pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22668 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🧮 math.OC · math.DG

Penalised and constrained geodesics in geometric control theory

Rufus Lawrence , Ale\v{s} Wodecki , Johannes Aspman , Jakub Mare\v{c}ek This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC math.DG
keywords geometric control theorynonholonomic constraintspenalized geodesicsRiemannian manifoldsoptimal controlinteraction picturebracket-generating subbundle
0
0 comments X

The pith

Any sequence of solutions to soft-constrained penalized problems accumulates at a solution to the corresponding hard-constrained geodesic problem.

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

The paper shows that penalizing violations of nonholonomic velocity constraints produces a sequence of problems whose solutions have accumulation points that satisfy the original hard constraints exactly. This holds for the basic task of finding shortest curves on a Riemannian manifold that stay inside a bracket-generating subbundle of allowed velocities. The authors further reduce a wide family of optimal control problems with their own dynamics to this same geodesic task by applying a coordinate change modeled on the interaction picture from quantum mechanics. A reader would care because direct enforcement of velocity constraints is often intractable, while the penalized versions are easier to handle analytically and numerically.

Core claim

When velocity is constrained to a bracket-generating subbundle D of the tangent bundle on a Riemannian manifold (M,g), any sequence of minimizers of the soft-penalized energy functionals (indexed by penalty strength q going to infinity) possesses an accumulation point that is a length-minimizing curve lying entirely in D. By means of an interaction-picture trivialization that removes the autonomous dynamics, a broad class of optimal control problems is thereby converted into the problem of finding such geodesics.

What carries the argument

The interaction-picture-style change of coordinates that trivializes autonomous dynamics, allowing optimal control to reduce to finding geodesics subject to a bracket-generating velocity subbundle D.

If this is right

  • Hard nonholonomic control problems can be approximated by solving a sequence of easier soft-penalized variational problems.
  • Optimal control problems with autonomous dynamics reduce to pure geodesic problems after the interaction-picture change of variables.
  • The convergence result applies to any bracket-generating distribution on a Riemannian manifold.
  • Numerical and analytical tools developed for geodesics become available for a larger set of control problems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Penalty methods could be combined with existing sub-Riemannian geodesic algorithms to produce practical solvers for nonholonomic path planning.
  • The trivialization step might be adapted to other classes of dynamical systems where autonomous motion can be factored out.
  • The accumulation-point argument may extend to stochastic or infinite-dimensional control settings that retain a similar Riemannian structure.

Load-bearing premise

The velocity constraint must be expressible as a bracket-generating subbundle of the tangent bundle on a Riemannian manifold, and the system dynamics must admit an interaction-picture-style trivialization.

What would settle it

An explicit sequence of soft-penalized curves on a manifold whose accumulation point lies outside the allowed velocity subbundle or fails to minimize length inside that subbundle.

read the original abstract

In many problems in optimal control, one seeks to minimise an objective function subject to constraints on the velocity of the system. Imposing these constraints directly -- the ``hard-constrained'' approach -- is often analytically and computationally challenging. A natural alternative is to penalise violations of the constraints, solving a sequence of ``soft-constrained'' problems indexed by a penalty parameter $q$, and hoping that solutions converge to solutions of the hard-constrained problem as $q \to \infty$. We show that this approach is justified when applied to a broad class of geometric control problems on a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$. We first consider the case where there are no autonomous dynamics, and so the control problem reduces to the problem of finding a curve of minimal length or energy between two points, subject to a nonholonomic velocity constraint/penalty determined by the choice of a bracket-generating subbundle $D$ of $TM$. We show that any sequence of solutions to the soft-constrained problem has an accumulation point which is a solution to the hard-constrained problem. Subsequently, we show how to transform a broad class of optimal control problems to the problem of finding a geodesic, by trivialising the inherent dynamics of the system using a change of coordinates inspired by the interaction picture transformation in quantum mechanics.

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

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies penalty methods for velocity constraints in optimal control on Riemannian manifolds (M,g). For the case without autonomous dynamics, it proves that solutions of soft-constrained problems (penalizing deviation from a bracket-generating subbundle D) accumulate, as the penalty parameter q tends to infinity, at solutions of the corresponding hard-constrained (sub-Riemannian) problem. It then shows that a broad class of problems with autonomous dynamics can be reduced, via an interaction-picture change of coordinates, to the problem of finding a geodesic in an appropriate metric.

