Stochastic Stability of Nonlinear MPPI via Contraction Theory and Control Lyapunov Functions

Hunmin Kim; Hyung-Jin Yoon

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 21 references

Stochastic Stability of Nonlinear MPPI via Contraction Theory and Control Lyapunov Functions

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read MPPI inherits stability from a contracting MPC baseline

desk verdict First Lyapunov-based closed-loop stability certificate for nonlinear MPPI. The proof is correct under stated assumptions; the main limitation is that those assumptions confine the certificate to a regime where MPPI is least needed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06945 v1 pith:56LKTCHG submitted 2026-07-08 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC

Hyung-Jin Yoon , Hunmin Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SYmath.OC

keywords mppicontractioncontrolnonlinearstabilityapproximationcertificateclosed

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

Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control is popular in robotics because it needs no gradients or convex optimization—just forward simulation of randomly perturbed control sequences. But its algorithmic simplicity has never come with a proof that the closed-loop system is stable. This paper provides that proof for nonlinear systems, not by showing MPPI stabilizes from scratch, but by showing it inherits stability from a hypothetical deterministic controller that is already known to be stable. The argument has three layers. First, assume a deterministic nonlinear MPC policy exists whose closed loop is certified by a Control Lyapunov Function and a contraction metric—a measure of how strongly trajectories converge toward each other. Second, show that finite-sample MPPI approximates this reference policy with high probability, where the error splits into a temperature-dependent bias floor and a Monte Carlo term shrinking at rate one over the square root of the sample count. Third, show that the contraction margin of the reference policy absorbs the state-dependent part of the MPPI approximation error, provided a small-gain condition holds: the approximation gain scaled by the metric condition number and the input Lipschitz constant must not exceed half the remaining contraction margin. When these conditions are met, the MPPI closed loop satisfies a finite-horizon, high-probability bound: the expected distance to equilibrium decays exponentially up to three residual floors caused by finite sampling, Gaussian process noise, and rare bad sampling events. The paper also gives an explicit design procedure: pick the localization set for the desired horizon and confidence, pick the temperature to satisfy the small-gain condition, then pick the sample count to control the Monte Carlo error. The sample threshold does not depend on the process-noise covariance; only the irreducible noise floor does.

What carries the argument

The proof rests on three objects: (1) a Control Lyapunov Function terminal cost guaranteeing nominal MPC decrease; (2) a Control Contraction Metric certifying that the nominal closed loop contracts at rate β; (3) a two-component MPPI approximation error bound combining a finite-temperature bias floor β₀ with a Monte Carlo concentration term ε_M(η) = O(M^{-1/2}). The small-gain function Φ(β∞) = √(μ̄/μ) · L_u · β∞ ties these together: if Φ(β∞) ≤ (1−β)/2, the perturbed contraction rate β̃ = β + Φ(β∞) < 1 and stability is inherited.

What would settle it

Find a nonlinear system with a stabilizing contracting MPC policy where the finite-horizon cost has multiple global minimizers or a degenerate Hessian at the minimizer on some compact set, so that the Laplace argument for temperature bias fails and the Gibbs measure splits among minimizers, causing the infinite-sample MPPI update to converge to a weighted average rather than the intended optimizer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is a stability-inheritance chain: a contracting deterministic MPC policy provides a robustness margin, and if finite-sample MPPI approximates that policy closely enough—quantified by a small-gain condition on the state-dependent approximation gain—then the stochastic sampling-based closed loop remains contractive up to additive residual floors. The approximation error decomposes into a temperature bias floor that is irreducible in the sample count and a Monte Carlo term of order M to the minus one-half. The small-gain condition requires that the metric condition number, the input Lipschitz constant, and the bias gain together do not consume more than half the nominal收缩余

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires that the nonlinear MPC cost function, on a compact state set, has a unique global minimizer with a locally positive-definite Hessian. The paper acknowledges this is not automatic for nonlinear systems—even with a quadratic stage cost, nonlinear state propagation can make the cost nonconvex in the control sequence. Without this regularity, the temperature-bias argument fails and the error decomposition collapses. The small-gain condition is also acknowledged

