Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Robustly Invertible Nonlinear Dynamics and the BiLipREN: Contracting Neural Models with Contracting Inverses

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 a recurrent network class, the biLipREN, can be made robustly invertible by construction, with a single matrix inequality certifying contraction and bi-Lipschitz bounds for both the forward model and its explicit…

desk verdict The biLipREN construction is a useful new model class, but Theorem 1's second robustness bound has a genuine gap and needs a fix or a weaker bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03069 v1 pith:AWHPN5BU submitted 2025-05-05 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SY

Yurui Zhang , Ruigang Wang , Ian R. Manchester This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SY MSC 93B1793C1093D25
keywords robustinvertibilitycontractionanalysisbi-Lipschitzmapsrecurrentequilibriumnetworksinputreconstructioninner-outerfactorizationstronginput-outputmonotonicitynonlinearsysteminversion
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 proposes that the right notion of robust invertibility for a nonlinear dynamical system is contraction plus bi-Lipschitzness of the input-output map and of its inverse: small input changes produce small output changes, and different inputs produce outputs that remain distinguishable. It then constructs a recurrent neural model, the biLipREN, in which a single matrix inequality guarantees the forward model is well-posed, contracting, and $(\mu,\nu)$-bi-Lipschitz, and that its explicitly defined inverse is also well-posed, contracting, and $(1/\nu,1/\mu)$-bi-Lipschitz. A sympathetic reader would care because such a model can reconstruct the input sequence from a noisy, initial-state-mismatched output with an explicit worst-case error bound, without relying on relative degree or normal-form constructions. The paper also shows compositions with orthogonal linear layers give a nonlinear analogue of inner-outer factorization, demonstrated on a time-delay system and a coupled mass-spring-damper.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the recurrent equilibrium network (REN), a feedback interconnection of a linear time-invariant system with a slope-restricted static nonlinearity whose output is defined by an implicit equilibrium equation. The biLipREN is a REN constrained by the matrix inequality (28), which combines a Lyapunov-like matrix $P$ and a positive diagonal scaling $\Lambda$ into a single certificate. That certificate simultaneously enforces well-posedness of the implicit equation, contraction of the state dynamics, and strong input-output monotonicity; Lemma 1 converts strong monotonicity into a $(\mu,\nu)$-bi-Lipschitz bound. Because the inverse REN is the same model conjugated by the transformation $\Psi$ in (27), the identical inequality, left- and right-multiplied by $\Psi^\top$ and $\Psi$, certifies the inverse's contraction and reciprocal bi-Lipschitz constants. This single-inequality, duality-by-congruence mechanism is what makes robust invertibility a construction guarantee rather than a post-hoc verification.

What would settle it

Take a scalar output map $h(x,u)=x+u^3$ inside an otherwise contracting, bi-Lipschitz system: $h$ is $(1,1)$-bi-Lipschitz in $x$, but its inverse $h^{-1}(x,y)=(y-x)^{1/3}$ is not Lipschitz in $x$, so initial-state differences in the inverse system can produce unbounded reconstruction errors. A simulation or analytic check of the second inequality in (11) for such a system would settle whether the missing assumption is really needed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: if there exist $P=P^\top\succ 0$ and $\Lambda\in\mathbb{D}_+$ satisfying the matrix inequality (28), then the recurrent equilibrium network (22) is well-posed, contracting, and $(\mu,\nu)$-bi-Lipschitz, and its inverse (25) is well-posed, contracting, and $(1/\nu,1/\mu)$-bi-Lipschitz. The inverse is not learned separately; it is obtained by an explicit coordinate transformation $\Psi$, and conjugating the inequality by $\Psi$ turns the forward certificate into the inverse certificate. Consequently robust invertibility is a structural property of the parameterization: every model produced within the class inherits the guarantee, and the reconstruction error is governed by the bounds in (11), with constants built from the contraction rates, overshoots, and bi-Lipschitz constants.

