Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Optimal Control of Hybrid Systems via Measure Relaxations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid optimal control problem over many discrete modes can be relaxed to one convex semidefinite program whose optimum is a global lower bound on the true cost.

desk verdict A genuinely new synthesis of occupation-measure relaxations with graph-of-convex-sets, but the central formulation as written has a measure-domain error that breaks the lower-bound proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19210 v1 pith:IJO7COEL submitted 2025-07-25 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Etienne Buehrle , Ömer Şahin Taş , Christoph Stiller This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY MSC 90C2249J1593C30
keywords hybridoptimalcontroloccupationmeasuresgeneralizedmomentproblempiecewisepolynomialsystemssemidefiniteprogrammingtemporallogicplanningconvexrelaxationlowerbound
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

This paper claims that optimal control of piecewise polynomial hybrid systems—systems that switch among finitely many continuous dynamics—can be reformulated as one convex optimization problem rather than a mixed-integer one. The reformulation places, on every possible mode transition, an occupation-measure relaxation of the continuous dynamics, then links those edge measures with mass-conservation constraints that mirror the flow balance of a shortest-path linear program. The result is a generalized moment problem whose moment truncations are semidefinite programs; solving one gives a global lower bound on the true hybrid optimal cost, and its dual yields piecewise-polynomial value functions. If the claim holds, hybrid trajectory planning with large numbers of discrete modes, including temporal-logic and traffic specifications, becomes tractable in seconds where mixed-integer encodings are intractable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid occupation-measure GMP (6): each possible mode transition carries three measure variables, and the graph's node balance equations become mass-conservation constraints on those measures. The two structural ingredients are the transport equation $\mathrm{div}_{f_i} \mu^{ij} = \mu^{ij}_0 - \mu^{ij}_T$, which forces each segment measure to be consistent with the mode dynamics, and the exchange condition that the total terminal measure of incoming transitions equals the total initial measure of outgoing ones, with source and sink equations fixing the global initial and terminal measure. Moment truncation turns this infinite-dimensional convex program into a semidefinite program by requiring Hankel moment matrices and localizing matrices to be positive semidefinite; at degree zero the shortest-path LP is recovered. The dual certificates are piecewise-polynomial value functions satisfying a Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman inequality in each mode and a nonnegativity continuity condition across shared state boundaries.

What would settle it

Take a two-mode system with equal dynamics but different input spaces across modes and an optimal trajectory that switches while using a nonzero input at the switching instant. Solve the degree-2 GMP (6); if, because the boundary measures in (6f) sit on $X_i \times U_i$ rather than $X_i$, the relaxation cannot represent the switch, its optimum will lie above the true optimum, falsifying the universal lower-bound statement. A direct check is whether the dual transition constraint (7c), which uses $X_i \cap X_j$, is violated for any feasible boundary measure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the hybrid optimal control problem (1) can be rewritten exactly as the generalized moment problem (6) by introducing, for each transition $(i,j)$, a triple of nonnegative measures—initial, trajectory, and terminal—on $X_i \times U_i$. The transport equation $\mathrm{div}_{f_i} \mu^{ij} = \mu^{ij}_0 - \mu^{ij}_T$ enforces consistency of each segment with the continuous dynamics, while constraints (6c)–(6e) conserve measure at mode switches exactly as edge flows are conserved in the shortest-path LP. Truncating moments yields a convex semidefinite program whose optimum is argued to be a lower bound on the optimal cost, with dual piecewise-polynomial value functions. In the reported benchmarks, degree-2 relaxations produce lower bounds close to the nonconvex upper bounds—3.28 versus 3.45 on the first navigation task and 74.20 versus 75.40 on the roundabout—while mixed-integer formulations become intractable on the large-mode instances.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the boundary measures entering and leaving a mode switch may be treated as living on the combined state-and-input space $X_i \times U_i$, when the underlying transport equation only defines boundary mass on the state space $X_i$; if these measures are not marginalized to states before the transition constraints are imposed, the relaxed problem can exclude valid switching trajectories and the claimed lower bound is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid optimal control can be lower-bounded by a convex semidefinite program without enumerating mode sequences, so a candidate trajectory's suboptimality gap can be certified.
  • The dual value functions give a feedback controller for each mode, so the solution is not only a cost but a policy that can be rolled out.
  • Temporal-logic specifications and multi-agent traffic scenarios with dozens of discrete modes become solvable in seconds, where fixed-horizon mixed-integer encodings are intractable.
  • The degree-zero relaxation is exactly a shortest-path LP, so the method connects classical graph search to continuous optimal control in one hierarchy.
  • Because the method inherits the computational burden of semidefinite programming, real-time use would require exploiting problem structure or symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not spell out that the boundary measures in (6f) must be marginalized to the state space before the transition constraints are imposed; if that marginalization is added, the lower-bound claim would hold even for modes with different input spaces.
  • The near-tight degree-2 bounds suggest an anytime planning loop: solve the GMP for a lower bound, recover a mode sequence from its transition masses, and refine with the biconvex trajectory optimization until the gap is small; the paper reports these two steps separately rather than as a loop.
  • Because the relaxation directly yields transition probabilities $y_{ij}$, one could rank multiple likely mode sequences instead of only the maximum-likelihood one, making trajectory recovery more robust in problems with near-ties such as rover-2.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a convex formulation for optimal control of piecewise-polynomial hybrid systems by instantiating the graphs of convex sets framework with occupation measures. The construction assigns to each mode transition a triple of initial, trajectory, and terminal measures, and concatenates them through node constraints analogous to the shortest-path LP, yielding the generalized moment problem (6). The authors claim that (6) is a relaxation of the hybrid optimal control problem (1), that its truncated moment hierarchy provides lower bounds on the optimal cost, and they demonstrate the approach on temporal-logic planning benchmarks and two INTERACTION traffic scenarios, comparing solve times against an MIQP formulation and objective values against a nonconvex QCQP. The paper also provides code at a public repository.