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If a roboticist can find a contraction metric and CLF for their deterministic MPC formulation, this paper gives explicit thresholds for MPPI temperature and sample count that guarantee closed-loop stability under process noise—a practical design certificate rather than just an existence result.
The separation of the sample threshold from the noise covariance means that online noise estimation can tighten the reported stochastic floor without requiring re-tuning of the MPPI sampler, enabling adaptive robustness updates.
The small-gain condition quantifies exactly when MPPI's sampling flexibility is safe versus dangerous: systems with weak contraction margins or ill-conditioned metrics may not be certifiable, making the boundary between certified and uncertified configurations explicit.
The inheritance framework could extend to other sampling-based controllers beyond MPPI—any method whose approximation error can be decomposed into a state-dependent gain and an additive floor could potentially inherit contraction-based stability certificates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper proves that finite-sample MPPI inherits closed-loop stability from a stabilizing deterministic nonlinear MPC policy, provided MPPI's approximation error is small enough relative to the nominal contraction margin. That is the whole contribution, and it is a real one—Honda's 2026 survey explicitly flags closed-loop stability for PI-MPC as an open problem, and this is the first result I know of that provides a Lyapunov-type certificate for the nonlinear case. The three-step structure (assume stabilizing MPC with CLF + contraction, bound MPPI approximation error, absorb error via small-gain condition) is clean and each lemma uses standard tools correctly. The two-component error decomposition—temperature bias floor plus O(M^{-1/2}) Monte Carlo term—is the right way to think about MPPI's approximation quality, and the small-gain condition Φ(β∞) ≤ (1−β)/2 is a natural way to connect sample complexity to stability. Code is public. The paper is honest about what it does and does not claim. The stress-test concern about scope tension is legitimate but somewhat overstated: the authors explicitly say Fig. 1 is motivational and not certified, and they are transparent that Assumption 7 is a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. That said, the tension is real. Assumption 7 requires a unique global minimizer with positive-definite Hessian, which is hardest to satisfy for the nonconvex, obstacle-rich costs where MPPI adds value over deterministic MPC. The certificate is validated only on a pendulum with quadratic cost, where Assumption 7 is trivial. Lemma 5's finite-horizon localization is nearly tautological—it proves existence of R(T,δ) but gives no quantitative relationship. The certified bounds are two orders of magnitude conservative (10² vs 0.2–0.4), though the empirical decay rate tracks the theory well. None of these are errors; they are limitations of scope and tightness that the authors mostly acknowledge. The result is a sufficient-condition certificate that advances the field but applies in a restricted regime. It deserves a serious referee who can verify the contraction argument and assess whether Assumption 7 can be weakened in follow-up work.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper establishes a closed-loop stability certificate for Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control on nonlinear stochastic systems. The core contribution is a stability-inheritance theorem: assuming a deterministic nonlinear MPC policy exists whose disturbance-free closed loop is certified by a Control Lyapunov Function (CLF) terminal cost and a contraction metric, the authors prove that finite-sample MPPI inherits this nominal contraction when its sampling-based update approximates the reference policy with sufficient accuracy. The approximation error is decomposed into a finite-temperature bias floor and a Monte Carlo term vanishing at rate O(M^{-1/2}). Under an explicit small-gain condition, the main result (Theorem 1) provides a finite-horizon, high-probability localized mean practical stability bound with three residual floors: MPPI approximation error, Gaussian process noise, and bad sampling events. The paper also provides an ISS-type restatement and a finite-horizon design procedure.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely open problem noted in the literature: closed-loop stability guarantees for MPPI on nonlinear systems. The three-step proof structure (baseline stability, approximation, inherited stability via small-gain) is clean and each component uses standard, verifiable techniques (Hoeffding's inequality, sub-Gaussian concentration, Laplace's method, trajectory-level contraction). The transparency of the inheritance framing—explicitly stated as a robustness theorem rather than an existence theorem—is a strength, as is the honest acknowledgment of the small-gain condition's restrictiveness (Section V.G). The explicit design procedure (Corollary 3) with a sample threshold M* independent of the noise covariance, and the interface to online covariance estimation, are practically useful. The numerical experiments validate the three core theoretical objects (Proposition 2, Lemma 5, Theorem 1) and the accompanying code repository enhances reproducibility.