Load-bearing premise

The second error bound in Theorem 1 assumes that the inverse of the output map responds in a bounded way to changes in the state; this is not implied by the stated assumption that the forward output map is bi-Lipschitz in the state, and the advertised bound depends on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every biLipREN obtained from the direct parameterization comes with a guaranteed inverse that is itself a REN, so input reconstruction is a forward simulation of that inverse rather than a numerical optimization.
  • The robust-invertibility certificates are available before training, so unconstrained gradient-based learning can be used while keeping the guarantees intact.
  • The error bounds in (11) give explicit worst-case reconstruction performance as a function of initial-state mismatch and output noise, with constants computable from the certificate and the output map.
  • Compositions of biLipRENs with static orthogonal layers remain bi-Lipschitz with multiplicative constants, and compositions with dynamic orthogonal (all-pass) layers realize a nonlinear inner-outer factorization in the style of minimum-phase/all-pass decompositions.
  • In the experiments, a biLipREN fits the nonlinear mechanical system with only mildly larger error than a contracting REN, but unlike the contracting REN it recovers the input sequence under measurement noise and uncertain initial states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same certificate could plausibly be reused in other implicit architectures, such as deep equilibrium networks, because the proof only exploits the linear-fractional structure of the REN and the equilibrium equation.
  • The distortion bound $\nu/\mu$ is a tunable design knob: smaller distortion should improve reconstruction accuracy while shrinking the expressive class, so a testable extension is to sweep $\nu/\mu$ and chart the fitting-versus-invertibility trade-off.
  • A further extension would use the certified inverse as an encoder in sequence-to-sequence learning or as a learned feedforward controller for non-minimum-phase plants, where the explicit error bounds could serve as a safety certificate; this is not stated in the paper.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies robust invertibility of discrete-time nonlinear state-space models. It defines a system to be robustly invertible if both the forward model and its causal inverse are contracting and bi-Lipschitz, and it derives explicit reconstruction error bounds in terms of initial-state mismatch and input/output perturbations (Theorem 1). The authors then propose the biLipREN, a recurrent equilibrium network parameterization, and prove in Theorem 2 that a matrix inequality certifies well-posedness, contraction, and bi-Lipschitzness for both the forward and inverse REN. They also show how to compose biLipRENs with static and dynamic orthogonal layers to obtain more general bi-Lipschitz dynamics, including a nonlinear analogue of inner-outer factorization, and demonstrate the approach on a nonlinear time-delay system and a four-cart mass-spring-damper system.

Significance. The proposed biLipREN construction is a potentially valuable contribution: it gives a parameterized recurrent network whose inverse is guaranteed to be well-posed, contracting, and bi-Lipschitz, which is relevant for learning invertible dynamics for control and generative modeling. The idea of certifying both forward and inverse properties through a single LMI and a congruence transformation is elegant, and the composition with orthogonal layers to build more expressive bi-Lipschitz models is useful. The paper also provides numerical evidence supporting the bounds. However, the formal robustness certificate in Theorem 1 has a gap in one of the two advertised error bounds, and the proof of Theorem 2 relies on an unstated external theorem; both issues must be resolved before the results can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III.A, Theorem 1, Eq. (11), second inequality] The second bound in (11) does not follow from the stated assumptions. Repeating the proof for the inverse system requires h^{-1}(x,y) to be Lipschitz in x with constant 1/γ1, but the hypothesis that h(x,u) is (γ1, γ2)-biLipschitz in x gives no control over h^{-1}(x,y) in x. For example, h(x,u)=2x+sin(x)+u is (1,3)-biLipschitz in x, yet h^{-1}(x,y)=y-2x-sin(x) has x-Lipschitz constant 3, not 1/γ1=1. The proof says 'The second inequality follows the same logic,' but the analogous chaining yields a different coefficient unless an additional assumption (e.g., that h^{-1} is Lipschitz in x with the stated constant) is imposed. This gap is load-bearing for the advertised robust-invertibility certificate, so please correct the statement or the proof.
  2. [§IV.B, Theorem 2] The proof of Claim 1 cites [38, Thm. 1] for contraction and strong input-output monotonicity, but the relevant theorem and its hypotheses are not stated in the paper. Since Theorem 2 is the central construction, please include the statement of the invoked result or provide a self-contained derivation, and verify explicitly that the LMI (28) satisfies the hypotheses of [38, Thm. 1] for the forward REN and, after the congruence transformation with Ψ, for the inverse REN (25). A quick check of the supply-rate matrices and the transformation of the (3,3) block would make the proof verifiable without access to [38].
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (11)] The first line of (11) is missing a closing parenthesis: it should read ∥G^{-1}_b(G_a(u+δu))−u∥_T.
  2. [§III.A, proof of Theorem 1] In equations (12) and (13), some norms are written without the truncated-norm subscript T; please make the notation uniform.
  3. [§II, Definition 4] The clause 'for all a∈R^n' appears in Definition 4 but the inequality does not involve a; clarify that the operator G is indexed by initial state a, or remove the quantifier.
  4. [§IV.B, Eq. (28)] The term '− 2 µ+νI' is rendered ambiguously; write it as −(2/(μ+ν))I and explicitly display the sign to avoid confusion.
  5. [§IV.B, proof of Theorem 2] The sentence 'By left- and right-multiplying (28) with Ψ^T and Ψ' should be accompanied by the resulting transformed blocks, or at least a note that the definitions in (26) are used; as written, the reader must reproduce the entire congruence calculation to verify the claim.
  6. [§I.A and §V.A] There are typos: 'reconstructs the the input sequences' should be 'reconstructs the input sequences', and the paragraph at the end of Section V.A ends with a stray 'sequences.' fragment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 2 is an algebraic congruence argument built on an externally published REN theorem, and the experiments validate the computed bound rather than fitting it.

