Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of a Hybrid Thermal Management System

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nonlinear model predictive control can run in real time on a stiff, 77-state hybrid thermal management system: the paper demonstrates the first experimental MPC implementation on such a testbed, with a 25-step horizon updating every…

desk verdict A real 77-state NMPC on a hybrid thermal management testbed, with a genuinely useful TES-vs-no-TES experiment—but the gradient derivation in Section IV-B does not hold up, so the 'solved online' claim is only partially supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15929 v1 pith:3NX7KPR7 submitted 2024-11-24 eess.SY cs.SY

Demetrius Gulewicz , Uduak Inyang-Udoh , Trevor Bird , Neera Jain This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords nonlinearmodelpredictivecontrolthermalmanagementsystemlatentenergystoragephasechangematerialstiffdynamicsreal-timeimplementationmatrixinverseapproximationstateestimation
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

The paper sets out to show that nonlinear model predictive control can run in real time on a high-dimensional, stiff thermal management system with integrated latent thermal energy storage. It reports the first experimental implementation of MPC, linear or nonlinear, on such a hybrid system: a 77-state controller updated every second on a physical testbed. The authors argue that linearizing the state-dependent dynamics at each prediction step turns stiff integration into an explicit, low-cost computation and yields analytic gradients almost for free. If true, this removes a practical barrier to using MPC where fine-grained phase-change models are needed, and it gives a concrete way to test the value of actively charging and discharging phase-change storage under transient heat loads.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the graph-based state-dependent coefficient model, $M(x)\dot{x}=C(x,u,d)x+Bd$, where $M$ is a diagonal thermal-capacitance matrix and $C$ is a sparse thermal-conductance matrix. Linearizing at each MPC time step turns the prediction model into $\dot{x}=A_k x+\tilde{d}_k$, whose trapezoidal-rule integration is $(I-\frac{t_c}{2}\phi_k)^{-1}(I+\frac{t_c}{2}\phi_k)\tilde{x}_k$; the inverse is computed by a fixed number of Newton-Schulz iterations, starting from the previous step's inverse, which makes the whole integrator a fixed sequence of matrix operations. The same linearized form yields a cheap first-order gradient approximation, $\partial x_{k+1}/\partial u_k \approx t_c A_k E_k [I_{n_u}\otimes x_k]$, so the optimizer gets analytic gradients without finite differences. This combination is what fits 77 states and 25 prediction steps inside a 1-second update interval.

What would settle it

Rerun the same simulated and experimental scenarios with the matrix inverse computed exactly, or with two or more Newton-Schulz iterations, and with exact gradients; if the control inputs, cold-plate trajectories, or execution times change substantially, the approximations are doing nontrivial work and the claim that they are sufficiently accurate is in doubt. A second test is to apply a heat-load profile with a fast, large pulse that pushes the cold plate near its 45 °C limit and check whether the 1-second update rate still holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a hybrid thermal management system—a pumped coolant loop with a cold plate, a heat exchanger, and four finned phase-change storage devices—can be controlled by a nonlinear MPC that solves a 25-step optimal control problem in under one second, despite having 77 states and dynamics with widely separated timescales. The enabler is a state-dependent graph model of the form $\dot{x}=A(x,u,d)x+\tilde{d}$; fixing $A$ at each step gives a linear system whose implicit trapezoidal integration has an explicit closed form, with the required inverse approximated by Newton-Schulz iteration. The same linearization provides one-term power-series approximations to the gradients, so a standard sequential quadratic programming optimizer receives analytical gradients at minimal extra cost. The authors validate this on an experimental testbed, matching simulated trajectories, and report that adding the thermal storage keeps the cold plate roughly 7 °C cooler than an otherwise comparable MPC without storage under the same transient heat loads. They also state that this is the first experimental demonstration of MPC, linear or nonlinear, for a hybrid thermal management system.

