Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Chance-Constrained Nonlinear Covariance Control via Robust Linearization Remainder Bounds

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that nonlinear covariance steering can keep its chance-constraint guarantees by absorbing the Taylor remainder into a stochastic LMI that certifies the true second-moment tube.

desk verdict The central S-LMI certificate is false: the proof commutes a state-dependent uncertainty matrix through expectation, and a simple two-point counterexample violates the claimed bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27742 v1 pith:M4C6ATF3 submitted 2026-07-30 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC

Man Jun Koh , Hyochoong Bang , SooJean Han This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYmath.OC MSC 93E2093C5590C22
keywords covariancecontrolchanceconstraintssequentialconvexprogramminglinearmatrixinequalityTaylorremainderboundingkilledprocessPetersenlemmanonlinearuncertaintypropagation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Covariance steering for nonlinear systems usually linearizes around a reference and propagates a Gaussian covariance through the Jacobian, silently discarding the Taylor remainder. This paper argues that the discarded remainder should be bounded rather than ignored. Its central move is to rewrite the exact incremental dynamics as a linear stochastic inclusion in which the remainder becomes an unstructured norm-bounded operator, with a uniform envelope computed over the local trust region. A robust stochastic LMI derived from Petersen's lemma then certifies a sequence of matrices Q_k that upper-bound the expected uncentered second moment of the killed (domain-truncated) process, making the guarantee independent of the noise distribution. On a bilinear entry-descent example this reduces empirical chance-constraint violations from 40.3% to 0.04% while keeping control effort nearly unchanged.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the robust stochastic LMI (14), a semidefinite constraint on (Q_k, Q_{k+1}, L_k, m_k) obtained by applying Petersen's lemma to the uncertain closed-loop transition A_k(Δ_k)=Φ_cl,k+E_k Δ_k ThatΛ_k^tr C_cl,k. Petersen's lemma is the standard matrix result that turns the requirement A(Δ)Q A(Δ)^T+W ⪯ Q_next for all Δ with Δ^TΔ⪯I into an equivalent LMI. The state-correlated remainder r_k is factorized as Δ_k ThatΛ_k^tr C_cl,k η_k with ThatΛ_k^tr a fixed diagonal envelope, so the nonconvex/dependence is hidden in Δ_k. The killed process η̃_k = η_k 1{τ>k} makes the expectation well-defined on unbounded noise, and the stopping time τ is the first exit from the local ellips

What would settle it

Simulate a scalar version of the S-LMI with x_{k+1} = a x_k + b x_k^2 + w, pick ThatΛ^tr ≥ sup of |second derivative| over E, solve (14), and draw Monte Carlo initial conditions as a Rademacher-type distribution at radius √S_k so the mass sits near the ellipsoid boundary. If E[η_{k+1}^2] ever exceeds Q_{k+1} by more than the chance-constraint risk, the independence step in the proof fails and the certificate is not valid. A simpler check: compute Eq. (16) directly on the Monte Carlo sample and compare the left and right sides.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central assertion is Theorem 1: if the robust S-LMI (14) is feasible and the local bounding constraint Q_k ⪯ S_k holds, then Q_k upper-bounds the expected uncentered second moment E[η̃_k η̃_k^T] of the killed process η̃_k = η_k 1{τ>k}, where τ is the first exit from the local ellipsoidal domain. The S-LMI is derived from a pointwise inequality A(Δ_k) Q_k A(Δ_k)^T + W_k ⪯ Q_{k+1} enforced for every admissible norm-bounded remainder Δ_k, which makes a full distributional propagation unnecessary. From the certified Q_k, exit risk follows from a Markov trace inequality and spatial chance constraints from a Gauss unimodal bound with factor 4/9: a deterministic Taylor-remainder envelop