Significance. If the central construction is corrected and the lower-bound claim is proven, the paper would offer a useful convex relaxation route for hybrid optimal control that scales to large mode counts, in contrast to mixed-integer encodings. A notable strength is that the method is implemented and evaluated on realistic benchmarks, with solve times of seconds for several problems where the MIQP is reported as intractable. The experimental comparison is also honest in reporting a weak bound for rover-2, although the paper's general 'typically in the vicinity' claim is stronger than that row supports. The reliance on established tools from [17] and [21] rather than on fitted parameters is a methodological strength. However, the main theorem-like claim is presently not supported because of an inconsistency in the stated domains of the boundary measures in Eq. (6f), which affects the embedding and lower-bound arguments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-A, Eq. (6f)] The boundary measures μij0 and μijT are declared to live in M+(Xi×Ui), but the transport equation (6b) and the transition constraints (6c)–(6e) require them to be state-space measures on Xi, exactly as μ0 and μT are state measures in (2c). As written, the equality in (6c) compares measures on different spaces, namely Xi×Ui and Xk×Uk, so it is not a well-posed equality of measures; if one instead interprets it through marginalization to Xi∩Xk, then the input components are unconstrained and nothing forces the support of the boundary measures to the intersection that the dual constraint (7c) assumes. This inconsistency breaks the claimed embedding of feasible trajectories of (1) into (6) and therefore the lower-bound assertion in §IV-D. The fix is to declare μij0, μijT ∈ M+(Xi), μij ∈ M+(Xi×Ui), and to add support or equality conditions on Xi∩Xk for the boundary measures; a proof of the lower-bound claim should then be supplied.
  2. [§III-A1, paragraph after Eq. (6)] The statement that 'at relaxation degree 0, (6) is identical to (4)' is not correct for the quadratic costs used in the experiments. A degree-0 moment relaxation sees only the total mass of each measure, so it cannot represent the inner product ⟨ci, μij⟩ unless ci is constant, whereas the edge weights lij in (4) already encode costs. What coincides at degree 0 is only the flow-conservation structure of the mode sequence, not the cost objective. The text should be reworded accordingly, otherwise it overstates the equivalence between the shortest-path LP and the degree-0 relaxation.
  3. [§IV-D, Table I] The claim that the lower bound is 'typically in the vicinity' of the nonconvex solution is not supported by the rover-2 row: the GMP reports 0.16 while the QCQP reports 2.26, a gap of roughly a factor of 14, or more than 90%. The paper's tie hypothesis is plausible but is not tested, and the discussion should either report a higher-degree relaxation for rover-2 or explicitly qualify this outlier before making a general statement about tightness.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II-C, Eq. (4)] The phrase 'edge costs lij associated with each vertex (i,j)' should read 'each edge (i,j)', since the indices in (4) denote edges of the graph.
  2. [§II-D, Eq. (5)] The text says it restates [21, Theorem 5.3], but the displayed program (5) is a specialization to affine vertex constraints and linear costs; please state explicitly that it is a special case.
  3. [§III-A2, Eq. (7a)] The min/max over i in the dual objective and the index conventions for Vsi and Vit are not derived or explained; a short derivation or a clarification of the notation would help the reader verify the duality claim.
  4. [Table I] For benchmarks with '–' in the MIQP columns, the paper should state explicitly whether the MIQP was not formulated or whether it exceeded a time or memory limit; 'intractable' is not a measured quantity.
  5. [§IV-D] The MIQP comparison fixes h = 0.3 and N = 30 to match stlcg-2; please state whether the same discretization was attempted for the larger benchmarks and why it was not reported.
  6. [Figure 2 and §III-A] The statement that 'the optimal solution collapses to the path of minimal dynamical cost' is presented as a property of the relaxation; it would be clearer to say whether this is observed in the experiments or guaranteed by the theory, since the theory itself is not proved in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GMP (6) derivation imports external measure-relaxation and graph-of-convex-sets results, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained relative to its cited external theorems. Problem (2) is taken from Lasserre–Henrion–Prieur–Trélat [17], and the graph-of-convex-sets program (5) is taken from Marcucci et al. [21]; neither is authored by the present authors nor derived in this paper. The construction in Section III-A substitutes edge measure triples into (5) and claims that (6) reformulates the hybrid optimal control problem (1). This is a modeling/derivation step, not a prediction from fitted data: the relaxation degree is chosen a priori (degree 0, degree 2, degree 6 in different places), and no parameter is tuned to match the reported lower bounds in Table I. The claim 'Being a relaxation of the original problem, the GMP (6) provides a lower bound to the optimal cost' (Section IV-D) rests on the soundness of the measure relaxation and the convex embedding, not on a circular identification of output with input. Self-citations in the paper are background or dataset/method references ([3], [4], [35]) and are not load-bearing for the mathematical reduction. The potential domain mismatch in (6f), where boundary measures are placed on Xi×Ui whereas the transport and transition constraints (6b)–(6e) and dual continuity (7c) require state measures on Xi and Xi∩Xj, is a correctness/soundness concern about whether (6) really is equivalent to (1) as written; it does not make the derivation circular, because it is not a case of defining an input in terms of the output or fitting a parameter to the quantity being predicted. Under the stated criteria requiring a specific quoted reduction, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; it composes existing objects such as occupation measures, edge selectors, and SDP cones.