Load-bearing premise

The whole real-time scheme rests on the assumption that one Newton-Schulz iteration for the matrix inverse and a one-term power-series formula for the gradients are accurate enough for the optimizer: the controller's feasibility and the reported 7 °C benefit could fail to generalize if those approximations silently bias the solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Other high-dimensional, stiff thermo-fluid systems with state-dependent coefficients can use the same explicit-integrator-plus-analytic-gradient recipe to run nonlinear MPC at update rates that were previously out of reach.
  • Active charging and discharging control of phase-change storage becomes testable on hardware rather than only in simulation, giving system designers a direct measurement of how much thermal endurance a given storage volume provides.
  • Because the cost function penalizes the TES temperature states, the controller naturally allocates flow to recharge the storage during low-load periods, so thermal endurance is actively scheduled rather than left to passive behavior.
  • The experimental comparison with a no-TES MPC quantifies the benefit of hybridization on this testbed: about 7 °C lower cold-plate temperature during the tested transient profile, at roughly similar primary flow rates.
  • The fixed iteration count of the integrator makes worst-case computation time predictable, which is a useful property for safety-critical embedded control applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 7 °C benefit is tied to this specific load profile and to the sizing of the storage and heat exchanger; nothing in the paper claims it generalizes to all loads, and co-designing the storage volume could make it larger or smaller.
  • Editorial inference: the approximations form a tunable family—more Newton-Schulz iterations, higher-order gradient terms, or exact inverse computation—so the accuracy-versus-update-rate frontier could be mapped explicitly, which the paper does not do.
  • Editorial inference: the graph-based state-dependent representation is modular, so the same machinery could extend to other phase-change or transport-reaction systems, but faster dynamics than the cold plate would stress the one-point linearization assumption.
  • Editorial inference: separating the contribution of the integrator from the contribution of the gradient shortcut would clarify which piece is responsible for the computational savings, since the paper validates them together.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a nonlinear model predictive controller (NMPC) for a hybrid thermal management system (TMS) with latent thermal energy storage (TES), based on a 77-state model (5 lumped fluid/component states plus 72 TES states). The authors propose an explicit integration method that linearizes the dynamics at each time step within the MPC horizon and applies a trapezoidal rule with a Newton-Schulz matrix inverse approximation. They further supply analytic gradients to the MATLAB solver fmincon. The paper reports simulation and experimental results on a laboratory testbed showing that the controller meets the cold-plate temperature objective, and a comparative experiment in which the hybrid TMS maintains a cold-plate temperature about 7 °C lower than a TMS without TES under the same transient heat load profile.