Load-bearing premise

The certificate goes through only if the state-correlated uncertainty Δ_k(η_k) can be pulled out of the conditional expectation in Eq. (16); that requires ηη^T ⪯ Q almost surely while the process is still inside the domain, whereas the paper states the reverse ordering Q_k ⪯ S_k, so this almost-sure containment is the unstated load-bearing hypothesis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The chance-constraint certificates no longer require Gaussian noise; they hold for any martingale-difference disturbance with known conditional covariance bound W_k.
  • Because the bound is on the uncentered second moment, spatial constraints use the Gauss unimodal bound's 4/9 factor, letting the controller exploit 2.25× more projected variance before a constraint activates than a Chebyshev bound would allow.
  • The S-LMI 'tube' Q_k contained the empirical Monte Carlo scatter with a tightness ratio of 1.01×, so the method is not merely conservative; it tracks the true dispersion closely.
  • Comparable control effort and lower peak feedback gain than the Jacobian-only baseline indicate the violation reduction comes from the remainder certificate, not from added control authority.
  • A uniform per-step exit-risk allocation keeps each subproblem convex at the cost of some conservatism; optimized per-step allocation is left as future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural stress-test the paper leaves implicit is to construct a system where Δ_k depends on η_k drastically (e.g., nonlinearity concentrated at the boundary of E_k) and check whether the S-LMI-certified Q_k still upper-bounds the empirical second moment; the proof's independence step in Eq. (16) is the place such a counterexample would surface.
  • The framework suggests a general recipe: any deterministic error bound on a nonlinear map (interval arithmetic, Lipschitz constants, Hessian bounds) can be converted into a second-moment certificate via an S-LMI, which may extend to distributionally robust and tube MPC settings beyond pure covariance steering.
  • Because the envelope ThatΛ_k^tr was computed analytically for the test problem but the paper notes in the conclusion that general dynamics require systematic computation via interval arithmetic and automatic differentiation, a practical extension is to automate envelope computation for high-dimensional systems such as powered descent guidance; this is the main scaling bottleneck.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Sequential Convex Programming framework for chance-constrained covariance steering of discrete-time nonlinear systems. The nonlinear Taylor remainder is modeled as a norm-bounded, state-dependent uncertainty block, and a robust Stochastic Linear Matrix Inequality (S-LMI) is derived via Petersen's lemma to propagate an upper bound on the uncentered second moment of a killed (domain-truncated) process. Exit risk is bounded using Markov's inequality, and spatial/actuator chance constraints are enforced using Gauss unimodal bounds within a difference-of-convex program. A 4-state EDL-inspired descent problem is simulated with 5,000 Monte Carlo runs, reporting 0.04% empirical violation for the proposed method versus 40.3% for a Jacobian-only iCS baseline.