free parameters (2)
  • relaxation degree (moment truncation order) = 2 (quadratic value functions), 6 in Section IV-A reach-avoid
    The paper chooses the degree of the moment-SOS hierarchy by hand. Tightness of the lower bound depends on it, as evidenced by the loose rover-2 bound, but the central lower-bound property holds for any degree.
  • MIQP discretization parameters (horizon N=30, step h=0.3) = N=30, h=0.3
    Chosen in Section IV-D to achieve comparable performance on stlcg-2 before comparing solve times; they affect the MIQP baseline but not the GMP method.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Existence of a representing measure for a positive-semidefinite Hankel moment matrix (Schmudgen/Laurent moment theory)
    Used in Section II-B.1 to justify the SDP representation of measures.
  • domain assumption Lasserre hierarchy converges and truncations are relaxations for polynomial optimal control
    Used to justify lower bounds from truncated moment relaxations in Sections II-B and IV-D; cited to [23,26].
  • standard math Theorem 5.3 of [21] correctly characterizes shortest paths in graphs of convex sets under affine vertex constraints
    Restated without proof in Section II-D and used as the basis of the construction.
  • domain assumption The weak formulation (2) is equivalent to the single-mode optimal control problem (1)
    Taken from [17]; the paper extends it per transition without a new proof.
  • domain assumption Finite-trace LTL formulas can be converted to state automata without loss
    Used in Section IV-B to build hybrid systems from temporal logic specs; cited to [30].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Control of Hybrid Systems via Measure Relaxations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJO7COEL

