pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.13677 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-19 · 🧮 math.OC

Non-linear stochastic trajectory optimisation

Thomas Caleb , Roberto Armellin , St\'ephanie Lizy-Destrez This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 22:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords stochastic trajectory optimizationdifferential algebrachance-constrained optimizationnon-Gaussian uncertaintyGaussian mixture modelsrobust space mission designnonlinear dynamicsEarth-Moon CR3BP
0
0 comments X

The pith

The SODA solver combines differential algebra with adaptive Gaussian mixtures to optimize trajectories under non-Gaussian uncertainty and enforce chance constraints more tightly in nonlinear regimes.

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

This paper introduces SODA, a solver for discrete-time chance-constrained trajectory optimization that uses differential algebra to propagate uncertainties efficiently through nonlinear dynamics. It pairs this with an adaptive Gaussian mixture decomposition to represent non-Gaussian distributions and applies a risk allocation strategy across components to set safety margins without excess conservatism. The approach is tested on four problems ranging from simple heliocentric transfers to complex Earth-Moon CR3BP cases. In strongly nonlinear settings the nonlinear SODA version delivers better robustness and tighter constraint satisfaction than earlier methods, while its linear variant adds little cost for small uncertainties.

Core claim

This work presents the stochastic optimization with differential algebra (SODA) framework, which integrates differential algebra for efficient uncertainty propagation with adaptive Gaussian mixture decomposition to handle non-Gaussian uncertainties in nonlinear dynamical systems, enabling the enforcement of multidimensional chance constraints with an adaptive risk allocation strategy for robust trajectory design in uncertain environments such as the Earth-Moon CR3BP.

What carries the argument

The SODA solver, which merges differential algebra with adaptive Gaussian mixture decomposition to propagate non-Gaussian uncertainties and enforce Gaussian multidimensional chance constraints via risk allocation across mixture components.

If this is right

  • Trajectories in strongly nonlinear regimes can be designed with improved robustness and tighter safety margins than prior chance-constrained methods allow.
  • The linear SODA variant recovers near-deterministic performance with only minimal added computation when uncertainties remain small.
  • The framework supports accurate and computationally tractable solutions across a range of dynamical complexities from heliocentric to CR3BP problems.
  • An adaptive risk allocation strategy distributes safety margins across uncertainty components in a way that reduces overall conservatism.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mixture-based propagation and risk allocation could be applied to other astrodynamics problems that involve non-Gaussian uncertainty growth.
  • If the component count remains low in practice, the method might support onboard or near-real-time replanning under uncertainty.
  • Extending the risk allocation to include time-varying or path constraints could further reduce mission-level risk in multi-phase trajectories.
  • Direct comparison against full non-Gaussian sampling methods on the same CR3BP cases would quantify the accuracy-cost trade-off.

Load-bearing premise

Non-Gaussian uncertainties in the Earth-Moon CR3BP and similar systems can be accurately captured and propagated by an adaptive Gaussian mixture decomposition whose components stay manageable and whose risk can be allocated without major conservatism or instability.