full rationale

No circular step is exhibited. Theorem 2's forward claim is a direct application of the independently published theorem [38, Thm. 1] to the REN class (22), and the inverse claim is derived by an explicit algebraic congruence: the inverse parameters are constructed in (26), the congruence matrix Psi is defined in (27), and left/right multiplying (28) by Psi^T and Psi yields (29), to which [38, Thm. 1] is applied again. This is a genuine derivation, not a restatement of the assumptions. The model is not defined in terms of its own conclusion: the LMI condition (28) is a sufficient condition, and the robust-invertibility bounds are consequences, not inputs. In the experiments, the theoretical bound (11) is computed after training from the model's P, contraction rate, and (mu,nu) values, then compared with separately measured reconstruction error; this is a validation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to [37], [38], and [47] are load-bearing in the proof, but they are published, externally checkable mathematical results about the same REN class, so they count as real evidence rather than circularity. The one notable weakness is a correctness gap in the second inequality of Theorem 1: the stated (gamma1,gamma2)-bi-Lipschitz assumption on h in x does not by itself imply the needed Lipschitz bound on h^{-1} in x, and the proof only says 'The second inequality follows the same logic.' That is a proof gap and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on prior results for REN well-posedness and contraction, plus a new but incompletely proven Lipschitz assumption on the inverse output map. No new physical entities are introduced. The only free parameters are the user-chosen bi-Lipschitz bounds mu and nu.

free parameters (1)
  • bi-Lipschitz bounds mu and nu = 0.1 and 5 in the experiments
    User-chosen hyperparameters defining the model class. The LMI condition (28) and the error bounds depend on them. They are not fitted to data, but the theoretical guarantee only holds for the chosen values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Equilibrium network well-posedness: there exists Lambda in D+ with 2Lambda - Lambda D11 - D11^T Lambda > 0.
    Invoked so that the implicit equation (23) has a unique solution for every input. This is taken from prior work by Revay et al. [47] and used as a black box.
  • domain assumption The output map h(x,u) is (gamma_1, gamma_2)-bi-Lipschitz with respect to x and invertible with respect to u.
    Needed to define the causal inverse realization (2) and to prove Theorem 1. For the REN model, this requires D22 to be nonsingular.
  • ad hoc to paper The inverse output map h^{-1}(x,y) is Lipschitz in x with constant 1/gamma_1.
    This is not stated or derived, but it is needed for the second inequality in Theorem 1. The proof simply says 'The second inequality follows the same logic,' which is insufficient.
  • domain assumption Theorem 1 of Revay, Wang, and Manchester [38] applies to the REN with the supply-rate matrices from equation (16).
    Used to conclude that the forward REN is contracting and strongly input-output monotone from condition (28). The authors reference this theorem rather than re-proving it.
  • standard math Mazur-Ulam theorem: every invertible distance-preserving map on a real normed space is affine.
    Used in Remark 4 to justify restricting the inner factor in the nonlinear inner-outer factorization to affine orthogonal layers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustly Invertible Nonlinear Dynamics and the BiLipREN: Contracting Neural Models with Contracting Inverses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AWHPN5BU

@misc{pith2026250503069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustly Invertible Nonlinear Dynamics and the BiLipREN: Contracting Neural Models with Contracting Inverses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AWHPN5BU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03069}
}
read the original abstract