major comments (5)

§III.C and Assumption 7: The scope tension between the regime of certification and the regime of practical interest is the most significant concern. The inheritance argument requires MPPI to share the stabilizing MPC's cost functional J (§III.C, p.4: 'MPPI does not introduce a separate sampling objective'). Assumption 7 then requires J to have a unique global minimizer U*(x) with uniformly positive-definite Hessian on the compact set. The paper's own motivating example (Fig. 1) shows MPPI avoiding a state-space obstacle that LQR cannot—a scenario requiring a nonconvex obstacle cost. Yet the certificate is only validated on a simple pendulum with quadratic cost (§VI.B), where Assumption 7 is trivially satisfied. Remark 6 acknowledges Assumption 7 is 'not automatic' for nonlinear systems but does not address whether obstacle-rich or otherwise nonconvex costs—where MPPI is most valuable—can
satisfy the unique-minimizer and nondegenerate-Hessian conditions. The authors should either (a) provide a concrete example or constructive argument showing that a nontrivial obstacle cost can satisfy Assumption 7 on a relevant compact set, or (b) explicitly delineate the scope of the certificate as applying to near-quadratic costs and discuss what class of practical MPPI applications fall within this scope. Without this, a reader cannot assess whether the certificate applies to any scenario where MPPI is actually needed over deterministic MPC.
Proposition 1, Eq. (38)–(42): The temperature-bias bound b_∞(x_k, Ū) ≤ β_∞‖x_k − x*‖ + β_0 is derived via a compact-set Lipschitz constant K_λ and a Laplace residual r_λ(x). Part (ii) establishes that β_∞ → 0 and β_0 → 0 as λ → 0 under the 'uniform first-derivative Laplace expansion.' However, the paper does not state the specific regularity conditions under which this uniform first-derivative expansion holds. Standard Laplace method results require control of higher-order derivatives of the integrand. Since J is only assumed to be C^1 via Assumption 7 (the implicit function theorem application on p. 10 requires C^1), it is unclear whether the Hessian regularity in Assumption 7.3 suffices for the uniform derivative expansion used in Part (ii). The authors should clarify the smoothness assumptions on J needed for Proposition 1(ii), or restrict the claim to the zeroth-order Laplace limit.
Lemma 5 (Finite-Horizon High-Probability Localization): The proof establishes that Z_T = max_{0≤k≤T} J*(x_k) < ∞ a.s., and therefore Pr(Z_T ≤ R) → 1 as R → ∞. This is correct but the bound is existential: R = R(T, δ, x_0) is chosen after the fact as a quantile of Z_T. In the design procedure (Corollary 3, Step 1), the authors instruct the reader to 'use Lemma 5 to choose a sublevel radius R.' However, Lemma 5 provides no constructive method for computing R before running the system—it depends on the distribution of the trajectory under the MPPI closed loop, which is what the theorem is trying to characterize. The numerical experiment (§VI.E) sidesteps this by choosing R as the empirical (1−δ) quantile of max_{k≤T} J*(x_k) from simulated trajectories. This is circular for a priori certification. The authors should clarify whether R can be bounded a priori (e.g., via a worst-case growth分析)
or explicitly state that the design procedure requires offline simulation to calibrate R, and discuss the implications for the certificate's a priori validity.

minor comments (6)