@misc{pith2026250719210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Control of Hybrid Systems via Measure Relaxations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJO7COEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19210}
}
read the original abstract

We propose an approach to trajectory optimization for piecewise polynomial systems based on the recently proposed graphs of convex sets framework. We instantiate the framework with a convex relaxation of optimal control based on occupation measures, resulting in a convex optimization problem resembling the discrete shortest-paths linear program that can be solved efficiently to global optimality. While this approach inherits the limitations of semidefinite programming, scalability to large numbers of discrete modes improves compared to the NP-hard mixed-integer formulation. We use this to plan trajectories under temporal logic specifications, comparing the computed cost lower bound to a nonconvex optimization approach with fixed mode sequence. In our numerical experiments, we find that this bound is typically in the vicinity of the nonconvex solution, while the runtime speedup is significant compared to the often intractable mixed-integer formulation. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/ebuehrle/hpoc.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19210 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reach-avoid task, value functions and policy rollout (7). The policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GMP (6) for the reach-avoid task in Figure 1. The state-action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reach-avoid task of Figure 1 with piecewise dynamics. The policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectory optimization on benchmarks from [32] under point mass dynamics. Our method plans over variable horizons at the level of continuous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fixed-horizon MIQP solutions to the benchmarks in figures 4(a) and 4(b). Discretization is necessary for tractability, leading to unsafe trajectories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectory optimization on a roundabout scenario (a) and a merge scenario (b). The outlined road segments are mutually exclusive. Our method plans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Nonlinear Optimal Control via Occupation Measures and LMI-relaxations,

    J. B. Lasserre, D. Henrion, C. Prieur, and E. Tr ´elat, “Nonlinear Optimal Control via Occupation Measures and LMI-relaxations,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 1643–1666, 2008

    work page 2008

  2. [21]

    Shortest Paths in Graphs of Convex Sets,

    T. Marcucci, J. Umenberger, P. Parrilo, and R. Tedrake, “Shortest Paths in Graphs of Convex Sets,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 507–532, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,

    A. Bemporad and M. Morari, “Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,” Automatica, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 407–427, 1999

    1999

  4. [2]

    Integrated Task and Motion Planning,

    C. R. Garrett, R. Chitnis, R. Holladay, B. Kim, T. Silver, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-P ´erez, “Integrated Task and Motion Planning,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 265–293, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [3]

    Decision-theoretic MPC: Motion Planning with Weighted Maneuver Preferences Under Uncertainty,

    ¨O. S ¸. Tas ¸, P. H. Brusius, and C. Stiller, “Decision-theoretic MPC: Motion Planning with Weighted Maneuver Preferences Under Uncertainty,” arXiv:2310.17963, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    SHAIL: Safety-Aware Hierarchical Adversarial Imitation Learning for Autonomous Driving in Urban Environments,

    A. Jamgochian, E. Buehrle, J. Fischer, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “SHAIL: Safety-Aware Hierarchical Adversarial Imitation Learning for Autonomous Driving in Urban Environments,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Efficient Conversion of Mixed Logical Dynamical Sys- tems Into an Equivalent Piecewise Affine Form,

    A. Bemporad, “Efficient Conversion of Mixed Logical Dynamical Sys- tems Into an Equivalent Piecewise Affine Form,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 832–838, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [6]

    Nonlinear regulation: The piecewise linear approach,

    E. Sontag, “Nonlinear regulation: The piecewise linear approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 346–358, 1981

    work page 1981

Show all 45 references
  1. [7]

    The ex- plicit solution of model predictive control via multiparametric quadratic programming,

    A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V . Dua, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “The ex- plicit solution of model predictive control via multiparametric quadratic programming,” in American Control Conference (ACC) , vol. 2. IEEE, 2000, pp. 872–876

    2000

  2. [8]

    Set Propagation Techniques for Reachability Analysis,

    M. Althoff, G. Frehse, and A. Girard, “Set Propagation Techniques for Reachability Analysis,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 4, pp. 369–395, 2021