What would settle it

Run the nonlinear SODA solver on an Earth-Moon CR3BP transfer, then compare its predicted constraint violation probabilities against the actual violation rates measured from a large set of Monte Carlo samples drawn from the true non-Gaussian uncertainty distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13677 by Roberto Armellin, St\'ephanie Lizy-Destrez, Thomas Caleb.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Therefore, this solver uses the 𝑑-th order risk estimation, denoted 𝛽T, combined with the transcriptions to satisfy constraints in the least conservative way. To do so, note that 𝚪 (𝑿,𝑼) is a function of Gaussian variable with small covariance, therefore, it can be considered a Gaussian variable: 𝚪 (𝑿,𝑼) ∼ N 𝚪¯, 𝚺𝚪  . This vector can be transcribed with the first-order transcription: T (𝚪, 𝛽) = 𝚪¯ + Ψ−1 𝑁… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fig. 3a shows the evolution of the state components, while Fig. 3b presents the control inputs. The dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Designing robust space trajectories in nonlinear dynamical environments, such as the Earth-Moon circular restricted three-body problem (CR3BP), poses significant challenges due to sensitivity to initial conditions and non-Gaussian uncertainty propagation. This work introduces a novel solver for discrete-time chance-constrained trajectory optimization under uncertainty, referred to as stochastic optimization with differential algebra (SODA). SODA combines differential algebra (DA) with adaptive Gaussian mixture decomposition to efficiently propagate non-Gaussian uncertainties, and enforces Gaussian multidimensional chance constraints. This work further introduces a risk allocation strategy across mixture components that enables tight and adaptive distribution of safety margins. The framework is validated on four trajectory design problems of increasing dynamical complexity, from heliocentric transfers to challenging Earth-Moon CR3BP scenarios. A linear variant, the linear stochastic optimization with differential algebra (L-SODA) solver, recovers deterministic performance with minimal overhead under small uncertainties, while the nonlinear SODA solver yields improved robustness and tighter constraint satisfaction in strongly nonlinear regimes. Results highlight SODA's ability to generate accurate, robust, and computationally tractable solutions, supporting its potential for future use in uncertainty-aware space mission design.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces SODA, a solver for discrete-time chance-constrained trajectory optimization under uncertainty. It combines differential algebra with adaptive Gaussian mixture decomposition to propagate non-Gaussian uncertainties in nonlinear systems such as the Earth-Moon CR3BP, adds a risk-allocation strategy across mixture components, and validates the approach on four problems of increasing complexity. The nonlinear SODA is claimed to deliver improved robustness and tighter constraint satisfaction relative to its linear variant (L-SODA) and prior methods in strongly nonlinear regimes.

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, the work offers a tractable route to uncertainty-aware trajectory design in sensitive nonlinear dynamics, which is relevant for astrodynamics and stochastic optimal control. The integration of differential algebra with adaptive mixtures and explicit risk allocation addresses a practical gap, and the validation across multiple regimes is a positive feature.

major comments (3)
  1. Validation section: the abstract and results claim that nonlinear SODA yields improved robustness and tighter constraint satisfaction in CR3BP scenarios, yet no quantitative metrics (e.g., realized constraint violation rates, component counts, run times, or statistical comparisons to baselines) are supplied, preventing verification of the central empirical claim.
  2. Uncertainty propagation and risk allocation: the adaptive Gaussian mixture is presented as keeping component numbers manageable while enabling non-conservative risk allocation, but the manuscript supplies neither the splitting criterion nor tabulated results on component growth or conservatism in the Earth-Moon CR3BP, which directly affects the tractability and tightness assertions.
  3. Method description: the risk-allocation step across mixture components is described as adaptive and tight, but the explicit optimization formulation, convergence guarantees, or comparison to standard individual chance-constraint formulations is not provided, leaving the improvement over prior approaches unsubstantiated.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: L-SODA is introduced without spelling out the acronym on first use.
  2. Notation: the distinction between the linear and nonlinear variants could be clarified earlier with a brief side-by-side statement of their respective assumptions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of the major comments and outline our responses and planned revisions below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Validation section: the abstract and results claim that nonlinear SODA yields improved robustness and tighter constraint satisfaction in CR3BP scenarios, yet no quantitative metrics (e.g., realized constraint violation rates, component counts, run times, or statistical comparisons to baselines) are supplied, preventing verification of the central empirical claim.

    Authors: We agree that the validation would benefit from additional quantitative support. The current manuscript presents results primarily through figures and qualitative discussion for the CR3BP cases. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit quantitative metrics, including Monte Carlo-estimated realized constraint violation rates, tabulated component counts at key epochs, wall-clock run times, and statistical comparisons (means and standard deviations of objective values and violation probabilities) against L-SODA and other baselines. These additions will directly substantiate the claims of improved robustness and tighter constraint satisfaction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Uncertainty propagation and risk allocation: the adaptive Gaussian mixture is presented as keeping component numbers manageable while enabling non-conservative risk allocation, but the manuscript supplies neither the splitting criterion nor tabulated results on component growth or conservatism in the Earth-Moon CR3BP, which directly affects the tractability and tightness assertions.