We study the invertibility of nonlinear dynamical systems from the perspective of contraction and incremental stability analysis and propose a new invertible recurrent neural model: the BiLipREN. In particular, we consider a nonlinear state space model to be robustly invertible if an inverse exists with a state space realisation, and both the forward model and its inverse are contracting, i.e. incrementally exponentially stable, and Lipschitz, i.e. have bounded incremental gain. This property of bi-Lipschitzness implies both robustness in the sense of sensitivity to input perturbations, as well as robust distinguishability of different inputs from their corresponding outputs, i.e. the inverse model robustly reconstructs the input sequence despite small perturbations to the initial conditions and measured output. Building on this foundation, we propose a parameterization of neural dynamic models: bi-Lipschitz recurrent equilibrium networks (biLipREN), which are robustly invertible by construction. Moreover, biLipRENs can be composed with orthogonal linear systems to construct more general bi-Lipschitz dynamic models, e.g., a nonlinear analogue of minimum-phase/all-pass (inner/outer) factorization. We illustrate the utility of our proposed approach with numerical examples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lemma 1. If an operator G : ℓ m 7→ ℓ m satisfies (15) with ξ = 2µν µ + ν , ρ = 2 µ + ν (16) then it is (µ, ν)-biLipschitz. Proof. For any pair of input sequences u, v ∈ ℓm, we define ∆u = u − v and ∆y = y − z where y = Ga(u) and z = Ga(v). From (15), we can obtain 2⟨∆y, ∆u⟩T ≥ 2 µ + ν (µν∥∆ut∥ 2 + ∥∆yt∥ 2 ), ∀T ∈ N. By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have (µ + ν)∥∆y∥T ∥∆u∥T ≥ µν∥∆u∥ 2 T + ∥∆y∥ 2 T ), which further imp… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The Scaled Relative Graph [39] is defined as a set of complex num n o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Open loop simulation of the outer system, the original system and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Four coupled nonlinear mass spring dampers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: One of output sequences using a biLipREN and a contracting REN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstructed input sequence from output sequence in Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time average of the actual error and theoretical bound [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Monotone, bi- lipschitz, and polyak-lojasiewicz networks,

    R. Wang, K. D. Dvijotham, and I. R. Manchester, “Monotone, bi- lipschitz, and polyak-lojasiewicz networks,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning , 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [38]

    Recurrent equilibrium networks: Flexible dynamic models with guaranteed stability and robustness,

    M. Revay, R. Wang, and I. R. Manchester, “Recurrent equilibrium networks: Flexible dynamic models with guaranteed stability and robustness,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2855–2870, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference trans- formations, multiplicative seminorms, and approximate inverses,

    G. Zames, “Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference trans- formations, multiplicative seminorms, and approximate inverses,” IEEE Transactions on automatic control , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 301–320, 1981

    work page 1981

  4. [2]

    Iterative learning control of nonlinear non-minimum phase systems and its application to system and model inversion,

    O. Markusson, H. Hjalmarsson, and M. Norrlof, “Iterative learning control of nonlinear non-minimum phase systems and its application to system and model inversion,” in Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , 2001

    work page 2001

  5. [3]

    Nonminimum phase dynamic inversion for settle time applications,

    B. P. Rigney, L. Y . Pao, and D. A. Lawrence, “Nonminimum phase dynamic inversion for settle time applications,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 989–1005, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [4]

    On inversion-based approaches for feedforward and ilc,

    J. van Zundert and T. Oomen, “On inversion-based approaches for feedforward and ilc,” Mechatronics, vol. 50, pp. 282–291, 2018

    2018

  7. [5]

    Physics-guided neural networks for feedforward control with input-to-state-stability guaran- tees,

    M. Bolderman, H. Butler, S. Koekebakker, E. Van Horssen, R. Kamidi, T. Spaan-Burke, N. Strijbosch, and M. Lazar, “Physics-guided neural networks for feedforward control with input-to-state-stability guaran- tees,” Control Engineering Practice , vol. 145, p. 105851, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [6]

    A generalized memory polynomial model for digital predistortion of RF power amplifiers,

    D. R. Morgan, Z. Ma, J. Kim, M. G. Zierdt, and J. Pastalan, “A generalized memory polynomial model for digital predistortion of RF power amplifiers,” IEEE Transactions on signal processing , vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3852–3860, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    Behavioral modeling and predis- tortion,

    F. M. Ghannouchi and O. Hammi, “Behavioral modeling and predis- tortion,” IEEE Microwave magazine , vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 52–64, 2009

    2009

  2. [8]

    Augmented hammerstein predistorter for linearization of broad-band wireless transmitters,

    T. Liu, S. Boumaiza, and F. M. Ghannouchi, “Augmented hammerstein predistorter for linearization of broad-band wireless transmitters,” IEEE transactions on microwave theory and techniques, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 1340–1349, 2006

    2006

  3. [9]

    Equivalent baseband models and corresponding digital predistortion for compensating dynamic passband nonlinearities in phase-amplitude modulation-demodulation schemes,

    O. Tanovic, A. Megretski, Y . Li, V . Stojanovic, and M. Osqui, “Equivalent baseband models and corresponding digital predistortion for compensating dynamic passband nonlinearities in phase-amplitude modulation-demodulation schemes,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol...