    2021

  3. [9]

    On Reachability and Minimum Cost Optimal Control,

    J. Lygeros, “On Reachability and Minimum Cost Optimal Control,” Automatica, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 917–927, 2004

    2004

  4. [10]

    Scots: A tool for the synthesis of symbolic controllers,

    M. Rungger and M. Zamani, “Scots: A tool for the synthesis of symbolic controllers,” in ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control , 2016, pp. 99–104

    2016

  5. [11]

    pFaces: An acceleration ecosystem for symbolic control,

    M. Khaled and M. Zamani, “pFaces: An acceleration ecosystem for symbolic control,” in ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control , 2019, pp. 252–257

    2019

  6. [12]

    Pessoa 2.0: a controller synthesis tool for cyber-physical systems,

    P. Roy, P. Tabuada, and R. Majumdar, “Pessoa 2.0: a controller synthesis tool for cyber-physical systems,” in ACM International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control , 2011, pp. 315–316

    2011

  7. [13]

    Sampling-based Algorithms for Optimal Motion Planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based Algorithms for Optimal Motion Planning,” International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011

    2011

  8. [14]

    Monte-Carlo Tree Search for Constrained POMDPs,

    J. Lee, G.-H. Kim, P. Poupart, and K.-E. Kim, “Monte-Carlo Tree Search for Constrained POMDPs,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  9. [15]

    Bertsekas, Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control: Volume I

    D. Bertsekas, Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control: Volume I . Athena scientific, 2012

    2012

  10. [16]

    Controller synthesis for discrete-time hybrid polynomial systems via occupation measures,

    W. Han and R. Tedrake, “Controller synthesis for discrete-time hybrid polynomial systems via occupation measures,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 7675–7682

    2019

  11. [18]

    Control Synthesis for Nonlinear Optimal Control via Convex Relaxations,

    P. Zhao, S. Mohan, and R. Vasudevan, “Control Synthesis for Nonlinear Optimal Control via Convex Relaxations,” in American Control Confer- ence (ACC), 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    Optimal Control of Polynomial Hybrid Systems via Convex Relaxations,

    ——, “Optimal Control of Polynomial Hybrid Systems via Convex Relaxations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 2062–2077, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    Graphs of Convex Sets with Applications to Optimal Con- trol and Motion Planning,

    T. Marcucci, “Graphs of Convex Sets with Applications to Optimal Con- trol and Motion Planning,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Convex Duality and Nonlinear Optimal Control,

    R. Vinter, “Convex Duality and Nonlinear Optimal Control,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 518–538, 1993

    1993

  15. [23]

    Global Optimization with Polynomials and the Problem of Moments,

    J. B. Lasserre, “Global Optimization with Polynomials and the Problem of Moments,” SIAM Journal on Optimization , vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 796– 817, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    Schm ¨udgen, The Moment Problem

    K. Schm ¨udgen, The Moment Problem . Springer, 2017, vol. 9

    2017

  17. [25]

    Sums of Squares, Moment Matrices and Optimization Over Polynomials,

    M. Laurent, “Sums of Squares, Moment Matrices and Optimization Over Polynomials,” in Emerging Applications of Algebraic Geometry . Springer, 2009, pp. 157–270

    2009

  18. [26]

    P. A. Parrilo, Structured Semidefinite Programs and Semialgebraic Geometry Methods in Robustness and Optimization. California Institute of Technology, 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    Linear Programming and Sequential Decisions,

    A. S. Manne, “Linear Programming and Sequential Decisions,” Man- agement Science, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 259–267, 1960

    1960

  20. [28]

    Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications,

    G. R. Waissi, “Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications,” 1994

    1994

  21. [29]

    Baier and J.-P

    C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen, Principles of Model Checking . MIT Press, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Linear Temporal Logic and Linear Dynamic Logic on Finite Traces,

    G. De Giacomo, M. Y . Vardi et al., “Linear Temporal Logic and Linear Dynamic Logic on Finite Traces,” in International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) , vol. 13, 2013, pp. 854–860

    2013

  23. [31]