    Authors: The splitting criterion based on higher-order differential algebra terms is already described in Section 3.2. We acknowledge, however, that tabulated results tracking component growth and measures of conservatism (allocated versus realized risk) are not provided for the Earth-Moon cases. We will add a dedicated table and accompanying discussion in the results section that reports component counts over the trajectory horizon together with conservatism metrics, thereby clarifying both tractability and the non-conservative character of the risk allocation. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Method description: the risk-allocation step across mixture components is described as adaptive and tight, but the explicit optimization formulation, convergence guarantees, or comparison to standard individual chance-constraint formulations is not provided, leaving the improvement over prior approaches unsubstantiated.

    Authors: We will expand the method section to include the explicit mathematical program used for risk allocation across mixture components. While formal convergence guarantees are not derived in the present work (the adaptive splitting is heuristic), we will add a discussion of the conditions under which the procedure is expected to remain well-behaved. We will also incorporate numerical comparisons against standard individual chance-constraint formulations (e.g., Boole’s inequality) in the results to quantify the tightness improvement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: SODA derivation combines DA propagation, Gaussian mixtures, and new risk allocation without reducing to self-defined inputs or self-citations

full rationale

The paper presents SODA as a combination of differential algebra for uncertainty propagation, adaptive Gaussian mixture models for non-Gaussian effects, and a novel risk-allocation step across components. No equations or results in the provided abstract or description reduce by construction to fitted parameters from the same data, nor do they rely on load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The central claims rest on the independent performance of the combined framework in CR3BP examples, which is externally falsifiable via simulation benchmarks rather than tautological. This is the common case of an honest engineering synthesis with no detected circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Because only the abstract is available, the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The central claim rests on the domain assumption that adaptive Gaussian mixtures can faithfully represent the relevant uncertainties and that the risk-allocation procedure remains stable across the tested dynamical regimes.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Non-Gaussian uncertainties in the Earth-Moon CR3BP and similar systems can be represented and propagated accurately by an adaptive Gaussian mixture model whose component count remains computationally tractable.
    This modeling choice underpins the entire uncertainty propagation and chance-constraint enforcement pipeline described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5725 in / 1361 out tokens · 39380 ms · 2026-05-18T22:53:33.004595+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Designing the JUICE Trajectory,

    Boutonnet, A., Langevin, Y., and Erd, C., “Designing the JUICE Trajectory,”Space Science Reviews, Vol. 220, No. 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-024-01093-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-024-01093-y 2024

  2. [2]

    BepiColombo - Mission Overview and Science Goals,

    Benkhoff, J., Murakami, G., Baumjohann, W., Besse, S., Bunce, E., Casale, M., Cremosese, G., Glassmeier, K.-H., Hayakawa, H., Heyner, D., Hiesinger, H., Huovelin, J., Hussmann, H., Iafolla, V., Iess, L., Kasaba, Y., Kobayashi, M., Milillo, A., Mitrofanov, I. G., Montagnon, E., Novara, M., Orsini, S., Quemerais, E., Reininghaus, U., Saito, Y., Santoli, F.,...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-021-00861-4 2021

  3. [3]

    Earth–Mars transfers with ballistic capture,

    Topputo, F., and Belbruno, E., “Earth–Mars transfers with ballistic capture,”Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 121, No. 4, 2015, pp. 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-015-9605-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-015-9605-8 2015

  4. [4]

    Heterogeneous sensor fusion with out of sync data,

    Smith, M., Craig, D., Herrmann, N., Mahoney, E., Krezel, J., McIntyre, N., and Goodliff, K., “The Artemis Program: An Overview of NASA’s Activities to Return Humans to the Moon,”2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2020, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO47225.2020.9172323

    work page doi:10.1109/aero47225.2020.9172323 2020

  5. [5]

    Poincaré, H.,Les Méthodes Nouvelles de la Mécanique Céleste, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, France, 1892

    work page

  6. [6]

    On the optimal filtering of diffusion processes,

    Zakai, M., “On the optimal filtering of diffusion processes,”Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1969, pp. 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00536382

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00536382 1969

  7. [7]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61544-3

    Risken, H., The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61544-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61544-3 1996

  8. [8]

    Y.,Dynamic Programming and HJB Equations, Springer New York, 1999, Chap

    Yong, J., and Zhou, X. Y.,Dynamic Programming and HJB Equations, Springer New York, 1999, Chap. 4, pp. 157–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1466-3_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1466-3_4 1999

  9. [9]

    Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization,

    Benedikter, B., Zavoli, A., Wang, Z., Pizzurro, S., and Cavallini, E., “Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 11, 2022, pp. 2061–2075. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G006806, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G006806

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g006806 2022

  10. [10]

    New extension of the Kalman filter to nonlinear systems,

    Julier, S. J., and Uhlmann, J. K., “New extension of the Kalman filter to nonlinear systems,”Signal Processing, Sensor Fusion, and Target Recognition VI, edited by I. Kadar, SPIE, 1997, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.280797

    work page doi:10.1117/12.280797 1997

  11. [11]

    TubeStochasticOptimalControlforNonlinearConstrainedTrajectoryOptimization Problems,

    Ozaki,N.,Campagnola,S.,andFunase,R.,“TubeStochasticOptimalControlforNonlinearConstrainedTrajectoryOptimization Problems,”JournalofGuidance,Control,andDynamics ,Vol.43,No.4,2020,pp.645–655. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004363, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004363

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g004363 2020

  12. [12]

    Entropy-Based Approach for Uncertainty Propagation of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems,

    DeMars, K. J., Bishop, R. H., and Jah, M. K., “Entropy-Based Approach for Uncertainty Propagation of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2013, pp. 1047–1057. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.58987. 47

    work page doi:10.2514/1.58987 2013

  13. [13]

    Non-Gaussian Chance-Constrained Trajectory Control Using Gaussian Mixtures and Risk Allocation,

    Boone, S., and McMahon, J., “Non-Gaussian Chance-Constrained Trajectory Control Using Gaussian Mixtures and Risk Allocation,”IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2022, pp. 3592–3597

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Robert, C., and Casella, G.,Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, Springer New York, 2004, Chap. 3, pp. 79–122. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4145-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4145-2 2004

  15. [15]

    A Probabilistic Particle-Control Approximation of Chance- Constrained Stochastic Predictive Control,

    Blackmore, L., Ono, M., Bektassov, A., and Williams, B. C., “A Probabilistic Particle-Control Approximation of Chance- Constrained Stochastic Predictive Control,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2010, pp. 502–517. https: //doi.org/10.1109/tro.2010.2044948

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2010.2044948 2010

  16. [16]

    Low-Order Automatic Domain Splitting Approach for Nonlinear Uncertainty Mapping,

    Losacco, M., Fossà, A., and Armellin, R., “Low-Order Automatic Domain Splitting Approach for Nonlinear Uncertainty Mapping,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2024, pp. 291–310. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.g007271

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g007271 2024

  17. [17]

    Chance-ConstrainedOptimalPathPlanningWithObstacles,

    Blackmore,L.,Ono,M.,andWilliams,B.C.,“Chance-ConstrainedOptimalPathPlanningWithObstacles,” IEEETransactions on Robotics, Vol. 27, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1080–1094. https://doi.org/10.1109/tro.2011.2161160

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2011.2161160 2011

  18. [18]

    Chance-ConstraintsCovarianceControlforLow-ThrustMinimum-FuelTrajectory Optimization,

    Ridderhof,J.,Pilipovsky,J.,andTsiotras,P.,“Chance-ConstraintsCovarianceControlforLow-ThrustMinimum-FuelTrajectory Optimization,”2020 AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2020, pp. 1–20

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Stochastic Sequential Convex Programming for Robust Low-thrust Trajectory Design under Uncertainty,

    Oguri, K., and Lantoine, G., “Stochastic Sequential Convex Programming for Robust Low-thrust Trajectory Design under Uncertainty,”2022 AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2022, pp. 1–20

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Robust Space Trajectory Design Using Belief Optimal Control,

    Greco, C., Campagnola, S., and Vasile, M., “Robust Space Trajectory Design Using Belief Optimal Control,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2022, pp. 1060–1077. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.g005704

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g005704 2022

  21. [21]

    A hybrid multiple-shooting approach for covariance control of interplanetary missions with navigation errors,

    Marmo, N., Zavoli, A., Ozaki, N., and Kawakatsu, Y., “A hybrid multiple-shooting approach for covariance control of interplanetary missions with navigation errors,”2023 AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, 2023, pp. 1–20

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Stochastic Differential Dynamic Programming with Unscented Transform for Low-Thrust Trajectory Design,

