Conformal Contraction for Robust Nonlinear Control with Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification

Hiroyasu Tsukamoto; Melkior Ornik; Sihang Wei

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Conformal Contraction for Robust Nonlinear Control with Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a distribution-free, finite-time probabilistic bound on the tracking error of a controlled nonlinear system under unstructured uncertainty, and builds certified invariant tubes for motion planning from the same bound.

desk verdict Solid conformal-contraction tracking theorem; the motion-planning guarantee has an unproven exchangeability fix and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13613 v1 pith:WCFCALPU submitted 2025-07-18 math.OC cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Sihang Wei , Melkior Ornik , Hiroyasu Tsukamoto This is my paper

classification math.OCcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY MSC 93C1093D0993D30

keywords contractiontheoryconformalpredictiondistribution-freeuncertaintyquantificationincrementalexponentialboundednessrobustcontrolmotionplanninginvarianttubenonlinearsystems

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 give a distribution-free, finite-time statistical guarantee for robust tracking in continuous-time nonlinear systems whose uncertainty depends nonlinearly on both state and control, with no structural assumption on the uncertainty or on the learned model that predicts it. The key move is to feed a conformal-prediction quantile of the closed-loop residual into a contraction-theoretic bound on Riemannian separation, yielding an exponential bound on the tracking error that holds with probability at least 1-α over a given horizon. The same quantile defines a probabilistically robust control invariant (PRCI) tube, so that motion plans generated with tightened constraints keep both state and input inside their admissible sets with the same probability. If correct, the framework turns black-box predictors into certified controllers for uncertain nonlinear systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a contraction metric $M(x)$ satisfying the generalized conditions (3): it defines a Riemannian distance whose geodesic energy contracts at rate $\lambda$ under the nominal dynamics. The paper couples this with a conformal score $s_\zeta$ defined in (13) as the supremum over the horizon of the residual norm $\|\zeta(x,u)-B(x)B(x)^\dagger\hat{\zeta}(x,u_-;\theta)\|$, whose calibration order statistics provide the quantile $s_\zeta^{(j_\alpha)}$. The proof differentiates the geodesic energy along the controlled trajectory, uses the parallel-transport identity to bound the residual term by $\sqrt{m}\|R(t)\|\sqrt{E(\gamma)}$, and applies the comparison lemma to obtain the exponential bound.

What would settle it

Simulate many test trajectories from the same distribution as the calibration set, compute the score $s_\zeta$ for each, and record the empirical fraction for which $d_{\mathrm{RM}}(x(t),\bar{x}(t))$ exceeds the right-hand side of (15) at any $t \in [0,T]$; if that fraction exceeds $\alpha$ by more than sampling error, the claimed $1-\alpha$ guarantee fails. A second check is to repeat the experiment after applying the Theorem 2 constraint tightening without the two-step calibration of Remark 1: coverage should drop if exchangeability is genuinely broken.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1: for the closed-loop system driven by the uncertainty-compensating policy (6), the Riemannian distance between the perturbed trajectory $x(t)$ and the reference $\bar{x}(t)$ satisfies $$d_{\mathrm{RM}}(x(t),\bar{x}(t)) \le \left(d_{\mathrm{RM}}(x(0),\bar{x}(0)) - \frac{\sqrt{m}\,s_\$zeta^{{(j_\alpha)}}$}{\$\lambda$}\right)$e^{{-\lambda t}}$ + \frac{\sqrt{m}\,s_\$zeta^{{(j_\alpha)}}$}{\$\lambda$}$$ for all $t \in [0,T]$, with probability at least $1-\alpha$, where $s_\zeta^{(j_\alpha)}$ is the conformal quantile of the residual score (13). Consequently the closed-loop system is finite-time incrementally exponentially bounded without knowing the uncertainty model or its distribution. Corollary 1 turns the steady-state radius into a PRCI tube, and Theorem 2 certifies that robustly tightened motion planning keeps the perturbed trajectory and its control inputs inside the original constraints with probability $1-\alpha$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the new test trajectory being exchangeable with the calibration trajectories — in practice, drawn from the same distribution of initial states, references, and uncertainties; the paper's own constraint tightening in Theorem 2 can change that distribution, and the fix for this is only sketched in Remark 1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The closed-loop tracking error is guaranteed to shrink at rate $\lambda$ down to a steady-state ball of radius $\sqrt{m}s_\zeta^{(j_\alpha)}/\lambda$, with the guarantee holding simultaneously over the whole horizon $[0,T]$.
Any predictor, including a neural network trained by arbitrary means, can be plugged into the controller and still carry the same probabilistic bound, as long as the residual scores are calibrated.
The PRCI tube in (17) is a certified safety envelope: if the initial state starts inside it, the whole trajectory remains inside with probability at least $1-\alpha$.
Motion planning under the tightened sets (19) keeps both the state and the control input inside their original admissible sets with probability $1-\alpha$, enabling safe trajectory generation under unstructured uncertainty.
The framework directly covers three error sources at once — prediction error, the one-step discretization error of $u_-$, and the projection error of $BB^\dagger$ — without modeling any of them separately.