Significance. The topic is timely and the overall architecture is sensible: moment propagation with explicit remainder bounds is a worthwhile alternative to higher-order moment matching. The numerical study is clean, the envelope is computed analytically, the baseline is appropriate for isolating the effect of the remainder bound, and the reported tightness ratio (1.01x) is useful information. If Theorem 1 were correct, the S-LMI certificate would be a significant contribution. However, the central theorem is false as stated, and the simulation results cannot validate the claimed theoretical guarantee. The contribution currently reduces to an empirical method with an unsupported certificate, which is below the standard for the paper's stated claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 1, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The induction step in the proof of Theorem 1 is invalid. Conditional on F_k, on {tau>k} the one-step second moment is A_k(Delta(eta_k)) eta_k eta_k^T A_k(Delta(eta_k))^T + W_k. Eq. (16) replaces eta_k eta_k^T by E[eta_k eta_k^T] inside this quadratic form while keeping A_k dependent on eta_k; this commutation is unjustified. The S-LMI (14) certifies A(Delta) Q_k A(Delta)^T + W <= Q_{k+1} for every Delta with Delta^T Delta <= I. To use it samplewise one needs eta_k eta_k^T <= Q_k almost surely on the non-exit event. The proof only has eta_k eta_k^T <= S_k a.s. and Q_k <= S_k, which is the reverse ordering. A two-point counterexample with J_x=J_u=0, E=Lambda=C=I, W=0, Q=diag(0.9,0.1), Q_{k+1}=0.9I, S=2I and Delta chosen per support point so that Delta eta = u for every sample satisfies (14) and Q_k <= S_k, while E[eta_1 eta_1^T] = u u^T has eigenvalue 1 > 0.9. Hence Theorem 1 is false as s
  2. [V-A, Eq. (18)] The exit-risk bound does not follow from Theorem 1. Theorem 1 bounds E[eta_j eta_j^T 1_{tau>j}], but Eq. (18) requires a bound on E[eta_j eta_j^T 1_{tau>j-1}], which includes the mass that exits at step j. Since 1_{tau>j} <= 1_{tau>j-1}, the certified Q_j cannot control the pre-exit moment. The displayed inequality Tr(Q_hat_j^{-1} Q_j)/(R^2_{max,j} alpha_tr) is therefore not a valid upper bound on P(tau=j), and the per-step allocation (19) and budget split (20) inherit this gap.
  3. [V-B, Assumption 3 and Eq. (21)] The Gauss-tail argument is applied to the killed process h^T tilde_eta_k, which is a subdistribution with an atom at zero and total mass P(tau>k). The paper asserts that the conditional distribution is unimodal with mode at zero; this is an extra modeling assumption, not a consequence of the dynamics or of the S-LMI. The sentence 'the mode perturbation is negligible' is an approximation, so the spatial chance-constraint guarantee (22) is not established at the same level of rigor as the (claimed) moment bound. If the authors intend to use Gauss's inequality, they should state and prove the required unimodality condition on the conditional distribution, or explicitly replace the Gauss bound by the Chebyshev/Markov bound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'execessive' should be 'excessive'.
  2. [II-A] Typo: 'the the underlying continuous-time physics' should be 'the underlying continuous-time physics'.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The scalar multiplier m_k appears as a decision variable with m_k>0. It would help to state explicitly in the theorem that Petersen's lemma requires the lower-right block to be positive definite, not merely positive semidefinite, or to clarify how the strict inequality is handled in the SDP.
  4. [VII-C, Table I] In the bound tightness row, the entry '–1.01x' is formatted as a dash; this should be a numeric entry aligned with the S-LMI column.
  5. [Abstract / Section V] The abstract says 'without distributional assumptions,' but Assumption 3 is a distributional assumption used for the Gauss bound. Please qualify the statement to refer specifically to the moment propagation in Theorem 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained (a possible proof gap in Eq. (16) is a correctness issue, not circularity).

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The robust S-LMI (14) is a standard Petersen-lemma reformulation of the pointwise robust condition A_k(Δ_k)Q_kA_k(Δ_k)^T + W_k ⪯ Q_{k+1}, and the envelope Λ̂_tr is computed analytically from Hessian/Gronwall bounds, not fitted to the Monte Carlo results. The reported 0.04% empirical violation is an external validation outcome, not an input to the synthesis. The local trust region uses the previous SCP iterate's Q̂ to define E_k and S_k; this is ordinary SCvx iteration and does not assume the theorem's conclusion. Cited works [23], [24], [29] are external sources for the δQC/norm-bounded remainder ansatz, which the paper states explicitly as Assumption 2, and there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. There is, however, a nontrivial proof gap in Theorem 1: Eq. (16) commutes E[A_k(Δ_k) η̃_k η̃_k^T A_k(Δ_k)^T] as if Δ_k(η_k) were independent of η_k, and Q_k ⪯ S_k does not supply the almost-sure dyad bound needed for the deterministic LMI to be applied samplewise. This is a mathematical correctness concern, not circularity, because the S-LMI is not constructed as an identity with its conclusion. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The norm-bounded block Delta is a modeling device, not a falsifiable entity. The method rests on several strong assumptions about the dynamics: exact factorization of the remainder with unit spectral norm bound, unimodality of killed distributions, and SCvx convergence. The hand-chosen domain radius and SCvx/cost weights are tuning parameters. No fit to the reported Monte Carlo data is used.