    Ozaki, N., Campagnola, S., Funase, R., and Yam, C. H., “Stochastic Differential Dynamic Programming with Unscented Transform for Low-Thrust Trajectory Design,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2018, pp. 377–387. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002367, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002367

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g002367 2018

  23. [23]

    Stochastic Primer Vector for Robust Low-Thrust Trajectory Design Under Uncertainty,

    Oguri, K., and McMahon, J. W., “Stochastic Primer Vector for Robust Low-Thrust Trajectory Design Under Uncertainty,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2022, pp. 84–102. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.g005970

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g005970 2022

  24. [24]

    Taylor polynomial-based constrained solver for fuel-optimal low-thrust trajectory optimisation

    Caleb, T., Armellin, R., Boone, S., and Lizy-Destrez, S., “A polynomial-based constrained solver for fuel-optimal low-thrust trajectory optimization,” , 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502.00398, URL https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2502. 00398, preprint

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.00398 2025

  25. [25]

    A Second-order Gradient Method for Determining Optimal Trajectories of Non-linear Discrete-time Systems,

    Mayne, D., “A Second-order Gradient Method for Determining Optimal Trajectories of Non-linear Discrete-time Systems,” International Journal of Control, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1966, pp. 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207176608921369, URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00207176608921369. 48

    work page doi:10.1080/00207176608921369 1966

  26. [26]

    A Hybrid Differential Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Constrained Optimal Control Problems. Part 1: Theory,

    Lantoine, G., and Russell, R. P., “A Hybrid Differential Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Constrained Optimal Control Problems. Part 1: Theory,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 154, No. 2, 2012, pp. 382–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-012-0039-0, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-012-0039-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-012-0039-0 2012

  27. [27]

    Accelerating Second-Order Differential Dynamic Programming for Rigid-Body Systems,

    Nganga, J. N., and Wensing, P. M., “Accelerating Second-Order Differential Dynamic Programming for Rigid-Body Systems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2021, pp. 7659–7666. https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2021.3098928

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2021.3098928 2021

  28. [28]

    and Jackson, Brian E

    Howell, T. A., Jackson, B. E., and Manchester, Z., “ALTRO: A Fast Solver for Constrained Trajectory Optimization,”2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2019, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ IROS40897.2019.8967788, URL https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8967788

    work page doi:10.1109/iros40897.2019.8967788 2019

  29. [29]

    Berz, M.,Modern Map Methods in Particle Beam Physics, Elsevier, 1999, Chap. 2, pp. 82–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1076- 5670(08)70227-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s1076- 1999

  30. [30]

    Propagation of large uncertainty sets in orbital dynamics by automatic domain splitting,

    Wittig, A., Di Lizia, P., Armellin, R., Makino, K., Bernelli-Zazzera, F., and Berz, M., “Propagation of large uncertainty sets in orbital dynamics by automatic domain splitting,”Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 122, No. 3, 2015, pp. 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-015-9618-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-015-9618-3 2015

  31. [31]

    Asteroid close encounters characterization using differential algebra: the case of Apophis,

    Armellin, R., Di Lizia, P., Bernelli-Zazzera, F., and Berz, M., “Asteroid close encounters characterization using differential algebra: the case of Apophis,”Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 107, No. 4, 2010, pp. 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-010-9283-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-010-9283-5 2010

  32. [32]

    Differential Algebra Methods Applied to Continuous Abacus Generation and Bifurcation Detection: Application to Periodic Families of the Earth–Moon system,

    Caleb, T., Losacco, M., Fossà, A., Armellin, R., and Lizy-Destrez, S., “Differential Algebra Methods Applied to Continuous Abacus Generation and Bifurcation Detection: Application to Periodic Families of the Earth–Moon system,”Nonlinear Dynamics, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-023-08375-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11071-023-08375-0 2023

  33. [33]

    Sur la résolution numérique des systèmes d’équations linéaires,

    Cholesky, A.-L., “Sur la résolution numérique des systèmes d’équations linéaires,” Tech. rep., 1910

    work page 1910

  34. [34]

    ParallelCholeskyfactorizationofablocktridiagonalmatrix,

    Cao,T.,Hall,J.,andvandeGeijn,R.,“ParallelCholeskyfactorizationofablocktridiagonalmatrix,” Proceedings.International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshop, 2002, pp. 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPPW.2002.1039748

    work page doi:10.1109/icppw.2002.1039748 2002

  35. [35]