Reading between the lines

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

If the two-step calibration sketched in Remark 1 were integrated into the main theorems, the motion-planning guarantee would remain valid under the distribution shift caused by constraint tightening; the paper leaves that fix as a remark rather than a theorem.
Because the conformal quantile enters only through the product $\sqrt{m}s_\zeta^{(j_\alpha)}/\lambda$, users can tune the contraction rate $\lambda$ to trade transient decay against tube radius, as the paper's line-search suggestion indicates.
The residual score bundles prediction, discretization, and projection errors, so the bound can be tight even when the predictor is a poor model of the uncertainty; designing that score is where application-specific knowledge still matters.
A natural extension is to replace the exchangeability assumption with online or adaptive conformal prediction, which would open the framework to non-stationary environments; the paper lists this only as future work.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version. The core tracking guarantee (Theorem 1) is a genuine, non-circular combination of two established tools: contraction metrics from [7], [8] and split conformal prediction from [12], [13]. The proof is a valid comparison-lemma argument given the conformal bound on the residual, and the numerical experiments are consistent with the claimed 95% coverage. That part deserves to be taken seriously.

What's new is the continuous-time setting with uncertainty that is nonlinear in both state and control, and the fact that the predictor model is arbitrary—no structural assumptions on ζ. The PRCI tube is a natural extension, and the SOS formulation for the metric is a nice practical touch.

The soft spot is Theorem 2. The constraint tightening in (18)-(19) changes the reference-trajectory distribution, so the test trajectories are not exchangeable with the calibration set built in Section III. The paper acknowledges this in Remark 1 but only sketches a two-step calibration, with no theorem or proof. As written, the fix has a circularity: the first half determines the tube radius, which determines the tightening, which determines the distribution for the second half; if the second half yields a different radius, you'd need to re-run the planner. So the claim Pr[x(t) in S(t) and u(x(t),t) in A(t)] >= 1-α is not established. The Section V motion-planning tests use unconstrained references, so they don't exercise the tightened regime. That's a real gap, not a nitpick.

Minor issues: the notation for the metric bounds (m vs \bar{m}) is confusing, the local Lipschitz assumption on d_RM is stated without proof, and the VTOL experiment has only ten trajectories—statistically weak, though not damning.