§VI.B, Table II: The entry 'β_∞ ≈ 0' is listed alongside 'β_0 (temp. bias) = 1.15.' Given that β_∞ := K_λ K_* and β_0 := K_λ B_U + sup_x r_λ(x), having β_∞ ≈ 0 while β_0 = 1.15 implies either K_λ ≈ 0 (which would also drive β_0 → 0 by Proposition 1(ii)) or K_* ≈ 0. The paper should clarify which quantity is near zero and how β_0 remains nonzero when β_∞ ≈ 0, as this would help readers understand the bias structure.
§IV.D, Eq. (58): The bad-event constant C_bad(R) = 3μ̄(L_x² S_R² + L_u² ū² + tr(Σ_w)) uses the worst-case saturated control ū. As noted in §VI.F, this contributes significantly to the conservatism (certified floor ~10² vs. empirical ~0.2–0.4). The authors might consider noting whether a tighter bound using the typical control magnitude on Ω_R is possible, even if it requires a more refined bad-event analysis.
§IV.A, Lemma 1(iv): The proof uses dominated convergence to establish continuity of Z(x, Ū) on X × U_N. The argument is correct, but the paper should explicitly note that the dominating function is the constant 1 (since 0 < w ≤ 1 a.s.), to make the dominated convergence application transparent.
§V.A, Table I: The table maps Mayne et al. conditions to this work's analogs. The entry for 'Terminal set X_f' states it is 'Replaced by global CLF feedback; no terminal constraint set.' This is accurate per Definition 1 (the CLF condition holds globally), but it would help to note that this is a stronger requirement than Mayne et al.'s local terminal set, and discuss whether it limits applicability to systems where a global CLF is available.
§VI.G: The statement 'Configurations with weak damping or an ill-conditioned metric (μ̄/μ ≫ 1) gave β̃ > 1 during calibration, in which case the theorem certifies nothing' is valuable for honesty. It would strengthen the paper to provide the specific parameter values that led to β̃ > 1, so readers can identify the boundary of applicability.
Typographical: §IV.C, Eq. (51), the term √μ̄ L_u e_M(η) should clarify whether L_u is the same constant as in Assumption 3 (it is, but a forward reference would help). Also, in the equation for ˜β on the same line, ˜β := β + Φ(β_∞) ≤ (1+β)/2, the inequality should reference the small-gain condition (50) explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inheritance theorem assumes a stabilizing reference policy and proves MPPI approximates it; the derivation chain is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a stability-inheritance theorem: it assumes a deterministic nonlinear MPC policy π* exists with CLF and contraction certificates (Assumptions 1-2), then proves finite-sample MPPI approximates π* (Lemmas 1-3, Proposition 1) and inherits its contraction under a small-gain condition (Proposition 2, Theorem 1). The derivation chain is transparent and non-circular: the approximation error bound (Lemma 3) is derived from independent concentration inequalities (Hoeffding, sub-Gaussian) and a Laplace principle argument, not from the stability conclusion. The small-gain condition Φ(β∞) ≤ (1-β)/2 is an explicit inequality relating the approximation gain to the contraction margin, not a tautology. The numerical constants (Table II) are computed from the pendulum dynamics, not fitted to the stability bound. While the paper cites a companion paper [1] for the LTI case, this citation provides context and analogy rather than load-bearing mathematical support for the nonlinear result. The scope tension between Assumption 7's unique-minimizer requirement and obstacle-rich costs is a correctness/scope concern, not a circularity issue. The derivation is self-contained against external mathematical facts (concentration inequalities, contraction theory, Laplace's method).

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are invented. The stability-inheritance framework is a conceptual structure, not a new entity.

free parameters (6)