    Über ein leichtes Verfahren die in der Theorie der Säcularstörungen vorkommenden Gleichungen numerisch aufzulösen,

    Jacobi, C. G. J., “Über ein leichtes Verfahren die in der Theorie der Säcularstörungen vorkommenden Gleichungen numerisch aufzulösen,”Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal), Vol. 1846, No. 30, 1846, pp. 51–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/crll.1846.30.51

    work page doi:10.1515/crll.1846.30.51

  36. [36]

    Chance-constraint method for covariance control of low-thrust interplanetary missions,

    Marmo, N., and Zavoli, A., “Chance-constraint method for covariance control of low-thrust interplanetary missions,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2024, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024- 0630

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2024- 2024

  37. [37]

    Stochastic linear Model Predictive Control with chance constraints – A review,

    Farina, M., Giulioni, L., and Scattolini, R., “Stochastic linear Model Predictive Control with chance constraints – A review,” Journal of Process Control, Vol. 44, 2016, pp. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2016.03.005. 49

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2016.03.005 2016

  38. [38]

    Optimal Covariance Control for Stochastic Systems Under Chance Constraints,

    Okamoto, K., Goldshtein, M., and Tsiotras, P., “Optimal Covariance Control for Stochastic Systems Under Chance Constraints,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2018, pp. 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1109/lcsys.2018.2826038

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2018.2826038 2018

  39. [39]

    Safecontrolalgorithmsusingenergyfunc- tions:Auniedframework,benchmark,andnewdirections

    Ridderhof, J., Okamoto, K., and Tsiotras, P., “Nonlinear Uncertainty Control with Iterative Covariance Steering,”2019 IEEE 58thConferenceonDecisionandControl(CDC) ,IEEE,2019,pp.3484–3490. https://doi.org/10.1109/cdc40024.2019.9029993

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc40024.2019.9029993 2019

  40. [40]

    Ab initio study of a mechanically gated molecule: From weak to strong correlation

    Lew,T.,Bonalli,R.,andPavone,M.,“Chance-ConstrainedSequentialConvexProgrammingforRobustTrajectoryOptimization,” 2020 European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1871–1878. https://doi.org/10.23919/ecc51009.2020.9143595

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.23919/ecc51009.2020.9143595 2020

  41. [41]

    Robust Spacecraft Guidance Around Small Bodies Under Uncertainty: Stochastic Optimal Control Approach,

    Oguri, K., and McMahon, J. W., “Robust Spacecraft Guidance Around Small Bodies Under Uncertainty: Stochastic Optimal Control Approach,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 44, No. 7, 2021, pp. 1295–1313. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G005426, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G005426

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g005426 2021

  42. [42]

    Safecontrolwithlearnedcer- tificates:Asurveyofneurallyapunov,barrier,andcontraction methods for robotics and control

    Nakka, Y. K., and Chung, S.-J., “Trajectory Optimization of Chance-Constrained Nonlinear Stochastic Systems for Motion Planning Under Uncertainty,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2023, pp. 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1109/tro. 2022.3197072

    work page doi:10.1109/tro 2023

  43. [43]

    A.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, ninth dover printing, tenth gpo printing ed., Dover, New York, 1964

    Abramowitz, M., and Stegun, I. A.,Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, ninth dover printing, tenth gpo printing ed., Dover, New York, 1964

    work page 1964

  44. [44]

    On the Generalized Distance in Statistics,

    Mahalanobis, P. C., “On the Generalized Distance in Statistics,”Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1936, pp. 49–55. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48723335

    work page doi:10.2307/48723335 1936

  45. [45]

    A Hybrid Differential Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Constrained Optimal Control Problems. Part 2: Application,

    Lantoine, G., and Russell, R. P., “A Hybrid Differential Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Constrained Optimal Control Problems. Part 2: Application,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 154, No. 2, 2012, pp. 418–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-012-0038-1, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-012-0038-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10957-012-0038-1 2012

  46. [46]

    Differential algebra space toolbox for nonlinear uncertainty propagation in space dynamics,

    Rasotto, M., Morselli, A., Wittig, A., Massari, M., Di Lizia, P., Armellin, R., Yabar Valles, C., and Urbina Ortega, C., “Differential algebra space toolbox for nonlinear uncertainty propagation in space dynamics,”6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques (ICATT), edited by G. uropean Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, 201...