Bottom line: the tracking theorem is a solid contribution and the paper is worth reading for anyone working at the intersection of conformal prediction and contraction-based control. But the motion-planning guarantee currently overclaims. A serious referee should insist on a rigorous treatment of the distribution shift—either a proven two-step calibration or a more modest claim about Theorem 2. Send it to review, but expect the authors to need to fix this before I'd trust the planning guarantee.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a data-driven robust control framework for continuous-time perturbed nonlinear systems. The key idea is to combine contraction-based control with conformal prediction: an arbitrary predictor \hat{\zeta} is trained to approximate the state- and control-dependent uncertainty \zeta, and a conformal calibration dataset is used to bound the closed-loop residual R(t) in (8) by a quantile s_zeta^(j_alpha) with probability at least 1-alpha. Theorem 1 then uses a comparison lemma to derive a finite-time incremental exponential boundedness bound for the Riemannian distance between the perturbed and reference trajectories. Corollary 1 converts this bound into a probabilistically robust control invariant (PRCI) tube, and Theorem 2 applies a tightened motion-planning problem to state that perturbed trajectories and inputs remain in the original constraint sets with probability 1-alpha. The paper also gives an SOS formulation for computing the contraction metric and validates the approach in two numerical examples, one with parametric uncertainty and one planar VTOL.

Significance. The main conceptual contribution is to carry conformal uncertainty quantification through a contraction-theoretic comparison argument in continuous time, yielding a distribution-free bound that is agnostic to the uncertainty model and to the predictor. This is a useful step beyond prior conformal control results, which are mostly discrete-time. The proof of Theorem 1 is coherent given the exchangeability assumption of Lemma 3, and the empirical coverage (96.7% in the first experiment) is consistent with the nominal 95% level. However, the motion-planning guarantee in Theorem 2 is not established as stated because the PRCI tightening changes the data-generating process and breaks the exchangeability on which Lemma 3 depends. Since the PRCI tube is a headline contribution, this gap materially reduces the significance of the paper in its current form.

major comments (2)

[Section IV-B, Theorem 2 and Remark 1] The proof of Theorem 2 applies Corollary 1, which inherits the exchangeability assumption of Lemma 3. However, the constraint tightening in (18)-(19) changes the distribution of the reference trajectory (xbar, ubar) relative to the distribution used to build the calibration set D_cal in (12), because D_cal is generated in Section III-B from the reference policies in D_ref before any tightening is applied. Thus the new test data point is not exchangeable with D_cal, and the conformal bound (14) need not hold for the planned trajectory. Remark 1 acknowledges this issue and sketches a two-step calibration, but it does not state or prove a theorem for the two-step procedure; as written the procedure is circular, since the first-step quantile determines the PRCI radius, which determines the tightening, which determines the distribution of the second-step calibration, and if the second step produces a different radius the planner must be re-run, changing the distribution again. The claimed guarantee Pr[x(t) in S(t) and u(x(t),t) in A(t) for all t in T] >= 1-alpha is therefore not established. To repair this, the authors should either prove a formal nested-calibration result using a dataset generated under the tightened distribution, or state Theorem 2 under an explicit assumption that the planned reference trajectory is exchangeable with the reference trajectories used to build D_cal.
[Section III-B, Eq. (12), and Section V-A] The construction of D_cal does not specify the distribution of the reference policies \bar u^(k) used to generate the calibration trajectories, but Lemma 3 requires the new test trajectory to be exchangeable with these data. For Theorem 2, the test reference is produced by the motion planner (18), so exchangeability requires that the calibration reference policies be drawn from the planner's output distribution; this is not stated or verified. Moreover, the first numerical experiment applies the controller to random reference trajectories and does not test Theorem 2's tightened-constraint regime, so the simulations do not demonstrate the exchangeability needed for the PRCI tube claim.

minor comments (5)

[Section III-A, Lemma 1 and Eq. (5)] The geodesic boundary condition is stated as gamma(0,t)=x(t) and gamma(1,t)=x(t); the second endpoint should be \bar x(t).
[Section II-A, Eq. (3a)] The two metric bounds are typeset with the same symbol m, which also collides with the control input dimension m; use \underline{m} and \overline{m} to avoid ambiguity with the tube radius \bar d_RM.
[Section IV-A, Eq. (15) and following text] The displayed bound uses (d_RM(x(0),\bar x(0)) - sqrt(m) s_zeta^(j_alpha)/lambda) without an absolute value, while the definition of c1 in the next sentence uses an absolute value; the notation should be harmonized.
[Section V-A] The description of the 245 test reference trajectories should state whether they solve the nominal motion planning problem (18) or are independent random references, because this determines whether the experiment tests Theorem 1 or Theorem 2.
[Section V-B] Ten test trajectories with zero violations is too small to confirm a 95% coverage claim; report an exact binomial confidence interval or run more trials.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the conformal quantile is calibrated from residual data and then used in a comparison lemma, not derived from the target bound.