Significance. If the stated convergence and reduction results hold, the work supplies a rigorous justification for the soft-constraint approximation in geometric control and a coordinate transformation that converts a range of optimal-control problems into geodesic problems. This is useful because it permits the direct application of compactness arguments and Riemannian-geometry tools to nonholonomic systems. The derivation of the limit is parameter-free once the bracket-generating hypothesis is fixed, which is a clear strength.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states the accumulation result but does not name the precise function space (e.g., H^1 or W^{1,2} curves) in which equicontinuity and weak convergence are obtained; this should be stated explicitly in the main text.
  2. The interaction-picture trivialization is described only at the level of the abstract; an explicit verification that the transformed cost functional is indeed the energy of a geodesic (including any Jacobian factors) would improve readability.
  3. Notation for the penalty term and the subbundle D is introduced clearly, but the manuscript should include a short table or paragraph comparing the soft- and hard-constrained functionals side by side.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of our manuscript, for recognizing the utility of the convergence result for soft-constrained approximations and the interaction-picture reduction to geodesic problems, and for recommending minor revision. We are pleased that the parameter-free nature of the limit under the bracket-generating assumption is noted as a strength.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The central results rely on standard direct-method arguments in the calculus of variations: energy bounds on penalized curves yield equicontinuity and weak compactness in the space of horizontal curves, allowing passage to the limit in the penalized functional to recover a hard-constrained minimizer. The interaction-picture trivialization is an explicit coordinate change that converts the controlled dynamics into a pure geodesic problem on the manifold without introducing fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the bracket-generating hypothesis is stated as an external assumption rather than derived internally.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The results rest on standard background from Riemannian and sub-Riemannian geometry plus the existence of the coordinate transformation.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption M is a complete Riemannian manifold with metric g
    Required for existence of geodesics and length minimization.
  • domain assumption D is a bracket-generating subbundle of TM
    Ensures controllability and that the hard-constrained problem is well-posed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 1169 out tokens · 48914 ms · 2026-05-08T11:00:54.218609+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Comprehensive Introduction to Sub-Riemannian Geometry

    Andrei Agrachev, Davide Barilari, and Ugo Boscain. A Comprehensive Introduction to Sub-Riemannian Geometry . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Agrachev and Andrei V

    Andrei A. Agrachev and Andrei V. Sarychev. Sub-riemannian metrics : minimality of abnormal geodesics versus subanalyticity. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations , 4:377--403, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Bertsekas

    Dimitri P. Bertsekas. Nonlinear Programming . Athena Scientific, Belmont, MA, 2nd edition, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    A handbook of -convergence

    Andrea Braides. A handbook of -convergence. In Michel Chipot and Pavol Quittner, editors, Handbook of Differential Equations: Stationary Partial Differential Equations , volume 3, chapter 2, pages 101--213. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Not all sub-riemannian minimizing geodesics are smooth, 2025

    Yacine Chitour, Frédéric Jean, Roberto Monti, Ludovic Rifford, Ludovic Sacchelli, Mario Sigalotti, and Alessandro Socionovo. Not all sub-riemannian minimizing geodesics are smooth, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    A Course in Functional Analysis , volume 96 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    John B Conway. A Course in Functional Analysis , volume 96 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 2nd edition, 1990

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    r-convergence and calculus of variations

    Ennio de Georgi and Gianni dal Maso. r-convergence and calculus of variations. Mathematical Theories of Optimization. Proceedings (S. Margerita Ligure, 1981), 121-143, Lectures Notes in Math. 979, Springer- Verlag, Berlin , 1983

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    Dowling and Michael A

    Mark R. Dowling and Michael A. Nielsen. The geometry of quantum computation, 2006

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Anders Krogh and John A. Hertz. A simple weight decay can improve generalization. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 4, pages 950--957. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991

    work page 1991

  10. [10]

    Lecture notes on sub-riemannian geometry

    Enrico le Donne. Lecture notes on sub-riemannian geometry. https://cvgmt.sns.it/media/doc/paper/5339/sub-Riem_notes.pdf, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Andrew D. Lewis. Nonholonomic and constrained variational mechanics. Journal of Geometric Mechanics , 12(2):165--308, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Lewis and Richard M

    Andrew D. Lewis and Richard M. Murray. Variational principles for constrained systems: Theory and experiment. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics , 30(6):793--815, 1995

    work page 1995

  13. [13]

    Geometric quantum control and the random Schr \"o dinger equation

    Rufus Lawrence, Ale s Wodecki, Johannes Aspman, Lloren c Balada Gaggioli, and Jakub Mare c ek. Geometric quantum control and the random Schr \"o dinger equation . Phys. Rev. Res. , 8(1):013150, 2026

    work page 2026

  14. [14]

    A Tour of Subriemannian Geometries, Their Geodesics and Applications , volume 91 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs

    Richard Montgomery. A Tour of Subriemannian Geometries, Their Geodesics and Applications , volume 91 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002

    work page 2002

  15. [15]

    A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds

    Michael A Nielsen. A geometric approach to quantum circuit lower bounds. Quantum Information & Computation , 6(3):213--262, 2006

    work page 2006

  16. [16]

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright. Numerical Optimization . Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics , 378:686--707, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Interior singularity and branching of geodesics in real-analytic sub-riemannian manifolds, 2026

    Tommaso Rossi, Alec Jacopo Almo Schiavoni Piazza, and Alessandro Socionovo. Interior singularity and branching of geodesics in real-analytic sub-riemannian manifolds, 2026

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    Quantum computational riemannian and sub-riemannian geodesics

    Kosuke Shizume, Takao Nakajima, Ryo Nakayama, and Yutaka Takahashi. Quantum computational riemannian and sub-riemannian geodesics. Progress of Theoretical Physics , 127(6):997--1008, 06 2012

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Dragan, Mihail Pivtoraiko, Matthew Klingensmith, Christopher M

    Matt Zucker, Nathan Ratliff, Anca D. Dragan, Mihail Pivtoraiko, Matthew Klingensmith, Christopher M. Dellin, J. Andrew Bagnell, and Siddhartha S. Srinivasa. CHOMP : Covariant H amiltonian optimization for motion planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 32(9--10):1164--1193, 2013

    work page 2013