free parameters (6)
  • R2_max * alpha_tr (domain radius parameter) = 10,000
    Hand-chosen Mahalanobis radius defining E_k; controls ellipsoid size and all subsequent conservative bounds (Sec. VII-B).
  • SCvx/trust-region tuning parameters = rho_min=0.05, rho_max=0.7, gamma_c=0.5, gamma_e=1.2, beta_omega=1.2
    Algorithm tuning choices; not derived from data.
  • Cost weights = unspecified values (omega_l, omega_s, omega_prox, omega_u, omega_d)
    Weights in objective (27) influence the solution but not the certificate; no values reported.
  • epsilon_exit risk split = 0.01
    Hand-chosen exit-risk budget subtracted from each spatial/control chance budget in Eq. (20).
  • epsilon_S, epsilon_margin, alpha_trunc = not specified
    Regularization and margin constants in Q_k⪯S_k and constraint (24); not quantified.
  • Gronwall amplification factor for envelope = not specified
    The discrete-time envelope Lambda_hat_tr is said to be 'amplified via Gronwall' but the exact bound formula/factor is not given (Sec. VII-B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: additive noise w_d,k is a martingale difference sequence with known conditional covariance bound W_k.
    Invoked to make cross terms vanish in the moment recursion (Sec. II-A).
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2: the Taylor remainder factorizes as r_k = Delta_k Lambda_hat_tr C_cl eta_k with Delta_k^T Delta_k⪯I over the trust-region ellipsoid and candidate controller set.
    This exact norm-bounded factorization is introduced for this method; its existence for general nonlinearities is not proven (Eq. 13).
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: the projected killed state is continuous and unimodal with mode at zero, justifying the Gauss bound.
    Needed for the 4/9 Gauss multiplier; the paper says a Chebyshev default is recovered if violated (Sec. V-B).
  • domain assumption SCP convergence: virtual control slacks nu_k go to zero before the theoretical certificates apply.
    The second-moment theorem is stated only at algorithmic convergence (Remark 1, Sec. IV).
  • standard math Standard results: Markov, Boole, Gauss inequality, Petersen's lemma, S-procedure, tower property.
    Used without proof in the risk and LMI derivations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chance-Constrained Nonlinear Covariance Control via Robust Linearization Remainder Bounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4C6ATF3

@misc{pith2026260727742,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chance-Constrained Nonlinear Covariance Control via Robust Linearization Remainder Bounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4C6ATF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27742}
}
read the original abstract

When dealing with nonlinear systems, classical covariance steering typically propagates uncertainty via first-order linearizations, discarding higher-order Taylor remainders. This truncation causes computed statistical moments to diverge from the true physical state distribution, often leading to chance constraint violations. This paper introduces a discrete-time Sequential Convex Programming (SCP) framework that casts the deterministic one-step nonlinear numerical map as a Linear Stochastic Inclusion. The Taylor remainder is bounded within an unstructured uncertainty block over a uniform envelope. The second-moment tubes are propagated via what we refer to as a robust Stochastic Linear Matrix Inequality (S-LMI) derived from the Petersen's lemma, providing an upper bound on the expected uncentered second moment. Domain-exit risk is bounded analytically via a Markov trace inequality, and spatial chance constraints are enforced via Gauss unimodal second-moment bounds within a Difference-of-Convex program. Simulations on a state-dependent nonlinear dynamic system demonstrate constraint satisfaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27742 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Monte Carlo trajectories (5,000 runs). (a) iCS with ΣiCS k ellipses (90%). (b) S-LMI with Qk bounds. Dotted lines: |ξ1| ≤ 3.8, ξ2 ≥ −0.2. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 −2.5 0.0 2.5 »1 (a) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 »2 (b) Qk bound S-LMI iCS 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 v1 (c) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 −2 −1 0 v2 (d) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) −2 0 2 u1 (e) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) −2 0 2 u2 (f) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. State (a–d) and control (e–f) profiles. Blue: S-LMI; red dashed: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Per-step violation rate; dashed black: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Per-step control effort ∥uk∥ 2 . (b) Feedback gain ∥Kk∥2. [2] Y. Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a final probability distribution, part i,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1158–1169,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Covariance control theory,

    A. Hotz and R. E. Skelton, “Covariance control theory,”International Journal of Control, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 13–32, 1987. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) 0 10 20 30 40Violation (%) (a)iCS MC iCS pred. S-LMI MC 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10Trace (b) Tr(Qk) Tr( ^§MC k ) Fig. 3. (a) Per-step violation rate; dashed black:5%target. (b)Tr(Q k)...