    2018

  4. [10]

    Flight control design using robust dynamic inversion and time-scale separation,

    J. Reiner, G. J. Balas, and W. L. Garrard, “Flight control design using robust dynamic inversion and time-scale separation,” Automatica, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1493–1504, 1996

    1996

  5. [11]

    Nonlinear dynamic inversion baseline control law: archi- tecture and performance predictions,

    C. Miller, “Nonlinear dynamic inversion baseline control law: archi- tecture and performance predictions,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2011, p. 6467

    2011

  6. [12]

    Robust flight control using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion and angular acceleration prediction,

    S. Sieberling, Q. Chu, and J. Mulder, “Robust flight control using incremental nonlinear dynamic inversion and angular acceleration prediction,” Journal of guidance, control, and dynamics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1732–1742, 2010

    2010

  7. [13]

    Robust output regulation for invertible nonlinear mimo systems,

    L. Wang, A. Isidori, Z. Liu, and H. Su, “Robust output regulation for invertible nonlinear mimo systems,” Automatica, vol. 82, pp. 278–286, 2017

    2017

  8. [14]

    Internal model control. a unifying review and some new results,

    C. E. Garcia and M. Morari, “Internal model control. a unifying review and some new results,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development , vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 308–323, 1982

    1982

  9. [15]

    Internal model control: Extension to nonlinear system,

    C. G. Economou, M. Morari, and B. O. Palsson, “Internal model control: Extension to nonlinear system,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 403– 411, 1986

    1986

  10. [16]

    Output stabilization of strongly minimum- phase systems,

    F. Celani and A. Isidori, “Output stabilization of strongly minimum- phase systems,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 43, no. 14, pp. 647– 652, 2010

    2010

  11. [17]

    On contraction analysis for non- linear systems,

    W. Lohmiller and J.-J. E. Slotine, “On contraction analysis for non- linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 683–696, 1998

    1998

  12. [18]

    Bullo, Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems , 1.2 ed

    F. Bullo, Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems , 1.2 ed. Kindle Direct Publishing, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://fbullo.github.io/ctds

    2024

  13. [19]

    Stable inversion of linear systems,

    P. Moylan, “Stable inversion of linear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 74–78, 1977

    1977

  14. [20]

    Local stabilization of minimum-phase nonlinear systems,

    C. I. Byrnes and A. Isidori, “Local stabilization of minimum-phase nonlinear systems,” Systems & Control Letters , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 9–17, 1988

    1988

  15. [21]

    Inner-outer factorization of nonlinear operators,

    J. A. Ball and J. W. Helton, “Inner-outer factorization of nonlinear operators,” Journal of functional analysis , vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 363– 413, 1992

    1992

  16. [22]

    van der Schaft, L2-Gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear Control, 2nd ed

    A. van der Schaft, L2-Gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear Control, 2nd ed. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2018

    2018

  17. [23]

    Precision preview-based stable-inversion for nonlinear nonminimum-phase systems: The vtol example,

    Q. Zou and S. Devasia, “Precision preview-based stable-inversion for nonlinear nonminimum-phase systems: The vtol example,” Automat- ica, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 117–127, 2007

    2007

  18. [24]

    A general framework for approximated model stable inversion,

    R. Romagnoli and E. Garone, “A general framework for approximated model stable inversion,” Automatica, vol. 101, pp. 182–189, 2019

    2019

  19. [25]

    Smith predictor design for robust performance,

    D. L. Laughlin, D. E. Rivera, and M. Morari, “Smith predictor design for robust performance,” International Journal of Control , vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 477–504, 1987

    1987

  20. [26]

    Invertibility of nonlinear control systems,

    R. Hirschorn, “Invertibility of nonlinear control systems,” SIAM Jour- nal on Control and Optimization , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 289–297, 1979

    1979

  21. [27]