Significance. If the numerical methodology were fully validated, this would be a notable demonstration: real-time NMPC with a high-dimensional, stiff prediction model on an experimental hybrid TMS, and the first experimental MPC implementation on such a system. The physical experiment comparing with and without TES provides concrete evidence of the benefit of actively controlling TES charging and discharging, which is a valuable contribution. However, the central numerical claims are not yet supported as stated. The analytic gradient formula in Eq. (20) appears algebraically inconsistent with Eqs. (18)-(19), the r=0 Newton-Schulz approximation is used without error analysis, and there are no convergence diagnostics or comparisons against exact gradients or a stiff integrator. These gaps directly affect the claim that the paper solves the NMPC optimal control problem online rather than implementing a heuristic controller. The experimental results are encouraging but are based on a single trial per configuration, so the quantitative benefit claim should be treated cautiously.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B, Eq. (20)] The gradient formula in Eq. (20) does not follow from Eqs. (18) and (19). From Eq. (19), the derivative of the state transition with respect to u_{j,k} is approximately t_s exp(t_s A_k) G_{j,k}, whose leading term is t_s G_{j,k}; combined with Eq. (18) this gives a leading term t_s G_{j,k} x_k. Eq. (20) instead gives t_c A_k G_{j,k} x_k, which differs already in the leading order. Furthermore, Eq. (20) ignores the dependence of D_k^{-1} in Eq. (14) on u_k; this dependence is present whenever the Newton-Schulz iteration runs for r>0, and even for r=0 the first horizon step uses an initial inverse computed from D_0, which depends on u_0. Since the optimizer is configured with 'Specify Objective Gradient True', incorrect gradients mean fmincon may not converge to a stationary point of the discretized optimal control problem. The authors should correct Eq. (20) or, if they intend a different approximation, explain it precisely and validate it against finite-difference gradients or the exact derivative of the rollout, reporting convergence measures such as SQP iteration counts, KKT residuals, or first-order optimality values.
  2. [Section IV-A, Algorithm 1, and Table III] The Newton-Schulz matrix inverse approximation is used with r=0 (one iteration) and the previous step's inverse as the initial guess. The paper provides no error analysis for this approximation: no matrix inverse residual, condition number, or comparison of the resulting rollout against a standard stiff solver such as ode15s is reported. Given that the same approximate inverse is used across the horizon and also feeds the gradient computation, the accuracy of both the prediction and the optimization is unverified. Please report integration error statistics over the prediction horizon and demonstrate that one Newton-Schulz iteration is sufficient under the tested operating conditions.
  3. [Section V-B3, Fig. 11] The quantitative claim that the hybrid TMS maintains the cold plate approximately 7 °C lower than the TMS without TES is based on a single experimental run for each configuration. There are no repeated trials, no error bars, and no discussion of thermocouple measurement uncertainty or run-to-run variability in the initial condition. As a proof-of-concept the single trial is informative, but the quantitative comparison should be framed as a single-trial observation and the measurement uncertainty should be stated.
  4. [Equation (17)] Eq. (17) states that ∂x_{k+1}/∂x_k is approximately A_k, but the actual state transition of the linearized trapezoidal scheme in Eq. (14) is D_k^{-1}(I + (t_c/2)A_k) (with the appropriate augmented block). The approximation A_k is not justified and propagates through the chain rule in Eq. (16), affecting the total gradient. The authors should use the exact transition matrix of the linearized scheme or provide evidence that A_k is an adequate approximation over the horizon.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-A] The text 'mimicking a head load generated by high power electronics' should read 'heat load'.
  2. [Algorithm 1] The phrase 'F or i∈...' contains a typo, and the symbol A_k is reused both for the dynamics matrix in Eq. (6) and for the top-left block of the state transition matrix in Algorithm 1; these should be distinguished.
  3. [Section V-B1] The statement 'twelve of the seventy-two TES states are directly measured' appears inconsistent with the subsequent description that for each module the fluid inlet, fluid outlet, and three PCM states are used with the observer, which would imply twenty measured quantities per four modules. Please clarify which TES states are directly measured.
  4. [Section V-B2] The sentence 'the value of t he function is zero' contains a typo and should read 'the value of the function'.
  5. [Fig. 7] The execution-time plot would be clearer if it also reported the maximum, mean, and standard deviation of computation time over the run, rather than relying solely on visual inspection of the trace.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TES temperature benefit is an experimental comparison, and prior-work citations are independently validated.

full rationale

The claimed results are not circular. The central empirical claim, that the hybrid TMS with TES maintains a cold-plate temperature about 7 °C lower than a comparable TMS without TES under identical transient heat loads, is produced by a physical experiment (Section V-B.3, Figs. 11-12), not by an equation that contains the result as an input. The NMPC cost, constraints, and gradient formulas in Sections III-IV are explicit design choices, and the controller's input trajectories are measured rather than read off from the cost. The model and observer are taken from the authors' prior work [8], [9], but [9] includes experimental validation of the TES model and observer, so those citations are independent support rather than self-referential load-bearing evidence. The approximate gradient Eq. (20) and the r=0 Newton-Schulz inverse are asserted to be 'sufficiently accurate' without error or convergence checks; that is a numerical validation gap, not a circularity, because the experimental behavior does not reduce to that formula. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its main experimental demonstration, and the circularity burden is negligible.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim depends on hand-tuned weights and on several modeling and approximation assumptions inherited from prior work or asserted without error bounds.