    Multi-Query Shortest-Path Problem in Graphs of Convex Sets,

    S. Morozov, T. Marcucci, A. Amice, B. P. Graesdal, R. Bosworth, P. A. Parrilo, and R. Tedrake, “Multi-Query Shortest-Path Problem in Graphs of Convex Sets,” in International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics (WAFR) , 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Multi-agent Motion Planning from Signal Temporal Logic Specifications,

    D. Sun, J. Chen, S. Mitra, and C. Fan, “Multi-agent Motion Planning from Signal Temporal Logic Specifications,” IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3451–3458, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Point-Based Methods for Model Checking in Partially Observable Markov Decision Pro- cesses,

    M. Bouton, J. Tumova, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Point-Based Methods for Model Checking in Partially Observable Markov Decision Pro- cesses,” in AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Polynomial and Moment Optimization in Julia and JuMP,

    T. Weisser, B. Legat, C. Coey, L. Kapelevich, and J. P. Vielma, “Polynomial and Moment Optimization in Julia and JuMP,” in JuliaCon, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://pretalx.com/juliacon2019/ talk/QZBKAU/

    2019

  27. [35]

    INTERACTION Dataset: An INTERnational, Adversar- ial and Cooperative moTION Dataset in Interactive Driving Scenarios with Semantic Maps,

    W. Zhan, L. Sun, D. Wang, H. Shi, A. Clausse, M. Naumann, J. K ¨ummerle, H. K ¨onigshof, C. Stiller, A. de La Fortelle, and M. Tomizuka, “INTERACTION Dataset: An INTERnational, Adversar- ial and Cooperative moTION Dataset in Interactive Driving Scenarios with Semantic Maps,” a...

    1910 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lanelet2: A high-definition map framework for the future of automated driving,

    F. Poggenhans, J.-H. Pauls, J. Janosovits, S. Orf, M. Naumann, F. Kuhnt, and M. Mayr, “Lanelet2: A high-definition map framework for the future of automated driving,” in International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1672–1679

    2018

  29. [37]

    Value-Gradient Iteration with Quadratic Approx- imate Value Functions,

    A. Yang and S. Boyd, “Value-Gradient Iteration with Quadratic Approx- imate Value Functions,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 56, p. 100917, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Temporal Logic Motion Planning with Convex Op- timization via Graphs of Convex Sets,

    V . Kurtz and H. Lin, “Temporal Logic Motion Planning with Convex Op- timization via Graphs of Convex Sets,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    COSMO: A conic operator splitting method for convex conic problems,

    M. Garstka, M. Cannon, and P. Goulart, “COSMO: A conic operator splitting method for convex conic problems,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , vol. 190, no. 3, pp. 779–810, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Solving natural conic formulations with Hypatia.jl,

    C. Coey, L. Kapelevich, and J. P. Vielma, “Solving natural conic formulations with Hypatia.jl,” INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 2686–2699, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Symmetry groups, semidefinite pro- grams, and sums of squares,

    K. Gatermann and P. A. Parrilo, “Symmetry groups, semidefinite pro- grams, and sums of squares,” Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , vol. 192, no. 1-3, pp. 95–128, 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    Chordal-TSSOS: a moment- SOS hierarchy that exploits term sparsity with chordal extension,

    J. Wang, V . Magron, and J.-B. Lasserre, “Chordal-TSSOS: a moment- SOS hierarchy that exploits term sparsity with chordal extension,” arXiv:2003.03210, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Symmetry Reduction and Recovery of Trajectories of Optimal Control Problems via Measure Relaxations,

    N. Augier, D. Henrion, M. Korda, and V . Magron, “Symmetry Reduction and Recovery of Trajectories of Optimal Control Problems via Measure Relaxations,” arXiv:2307.03787, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Semi- algebraic approximation using Christoffel–Darboux kernel,

    S. Marx, E. Pauwels, T. Weisser, D. Henrion, and J. B. Lasserre, “Semi- algebraic approximation using Christoffel–Darboux kernel,” Construc- tive Approximation, pp. 1–39, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Hern ´andez-Lerma and J

    O. Hern ´andez-Lerma and J. B. Lasserre, Discrete-Time Markov Control Processes: Basic Optimality Criteria . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, vol. 30

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.