    Nonlinear inversion-based output tracking,

    S. Devasia, D. Chen, and B. Paden, “Nonlinear inversion-based output tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 930–942, 1996

    1996

  22. [28]

    Output-input stability and minimum-phase nonlinear systems,

    D. Liberzon, A. S. Morse, and E. D. Sontag, “Output-input stability and minimum-phase nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 422–436, 2002

    2002

  23. [29]

    Output–input stability implies feedback stabilization,

    D. Liberzon, “Output–input stability implies feedback stabilization,” Systems & control letters , vol. 53, no. 3-4, pp. 237–248, 2004

    2004

  24. [30]

    Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference,

    G. Papamakarios, E. Nalisnick, D. J. Rezende, S. Mohamed, and B. Lakshminarayanan, “Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 57, pp. 1–64, 2021

    2021

  25. [31]

    Potential based diffusion motion planning,

    Y . Luo, C. Sun, J. B. Tenenbaum, and Y . Du, “Potential based diffusion motion planning,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2024, pp. 33 486–33 510

    2024

  26. [32]

    Imitationflow: Learning deep stable stochastic dynamic systems by normalizing flows,

    J. Urain, M. Ginesi, D. Tateo, and J. Peters, “Imitationflow: Learning deep stable stochastic dynamic systems by normalizing flows,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 5231–5237

    2020

  27. [33]

    Normalizing kalman filters for multivariate time series analysis,

    E. de B ´ezenac, S. S. Rangapuram, K. Benidis, M. Bohlke-Schneider, R. Kurle, L. Stella, H. Hasson, P. Gallinari, and T. Januschowski, “Normalizing kalman filters for multivariate time series analysis,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 33, pp. 2995–3007, 2020

    2020

  28. [34]

    Generative modeling of turbulence,

    C. Drygala, B. Winhart, F. di Mare, and H. Gottschalk, “Generative modeling of turbulence,” Physics of Fluids , vol. 34, no. 3, 2022

    2022

  29. [35]

    Residual flows for invertible generative modeling,

    R. T. Chen, J. Behrmann, D. K. Duvenaud, and J.-H. Jacobsen, “Residual flows for invertible generative modeling,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  30. [36]

    Understanding and mitigating exploding inverses in invertible neural networks,

    J. Behrmann, P. Vicol, K.-C. Wang, R. Grosse, and J.-H. Jacobsen, “Understanding and mitigating exploding inverses in invertible neural networks,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2021, pp. 1792–1800

    2021

  31. [39]

    Graphical nonlinear system analysis,

    T. Chaffey, F. Forni, and R. Sepulchre, “Graphical nonlinear system analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 6067–6081, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Orthogonalizing convolutional layers with the cayley transform,

    A. Trockman and J. Z. Kolter, “Orthogonalizing convolutional layers with the cayley transform,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07167 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    P. S. Heuberger, P. M. van den Hof, and B. Wahlberg, Modelling and Identification with Rational Orthogonal Basis Functions . Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    J-inner-outer factorization, j- spectral factorization, and robust control for nonlinear systems,

    J. A. Ball and A. J. Van der Schaft, “J-inner-outer factorization, j- spectral factorization, and robust control for nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 379–392, 1996

    1996

  35. [43]

    Solutions to the general inner-outer and spectral factorization problems,

    C. Oara and A. Varga, “Solutions to the general inner-outer and spectral factorization problems,” in Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No. 98CH36171) , vol. 3. IEEE, 1998, pp. 2774–2779

    1998

  36. [44]

    Sur les transformations isom ´etriques d’espaces vectoriels norm ´es,

    S. Mazur and S. Ulam, “Sur les transformations isom ´etriques d’espaces vectoriels norm ´es,” CR Acad. Sci. Paris , vol. 194, no. 946- 948, p. 116, 1932

    1932

  37. [45]

    The mazur–ulam theorem,

    B. Nica, “The mazur–ulam theorem,” Expositiones Mathematicae , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 397–398, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Implicit deep learning,

    L. El Ghaoui, F. Gu, B. Travacca, A. Askari, and A. Tsai, “Implicit deep learning,” SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 930–958, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Lipschitz bounded equilibrium networks,

    M. Revay, R. Wang, and I. R. Manchester, “Lipschitz bounded equilibrium networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01732 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A convex parameterization of robust recurrent neural networks,

    ——, “A convex parameterization of robust recurrent neural networks,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1363–1368, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.