats and protectives strategies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14006 .
32.
PinskerJELeeJBDassauE, et al. (2016) Randomized crossover comparison of personalized MPC and PID control algorithms for the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Care39(7): 1135–1142.
33.
PiratlaVSASaxenaSBhatiaS, et al. (2025) Safeguarding the artificial pancreas: A review of security and reliability gaps and AI driven resilience. In: 2025 5th intelligent cybersecurity conference (ICSC), Tampa, FL, 19–22 May, pp. 399–411. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
34.
QuirozG (2019) The evolution of control algorithms in artificial pancreas: A historical perspective. Annual Reviews in Control48: 222–232.
35.
RamkissoonCMAufderheideBBequetteBW, et al. (2017) A review of safety and hazards associated with the artificial pancreas. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering10: 44–62.
36.
RomdlonyMZJayawardhanaB (2014) Uniting control Lyapunov and Control Barrier Functions. In: 53rd IEEE conference on decision and control, Los Angeles, CA, 15–17 December, pp. 2293–2298. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
37.
SanchezEN (2019) The Artificial Pancreas: Current Situation and Future Directions. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
38.
SaxenaSBhatiaSKumarN, et al. (2024) Fortifying artificial pancreas: A hardware-in-the-loop simulation study of cyber-attacks and defense mechanisms. In: 2024 15th international conference on computing communication and networking technologies (ICCCNT), Mandi, India, 24–28 June, pp. 1–8. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
39.
SinghJSinghVKMondalD, et al. (2025) Prescribed finite-time backstepping control for blood glucose regulation in type 1 diabetes. Computers in Biology and Medicine196: 110737.
40.
StavdahlØFougnerALKölleK, et al. (2016) The artificial pancreas: A dynamic challenge. IFAC-PapersOnLine49(7): 765–772.
41.
StergiopoulosGKotzanikolaouPKonstantinouC, et al. (2023) Process-aware attacks on medication control of type-I diabetics using infusion pumps. IEEE Systems Journal17(2): 1831–1842.
42.
TarguiBCastro-GomezJFHernández-GonzálezO, et al. (2024) Observer-based control for plasma glucose regulation in type 1 diabetes mellitus patients with unknown input delay. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering40(7): e3826.
43.
TosunFETeixeiraAMHDongJ, et al. (2025) Kullback-Leibler divergence-based observer design against sensor bias injection attacks in single-output systems. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security20: 2763–2777.
44.
WalendaMLektorovASaxenaS, et al. (2023) Secap: Security analysis of the artificial pancreas. In: 2023 international conference on computing, communication, and intelligent systems (ICCCIS), Greater Noida, India, 3–4 November, pp. 1092–1099. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
45.
WangQMolenaarPHarshS, et al. (2014) Personalized state-space modeling of glucose dynamics for type 1 diabetes using continuously monitored glucose, insulin dose, and meal intake: An extended Kalman filter approach. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology8(2): 331–345.
WielandPAllgöwerF (2007) Constructive safety using Control Barrier Functions. IFAC Proceedings Volumes40(12): 462–467.
48.
XuXTabuadaPGrizzleJW, et al. (2015) Robustness of Control Barrier Functions for safety critical control. IFAC-PapersOnLine48(27): 54–61.
49.
YadavJRaniASinghV (2016) Performance analysis of fuzzy-PID controller for blood glucose regulation in type-1 diabetic patients. Journal of Medical Systems40(12): 254.