free parameters (4)
  • NMPC cost weights = Ru=0.5, Rdu=0.25, Qtes=2.5e-6
    Hand-tuned weights balancing temperature limit, thermal endurance, and pump power; they shape behavior but are not fitted to the claimed result.
  • Soft-constraint penalty parameters = alpha1=0.027, alpha2=6.75e-4, beta1=1, beta2=-79.1, beta3=1564, epsilon=0.3 C
    Penalty function coefficients chosen by hand; four enforce smoothness, beta1 and epsilon set the barrier shape.
  • Newton-Schulz iteration count = r=0
    Method parameter fixed to one iteration with warm start; no accuracy analysis is provided in the paper.
  • Horizon length and step size = N=25, Delta t=1 s
    Controller horizon settings, not fitted, but central to real-time feasibility.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Lumped-parameter ODE model for tank, cold plate, and heat exchanger (Eq. 1) adequately represents the single-phase loop.
    Stated in Section II.A; model form taken from prior work [15] and not re-validated in this paper.
  • domain assumption The finite-volume effective-specific-heat model with 18 control volumes per TES device is adequate for melt-front prediction and state estimation.
    Section II.A.2 summarizes assumptions from [9]; the controller and observer both depend on this model's accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixing state-dependent coefficients at x_k over each 1 s step yields sufficiently accurate prediction over the 25-step horizon.
    Section IV.A linearizes Eq. (6) to x_dot = A_k x + d_tilde_k; no error bound or comparison with exact integration is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximate gradients of Eq. (20) are accurate enough for SQP convergence.
    Section IV.B and Remark 2 assert sufficiency; no comparison to finite-difference or exact gradients is reported.
  • domain assumption Disturbances (heat load and chiller temperature) are constant over each 1 s controller interval.
    Zero-order hold stated in Section IV.A; reasonable but not explicitly justified for the experimental heat-load profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of a Hybrid Thermal Management System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NX7KPR7

@misc{pith2026241115929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of a Hybrid Thermal Management System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NX7KPR7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15929}
}
read the original abstract

Model predictive control has gained popularity for its ability to satisfy constraints and guarantee robustness for certain classes of systems. However, for systems whose dynamics are characterized by a high state dimension, substantial nonlinearities, and stiffness, suitable methods for online nonlinear MPC are lacking. One example of such a system is a vehicle thermal management system (TMS) with integrated thermal energy storage (TES), also referred to as a hybrid TMS. Here, hybrid refers to the ability to achieve cooling through a conventional heat exchanger or via melting of a phase change material, or both. Given increased electrification in vehicle platforms, more stringent performance specifications are being placed on TMS, in turn requiring more advanced control methods. In this paper, we present the design and real-time implementation of a nonlinear model predictive controller with 77 states on an experimental hybrid TMS testbed. We show how, in spite of high-dimension and stiff dynamics, an explicit integration method can be obtained by linearizing the dynamics at each time step within the MPC horizon. This integration method further allows the first-order gradients to be calculated with minimal additional computational cost. Through simulated and experimental results, we demonstrate the utility of the proposed solution method and the benefits of TES for mitigating highly transient heat loads achieved by actively controlling its charging and discharging behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the hybrid TMS. nents that comprise the single-phase pumped fluid loop: the tank, cold plate, and heat exchanger. The temperature of the fluid in the tank is modeled with one state—Tt,f . The cold plate (CP) and heat ex￾changer (HX) are modeled with two states each: one for the temperature of the component wall (Tcp and Thx respectively), and one for the temperature of the fluid flowing through each com… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic showing the finite volume dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Simulation results depicting the primary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated heat load input applied to the cold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Controller execution time on the experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experimental results: comparison of the total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the cold plate wall temper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experimental results: comparison of the heat transfer rates from the primary fluid to the TES and HX, respectively, plotted against the rate of heat transfer applied to the cold plate. 0 100 200 300 400 Time (s) -0.5 0 0.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the primary flow rate mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Experimental results: plot of the heat trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: TES state of charge during operation of the hybrid TMS, as estimated using an observer (an exact measurement of the SOC is not available on the testbed). VI. CONCLUSION In this paper we presented the design and real￾time implementation of a nonlinear model predictive …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Explicit Model Predictive Control,