    1987

  2. [2]

    Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a final probability distribution, part i,

    Y . Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a final probability distribution, part i,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1158–1169, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Finite-horizon covariance control for discrete-time stochastic linear systems subject to input constraints,

    E. Bakolas, “Finite-horizon covariance control for discrete-time stochastic linear systems subject to input constraints,”Automatica, vol. 91, pp. 61–68, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Optimal covariance control for stochastic systems under chance constraints,

    K. Okamoto, M. Goldshtein, and P. Tsiotras, “Optimal covariance control for stochastic systems under chance constraints,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 266–271, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Optimal covariance steering for discrete-time linear stochastic systems,

    F. Liu, G. Rapakoulias, and P. Tsiotras, “Optimal covariance steering for discrete-time linear stochastic systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2289–2304, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Robust cislunar low-thrust trajectory optimization under uncertainties via sequential covariance steering,

    N. Kumagai and K. Oguri, “Robust cislunar low-thrust trajectory optimization under uncertainties via sequential covariance steering,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 48, no. 12, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Computationally efficient chance con- strained covariance control with output feedback,

    J. Pilipovsky and P. Tsiotras, “Computationally efficient chance con- strained covariance control with output feedback,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 677– 682

    2024

  8. [8]

    Covariance steering with optimal risk allocation,

    ——, “Covariance steering with optimal risk allocation,”IEEE Trans- actions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 3719– 3733, 2021

    2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Distributionally robust covariance steering with optimal risk allocation,

    V . Renganathan, J. Pilipovsky, and P. Tsiotras, “Distributionally robust covariance steering with optimal risk allocation,” in2023 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2607–2614

    2023

  2. [10]

    Nonlinear uncertainty con- trol with iterative covariance steering,

    J. Ridderhof, K. Okamoto, and P. Tsiotras, “Nonlinear uncertainty con- trol with iterative covariance steering,” in2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2019, pp. 3484–3490

    2019

  3. [11]

    Chance-constrained sequential convex programming for robust trajectory optimization,

    T. Lew, R. Bonalli, and M. Pavone, “Chance-constrained sequential convex programming for robust trajectory optimization,” in2020 European Control Conference (ECC), 2020, pp. 1871–1878

    2020

  4. [12]

    Convex approach to covariance control with application to stochastic low-thrust trajectory optimization,

    B. Benedikter, A. Zavoli, Z. Wang, S. Pizzurro, and E. Cavallini, “Convex approach to covariance control with application to stochastic low-thrust trajectory optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2061–2075, 2022

  5. [13]

    Chance-constrained control for safe spacecraft autonomy: Convex programming approach,

    K. Oguri, “Chance-constrained control for safe spacecraft autonomy: Convex programming approach,” in2024 American Control Confer- ence (ACC), 2024, pp. 2318–2324

    2024

  6. [14]

    Greedy finite-horizon covariance steering for discrete-time stochastic nonlinear systems based on the unscented transform,

    E. Bakolas and A. Tsolovikos, “Greedy finite-horizon covariance steering for discrete-time stochastic nonlinear systems based on the unscented transform,” in2020 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 3595–3600

    2020

  7. [15]

    Cautious nonlinear covariance steer- ing using variational gaussian process predictive models,

    A. Tsolovikos and E. Bakolas, “Cautious nonlinear covariance steer- ing using variational gaussian process predictive models,”IF AC- PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 20, pp. 59–64, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Tube stochastic optimal control for nonlinear constrained trajectory optimization problems,

    N. Ozaki, S. Campagnola, and R. Funase, “Tube stochastic optimal control for nonlinear constrained trajectory optimization problems,” TABLE I S-LMIVS.ICS (5,000MONTECARLO TRIALS). Metric iCS S-LMI Max MC violation (%) 40.3 0.04 Control effort P ∥uk∥2 40.0 41.5 Max∥K k∥2 3.40 3...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Trajectory optimization of chance- constrained nonlinear stochastic systems for motion planning under uncertainty,