full rationale

Theorem 1 is a standard split-conformal argument: Lemma 3 (via Lemma 2 from Vovk et al.) calibrates the sup-norm residual score on an independent calibration set, and the comparison lemma converts the resulting quantile bound into the incremental exponential boundedness inequality. The calibrated residual quantile is an input fitted to residual data, not fitted to the final tracking-error bound, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The contraction inequality in Lemma 1 is cited from external prior work (Manchester & Slotine; Singh et al.), and its assumptions, including the bounded nominal disturbance for the deterministic version, are stated rather than imported from this paper's authors. The SOS formulation in Section IV-C cites [7]-[9], [11], but this is used for the numerical construction of the metric and is not load-bearing for the probabilistic derivation. The only substantive concern is Theorem 2 and Remark 1: tightening constraints changes the data-generating process and may violate the exchangeability assumption of Lemma 3, and the proposed two-step calibration is a sketch with a fixed-point flavor. However, that is a missing support/correctness gap, not a reduction of a claim to its own inputs by construction. Under the specified rules, that concern belongs in a correctness assessment rather than a circularity finding, and the derivation chain itself is self-contained once exchangeability is assumed.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim adds no new physical entities or forces. It depends on the standard conformal-prediction exchangeability axiom, the existence of a contraction metric from prior theory, and regularity conditions on the dynamics. The only data-fitted parameter entering the bound is the conformal quantile of the predicted residual.

free parameters (1)

Conformal quantile s_zeta^(j_alpha) = Empirical quantile from calibration set D_cal
The bound in Theorem 1 is expressed in terms of the j_alpha-th order statistic of calibration scores; this is a data-fitted quantity, not derived from first principles. The guarantee is conditional on this quantile.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Exchangeability of the test trajectory with the calibration dataset D_cal (Lemma 3)
The conformal guarantee requires that the new sample (Psi^(NEW), u^(NEW), Z^(NEW)) is exchangeable with the N2 calibration samples. This is the core statistical premise; if deployment conditions differ, the probability bound may not hold.
domain assumption Existence of a contraction metric M and rate lambda satisfying conditions (3a)-(3c) for the nominal system (Lemma 1)
The controller design and the proof of Theorem 1 rely on the existence of such a metric, which is cited from Manchester and Slotine (2017) and Singh et al. (2017). The SOS optimization in (21) is used to find it numerically.
domain assumption Smoothness of f, B, and zeta and existence of minimizing geodesics in the state space
The system (1) assumes f and B are smooth and zeta is smooth; the Riemannian distance definition and the energy evolution rely on geodesics existing and being regular.
domain assumption Local Lipschitz continuity of the Riemannian distance d_RM (Theorem 1)
Stated in Theorem 1 to justify passing from the differential inequality on the energy E to an inequality on d_RM via the comparison lemma; the paper does not prove this condition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conformal Contraction for Robust Nonlinear Control with Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCFCALPU

@misc{pith2026250713613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conformal Contraction for Robust Nonlinear Control with Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCFCALPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13613}
}

read the original abstract

We present a novel robust control framework for continuous-time, perturbed nonlinear dynamical systems with uncertainty that depends nonlinearly on both the state and control inputs. Unlike conventional approaches that impose structural assumptions on the uncertainty, our framework enhances contraction-based robust control with data-driven uncertainty prediction, remaining agnostic to the models of the uncertainty and predictor. We statistically quantify how reliably the contraction conditions are satisfied under dynamics with uncertainty via conformal prediction, thereby obtaining a distribution-free and finite-time probabilistic guarantee for exponential boundedness of the trajectory tracking error. We further propose the probabilistically robust control invariant (PRCI) tube for distributionally robust motion planning, within which the perturbed system trajectories are guaranteed to stay with a finite probability, without explicit knowledge of the uncertainty model. Numerical simulations validate the effectiveness of the proposed robust control framework and the performance of the PRCI tube.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13613 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the PRCI Tube in Definition 3 and Thereom 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Empirical Distribution of Riemannian Tracking Errors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Trajectories with PRCI Tube Visualization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Actual Trajectories with PRCI Tube in (px, py) Plane Visualization. VI. CONCLUSION In this work, we propose a partially data-driven framework for robust control of continuous-time nonlinear systems with uncertainty that depends nonlinearly on both the state and control…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[7]

Control contraction metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback design,

I. R. Manchester and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Control contraction metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback design,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3046–3053, 2017

work page 2017
[8]

Robust online motion planning via contraction theory and convex optimization,

S. Singh, A. Majumdar, J.-J. E. Slotine, and M. Pavone, “Robust online motion planning via contraction theory and convex optimization,” in IEEE ICRA, 2017, pp. 5883–5890

work page 2017
[12]

Machine-learning appli- cations of algorithmic randomness,

V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and C. Saunders, “Machine-learning appli- cations of algorithmic randomness,” in 16th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. , 1999, p. 444–453

work page 1999
[13]

V ovk, A

V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer, Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer, 2022

work page 2022
[1]

Zhou and J

K. Zhou and J. C. Doyle, Essentials of Robust Control. Prentice Hall, 1998

work page 1998
[2]

H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002

2002
[3]

H. J. Kushner, Stochastic Stability and Control. Academic Press New York, 1967

work page 1967
[4]

J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control. Pearson, 1991

work page 1991

Show all 30 references

[5]

P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control . Prentice Hall, 1996

1996
[6]

On contraction analysis for nonlinear systems,

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

1998
[9]

Robust controller design for stochas- tic nonlinear systems via convex optimization,

H. Tsukamoto and S.-J. Chung, “Robust controller design for stochas- tic nonlinear systems via convex optimization,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 4731–4746, 2021

2021
[10]

Universal adaptive control of nonlinear systems,

B. T. Lopez and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Universal adaptive control of nonlinear systems,” IEEE Control. Syst. Lett. , vol. 6, pp. 1826–1830, 2022

2022
[11]

Contraction theory for nonlinear stability analysis and learning-based control: A tutorial overview,

H. Tsukamoto, S.-J. Chung, and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Contraction theory for nonlinear stability analysis and learning-based control: A tutorial overview,” Annu. Rev. Control, vol. 52, pp. 135–169, 2021

2021
[14]

Formal verification and control with conformal prediction,

L. Lindemann, Y . Zhao, X. Yu, G. J. Pappas, and J. V . Desh- mukh, “Formal verification and control with conformal prediction,” arXiv:2409.00536, 2024

2024 arXiv
[15]

Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,

L. Lindemann, M. Cleaveland, G. Shim, and G. J. Pappas, “Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal prediction,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 5116–5123, 2023

2023
[16]

Uncertainty quantification and robustification of model-based controllers using conformal prediction,

K. Y . Chee, T. C. Silva, M. A. Hsieh, and G. J. Pappas, “Uncertainty quantification and robustification of model-based controllers using conformal prediction,” in Proc. PMLR L4DC , 2024, pp. 528–540

2024
[17]

Adaptive conformal prediction for motion planning among dynamic agents,

A. Dixit, L. Lindemann, S. X. Wei, M. Cleaveland, G. J. Pappas, and J. W. Burdick, “Adaptive conformal prediction for motion planning among dynamic agents,” in Proc. PMLR L4DC , 2023, pp. 300–314

2023
[18]