    A. Bemporad, “Explicit Model Predictive Control,” in Ency- clopedia of Systems and Control , J. Baillieul and T. Samad, Eds. London: Springer, 2019, pp. 1–7

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Model- based predictive control of an ice storage device in a building cooling system,

    J. A. Candanedo, V . R. Dehkordi, and M. Stylianou, “Model- based predictive control of an ice storage device in a building cooling system,” Applied Energy , vol. 111, pp. 1032–1045, Nov. 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Model predictive control of hy- brid thermal energy systems in transport refrigeration,

    S. E. Shafiei and A. Alleyne, “Model predictive control of hy- brid thermal energy systems in transport refrigeration,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 82, pp. 264–280, May 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Hierarchical Hybrid MPC for Management of Distributed Phase Change Thermal Energy Storage,

    H. C. Pangborn, C. E. Laird, and A. G. Alleyne, “Hierarchical Hybrid MPC for Management of Distributed Phase Change Thermal Energy Storage,” in 2020 American Control Confer- ence (ACC), Jul. 2020, pp. 4147–4153

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Nonlinear Hierarchical MPC for Maximizing Aircraft Thermal Endurance,

    D. D. Leister and J. P. Koeln, “Nonlinear Hierarchical MPC for Maximizing Aircraft Thermal Endurance,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2020 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference . American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Oct. 2020, p. V001T11A003

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Simple and Accurate Model of Thermal Storage with Phase Change Material Tai- lored for Model Predictive Control,

    F. Vrbanc, M. Va ˇsak, and V . Le ˇsi´c, “Simple and Accurate Model of Thermal Storage with Phase Change Material Tai- lored for Model Predictive Control,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 19, p. 6849, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Switched Moving Boundary Modeling of Phase Change Thermal Energy Storage Systems,

    T. J. Sakakini and J. P. Koeln, “Switched Moving Boundary Modeling of Phase Change Thermal Energy Storage Systems,” in 2023 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applica- tions (CCTA), Aug. 2023, pp. 941–947

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Model Predictive Control of a Hybrid Thermal Management System using State of Charge Estimation,

    U. Inyang-Udoh, M. Shanks, and N. Jain, “Model Predictive Control of a Hybrid Thermal Management System using State of Charge Estimation,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC), May 2023, pp. 2493–2499

    work page 2023

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Design and Vali- dation of a State-Dependent Riccati Equation Filter for State of Charge Estimation in a Latent Thermal Storage Device,

    M. Shanks, U. Inyang-Udoh, and N. Jain, “Design and Vali- dation of a State-Dependent Riccati Equation Filter for State of Charge Estimation in a Latent Thermal Storage Device,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control , vol. 145, no. 091002, Jul. 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Numerical Simulation Methods for Embedded Optimization,

    R. Quirynen, “Numerical Simulation Methods for Embedded Optimization,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Freiburg, Jan. 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Hairer and G

    E. Hairer and G. Wanner, Solving Ordinary Differential Equa- tions II , ser. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1996, vol. 14

    1996

  4. [12]

    7. Ordinary Differential Equations,

    C. B. Moler, “7. Ordinary Differential Equations,” in Numerical Computing with Matlab , ser. Other Titles in Applied Mathe- matics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Jan. 2004, pp. 185–234

    2004

  5. [13]