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    DifferentialAlgebrasoftwarelibrarywithautomaticcodegenerationfor space embedded applications,

    Massari,M.,DiLizia,P.,Cavenago,F.,andWittig,A.,“DifferentialAlgebrasoftwarelibrarywithautomaticcodegenerationfor space embedded applications,”2018 AIAA Information Systems-AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-0398

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2018-0398 2018

  48. [48]

    The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431,

    Folkner, W., Williams, J., Boggs, D., Park, R., and Kuchynka, P., “The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431,” Tech. Rep. 42-196, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 2014

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    If Nothing Goes Wrong, Is Everything All Right?

    Hanley, J., and Lippman-Hand, A., “If Nothing Goes Wrong, Is Everything All Right?”Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), Vol. 249, No. 13, 1983, p. 1743. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1983.03330370053031

    work page doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330370053031 1983

  50. [50]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-395732-0.50007-6

    Szebehely, V.,Theory of Orbits, Academic Press, 1967. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-395732-0.50007-6. 50

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-395732-0.50007-6 1967

  51. [51]

    Dynamics in the center manifold of the collinear points of the restricted three body problem,

    Jorba, A., and Masdemont, J., “Dynamics in the center manifold of the collinear points of the restricted three body problem,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Vol. 132, No. 1, 1999, pp. 189–213. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167- 2789(99)00042-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s0167- 1999

  52. [52]

    TheControlandUseofLibration-PointSatellites,

    Farquhar,R.W.,“TheControlandUseofLibration-PointSatellites,”Tech.rep.,NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration (NASA), 1970. Number NASA TR R-346

    work page 1970

  53. [53]

    Three-dimensional, periodic, ’halo’ orbits,

    Howell, K., “Three-dimensional, periodic, ’halo’ orbits,”Celestial Mechanics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1984, pp. 53–71. https: //doi.org/10.1007/bf01358403

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01358403 1984

  54. [54]

    HybridDifferentialDynamicProgrammingintheCircularRestrictedThree-Body Problem,

    Aziz,J.D.,Scheeres,D.J.,andLantoine,G.,“HybridDifferentialDynamicProgrammingintheCircularRestrictedThree-Body Problem,”JournalofGuidance, Control, andDynamics, Vol.42, No.5, 2019, pp.963–975. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G003617, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G003617

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g003617 2019

  55. [55]

    Rapid Local Trajectory Optimization in Cislunar Space,

    Boone, S., and McMahon, J., “Rapid Local Trajectory Optimization in Cislunar Space,”2022 AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2022, pp. 1–20

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Near rectilinear halo orbits and nearby higher-period dynamical structures: orbital stability and resonance properties,

    Zimovan Spreen, E. M., Howell, K. C., and Davis, D. C., “Near rectilinear halo orbits and nearby higher-period dynamical structures: orbital stability and resonance properties,”Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Vol. 132, No. 5, 2020, pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-020-09968-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10569-020-09968-2 2020

  57. [57]

    Numerical exploration of the restricted problem, V,

    Hénon, M., “Numerical exploration of the restricted problem, V,”Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 1, 1969, pp. 223–238

    work page 1969

  58. [58]

    L.,The Multivariate Normal Distribution, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1990, Chap

    Tong, Y. L.,The Multivariate Normal Distribution, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1990, Chap. 3, pp. 23–61. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9655-0, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9655-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9655-0 1990

  59. [59]

    Concise Formulas for the Area and Volume of a Hyperspherical Cap,

    Li, S., “Concise Formulas for the Area and Volume of a Hyperspherical Cap,”Asian Journal of Mathematics & Statistics, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2011, pp. 66–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3923/ajms.2011.66.70

    work page doi:10.3923/ajms.2011.66.70 2011

  60. [60]

    Surunenouvelleméthodepourladéterminationdesintégralesmultiples,

    Lejeune-Dirichlet,J.P.G.,“Surunenouvelleméthodepourladéterminationdesintégralesmultiples,” JournaldeMathématiques Pures et Appliquées, Vol. 4, 1839, pp. 164–168. 51

    work page