Conformal prediction for distribution-free optimal control of linear stochastic systems,

E. E. Vlahakis, L. Lindemann, P. Sopasakis, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Conformal prediction for distribution-free optimal control of linear stochastic systems,” IEEE Control Syst. Lett. , vol. 8, pp. 2835–2840, 2024

2024
[19]

On the stability of systems defined over a finite time interval,

L. Weiss and E. F. Infante, “On the stability of systems defined over a finite time interval,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 44–48, 1965

1965
[20]

A receding horizon generalization of pointwise min-norm controllers,

J. A. Primbs, V . Nevistic, and J. C. Doyle, “A receding horizon generalization of pointwise min-norm controllers,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 898–909, 2000

2000
[21]

Spivak, A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry , 3rd ed

M. Spivak, A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry , 3rd ed. Publish or Perish, 1999

1999
[22]

Stability and robustness analysis of nonlinear systems via contraction metrics and SOS programming,

E. M. Aylward, P. A. Parrilo, and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Stability and robustness analysis of nonlinear systems via contraction metrics and SOS programming,” Automatica, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 2163 – 2170, 2008

2008
[23]

Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems,

P. A. Parrilo, “Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems,” Math. Program., vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 293–320, 2003

2003
[24]

Non-Euclidean contraction theory for robust nonlinear stability,

A. Davydov, S. Jafarpour, and F. Bullo, “Non-Euclidean contraction theory for robust nonlinear stability,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 6667–6681, 2022

2022
[25]

Bullo, Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems , 1st ed

F. Bullo, Contraction Theory for Dynamical Systems , 1st ed. Kindle Direct Publishing, 2024

2024
[26]

Contraction methods for nonlinear systems: A brief introduction and some open problems,

Z. Aminzare and E. D. Sontag, “Contraction methods for nonlinear systems: A brief introduction and some open problems,” in Proc. IEEE CDC, 2014, pp. 3835–3847

2014
[27]

A differential Lyapunov framework for contraction analysis,

F. Forni and R. Sepulchre, “A differential Lyapunov framework for contraction analysis,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 614–628, 2014

2014
[28]

A contraction theory approach to stochastic incremental stability,

Q. Pham, N. Tabareau, and J.-J. E. Slotine, “A contraction theory approach to stochastic incremental stability,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 816–820, 2009

2009
[29]

Observer design for stochastic nonlinear systems via contraction-based incremental stabil- ity,

A. P. Dani, S.-J. Chung, and S. Hutchinson, “Observer design for stochastic nonlinear systems via contraction-based incremental stabil- ity,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 700–714, 2015

2015
[30]

Incremental nonlinear stability analysis of stochastic systems perturbed by L ´evy noise,

S. Han and S.-J. Chung, “Incremental nonlinear stability analysis of stochastic systems perturbed by L ´evy noise,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 7174–7201, 2022

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Control contraction metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback design,

I. R. Manchester and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Control contraction metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback design,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3046–3053, 2017

work page 2017

[2] [8]

Robust online motion planning via contraction theory and convex optimization,

S. Singh, A. Majumdar, J.-J. E. Slotine, and M. Pavone, “Robust online motion planning via contraction theory and convex optimization,” in IEEE ICRA, 2017, pp. 5883–5890

work page 2017

[3] [12]

Machine-learning appli- cations of algorithmic randomness,

V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and C. Saunders, “Machine-learning appli- cations of algorithmic randomness,” in 16th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. , 1999, p. 444–453

work page 1999

[4] [13]

V ovk, A

V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer, Algorithmic Learning in a Random World. Springer, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [1]

Zhou and J

K. Zhou and J. C. Doyle, Essentials of Robust Control. Prentice Hall, 1998

work page 1998

[6] [2]

H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002

2002

[7] [3]

H. J. Kushner, Stochastic Stability and Control. Academic Press New York, 1967

work page 1967

[8] [4]

J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control. Pearson, 1991

work page 1991