    BLASFEO: basic linear algebra subroutines for embedded optimization,

    G. Frison, D. Kouzoupis, T. Sartor, A. Zanelli, and M. Diehl, “BLASFEO: basic linear algebra subroutines for embedded optimization,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software , vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1–30, Dec. 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    The MATLAB ODE Suite,

    L. F. Shampine and M. W. Reichelt, “The MATLAB ODE Suite,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–22, Jan. 1997

    1997

  7. [15]

    Control of a Hybrid Thermal Man- agement System: A Heuristic Strategy for Charging and Dis- charging a Latent Thermal Energy Storage Device,

    M. Shanks and N. Jain, “Control of a Hybrid Thermal Man- agement System: A Heuristic Strategy for Charging and Dis- charging a Latent Thermal Energy Storage Device,” in 2022 21st IEEE Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermo- mechanical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (iT...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Conductive heat transfer in lamellar phase change material composites,

    A. Hoe, M. Deckard, A. Tamraparni, A. Elwany, J. R. Felts, and P. J. Shamberger, “Conductive heat transfer in lamellar phase change material composites,” Applied Thermal Engineering , vol. 178, p. 115553, Sep. 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Numerical Validation of Effective Specific Heat Functions for Simulating Melting Dynamics in Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage Modules,

    B. Gillis and N. Jain, “Numerical Validation of Effective Specific Heat Functions for Simulating Melting Dynamics in Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage Modules,” in 2021 20th IEEE Intersociety Conference on Thermal and Thermomechan- ical Phenomena in Electronic Systems (ITherm...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Zone model predictive control algorithm using soft constraint method,

    X. Zuhua and Z. Jun, “Zone model predictive control algorithm using soft constraint method,” in Fifth World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (IEEE Cat. No.04EX788) , vol. 1, Jun. 2004, pp. 650–653 V ol.1

    2004

  11. [19]

    Safety Planning Using Control Barrier Function: A Model Predictive Control Scheme,

    Z. Marvi and B. Kiumarsi, “Safety Planning Using Control Barrier Function: A Model Predictive Control Scheme,” in 2019 IEEE 2nd Connected and Automated Vehicles Symposium (CAVS), Sep. 2019, pp. 1–5

    2019

  12. [20]

    Iterative Berechung der reziproken Matrix,

    G. Schulz, “Iterative Berechung der reziproken Matrix,” ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics / Zeitschrift f¨ur Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 57–59, 1933

    1933

  13. [21]

    An Improved Newton Iteration for the Generalized Inverse of a Matrix, with Applications,

    V . Pan and R. Schreiber, “An Improved Newton Iteration for the Generalized Inverse of a Matrix, with Applications,” SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1109–1130, Sep. 1991

    1991

  14. [22]

    A New Scaling and Squaring Algorithm for the Matrix Exponential,

    A. H. Al-Mohy and N. J. Higham, “A New Scaling and Squaring Algorithm for the Matrix Exponential,” SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 970– 989, Jan. 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    A Catalogue of Software for Matrix Functions. Version 2.0,

    N. J. Higham and E. Deadman, “A Catalogue of Software for Matrix Functions. Version 2.0,” The University of Manchester, Tech. Rep., Jan. 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Derivatives of the Matrix Expo- nential and Their Computation,

    I. Najfeld and T. F. Havel, “Derivatives of the Matrix Expo- nential and Their Computation,” Advances in Applied Mathe- matics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 321–375, Sep. 1995. 12

    1995

  17. [25]

    Random-effects substitution models for phylogenetics via scalable gradient approximations,

    A. F. Magee, A. J. Holbrook, J. E. Pekar, I. W. Caviedes-Solis, F. A. Matsen Iv, G. Baele, J. O. Wertheim, X. Ji, P. Lemey, and M. A. Suchard, “Random-effects substitution models for phylogenetics via scalable gradient approximations,” System- atic Biology, May 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.