    Y . K. Nakka and S.-J. Chung, “Trajectory optimization of chance- constrained nonlinear stochastic systems for motion planning under uncertainty,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 203– 222, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Direct policy optimization using deterministic sampling and collocation,

    T. A. Howell, C. Fu, and Z. Manchester, “Direct policy optimization using deterministic sampling and collocation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5324–5331, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Nonlinear covariance control via differential dynamic programming,

    Z. Yi, Z. Cao, E. Theodorou, and Y . Chen, “Nonlinear covariance control via differential dynamic programming,” in2020 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2020, pp. 3571–3576

    2020

  12. [20]

    Covariance steering for nonlinear control-affine systems,

    H. Yu, Z. Chen, and Y . Chen, “Covariance steering for nonlinear control-affine systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.09530, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Convex bound of nonlinear dynamical errors for stochastic optimal control,

    D. C. Qi and K. Oguri, “Convex bound of nonlinear dynamical errors for stochastic optimal control,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.21975, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Non-Gaussian distribution steering in nonlinear dynamics with conjugate unscented transformation,

    D. C. Qi, K. Oguri, P. Singla, and M. R. Akella, “Non-Gaussian distribution steering in nonlinear dynamics with conjugate unscented transformation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.12946, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Observers for systems with nonlineari- ties satisfying incremental quadratic constraints,

    B. Ac ¸ıkmes ¸e and M. Corless, “Observers for systems with nonlineari- ties satisfying incremental quadratic constraints,”Automatica, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1339–1348, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Joint synthesis of trajectory and controlled invariant funnel for discrete-time systems with locally lip- schitz nonlinearities,

    T. Kim, P. Elango, and B. Ac ¸ıkmes ¸e, “Joint synthesis of trajectory and controlled invariant funnel for discrete-time systems with locally lip- schitz nonlinearities,”International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 4157–4176, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    A Riccati equation approach to the stabilization of uncertain linear systems,

    I. R. Petersen and C. V . Hollot, “A Riccati equation approach to the stabilization of uncertain linear systems,”Automatica, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 397–411, 1986

    1986

  18. [26]

    Durrett,Probability: Theory and Examples, 5th ed

    R. Durrett,Probability: Theory and Examples, 5th ed. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Convex optimization for trajectory generation: A tutorial on generating dynamically feasible trajectories reliably and efficiently,

    D. Malyuta, T. P. Reynolds, M. Szmuk, T. Lew, R. Bonalli, M. Pavone, and B. Ac ¸ıkmes ¸e, “Convex optimization for trajectory generation: A tutorial on generating dynamically feasible trajectories reliably and efficiently,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 40–...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Successive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence properties,

    Y . Mao, M. Szmuk, and B. Ac ¸ıkmes ¸e, “Successive convexification of non-convex optimal control problems and its convergence properties,” in2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2016, pp. 3636–3641

    2016

  21. [29]

    Robust predictive control for uncertain nonlinear systems via funnel synthesis,

    T. Kim, “Robust predictive control for uncertain nonlinear systems via funnel synthesis,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V . Balakrishnan,Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory, ser. SIAM Studies in Applied Mathematics. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 1994, vol. 15

    1994

  23. [31]

    Dharmadhikari and K

    S. Dharmadhikari and K. Joag-Dev,Unimodality, convexity, and ap- plications. Elsevier, 1988

    1988

  24. [32]

    On distributionally robust chance- constrained linear programs,

    G. C. Calafiore and L. El Ghaoui, “On distributionally robust chance- constrained linear programs,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    The concave-convex procedure,

    A. L. Yuille and A. Rangarajan, “The concave-convex procedure,” Neural Computation, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 915–936, 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Clarabel: An interior-point solver for conic programs with quadratic objectives,

    P. J. Goulart and Y . Chen, “Clarabel: An interior-point solver for conic programs with quadratic objectives,” 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Cvxpy: A python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,

    S. Diamond and S. Boyd, “Cvxpy: A python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 17, no. 83, pp. 1–5, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.