λ (MPPI temperature) = 1
Chosen in experiments; must be small enough to satisfy small-gain condition (50). Controls the bias floor β_0.
Σ_ε (sampling covariance) = 400
Chosen in experiments; affects concentration constant C_{X,U} and thus M*.
M (sample count) = varies {50,200,800}
Must exceed M* from (70) to control Monte Carlo error ε_M(η).
δ (localization confidence) = 0.1
User-specified; determines localization radius R via Lemma 5.
η (per-step approximation confidence) = 0.05
User-specified; determines concentration threshold M_0(η) and bad-event floor γ_η√η.
T (finite horizon) = 40
User-specified; determines localization radius R via Lemma 5.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 1: CLF terminal cost with quadratic bounds
Standard in nonlinear MPC (Mayne et al. [14]). The CLF V_f satisfies V_f(f(x,u)) - V_f(x) ≤ -ℓ(x,u) globally, eliminating terminal constraint set. Invoked in Lemma 4 for telescoping decrease.
domain assumption Assumption 2: Nominal MPC closed loop is contracting with rate β in a CCM M(x)
Verifiable via SDP (Manchester and Slotine [17]). Provides the trajectory-level robustness margin that absorbs MPPI approximation error. Invoked in Proposition 2 and Theorem 1.
standard math Assumption 3: Global Lipschitz dynamics
Standard regularity condition. Used in Proposition 2 to bound control-deviation term via √μ̄·Lu·‖d_k‖.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 7: Compact-set regularity of nominal MPC optimizer (global uniqueness, nondegenerate Hessian, coercivity)
Not automatic for nonlinear systems (Remark 6). Required for Proposition 1's Laplace argument and implicit function theorem application. Without it, the temperature bias bound (38) and the entire error decomposition fail.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic Stability of Nonlinear MPPI via Contraction Theory and Control Lyapunov Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56LKTCHG

@misc{pith2026260706945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic Stability of Nonlinear MPPI via Contraction Theory and Control Lyapunov Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56LKTCHG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06945}
}

read the original abstract

Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) control is directly implementable on nonlinear systems because its online update requires only forward rollouts of the dynamics, not gradients, linearizations, or convex optimization. However, this algorithmic flexibility does not by itself provide a closed-loop stability certificate. This paper establishes such a certificate through a stability-inheritance argument. We assume that there exists a deterministic nonlinear MPC policy whose disturbance-free closed loop is certified by a Control Lyapunov Function terminal cost and a contraction metric, and we show that finite-sample MPPI inherits the nominal contraction when its sampling-based update approximates this reference policy with sufficient accuracy. The approximation error decomposes into a finite-temperature bias floor and a Monte Carlo term that vanishes at the inverse square-root rate in the sample count. Under an explicit small-gain condition, the resulting MPPI closed loop satisfies a finite-horizon, high-probability localized mean practical stability bound with residual floors due to MPPI approximation error, Gaussian process noise, and bad sampling events. The paper also gives an ISS-type restatement and a finite-horizon design procedure for choosing the localization set, temperature, and sample count.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06945 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** E4: empirical closed-loop decay rate vs. sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** E5: localized mean E[∥xk − x ∗∥1{τR>T}] (solid) and three-floor theoretical bound (dashed) for M ∈ {50, 200, 800}. The bound holds for all 0 ≤ k ≤ T at every M. The empirical mean decays from the initial condition and floors at the residual noise level; the certified bound sits above it throughout. Uniform([−1, 1]2 ). Choosing the localization radius R as the (1−δ) empirical quantile of maxk≤T J ∗ (xk) yields Pr(τR … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Finite-sample closed-loop stability of model predictive path integral control for linear time-invariant systems,

H.-J. Yoon and H. Kim, “Finite-sample closed-loop stability of model predictive path integral control for linear time-invariant systems,”

work page
[2]

Finite-Sample Closed-Loop Stability of Model Predictive Path Integral Control for Linear Time-Invariant Systems

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.04006

work page Pith review arXiv
[3]

Model predictive path integral control: From theory to parallel computation,

G. Williams, A. Aldrich, and E. A. Theodorou, “Model predictive path integral control: From theory to parallel computation,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 344–357, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applications to autonomous driving,

G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applications to autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1603–1622, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control,

——, “Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 1433–1440

work page 2016
[6]

Model predictive control via probabilistic inference: A tutorial and survey,

K. Honda, “Model predictive control via probabilistic inference: A tutorial and survey,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 61, p. 101052, 2026

work page 2026
[7]

Adaptive noise covariance for MPPI: Online estimation with stability guarantees,

H. Yoon, “Adaptive noise covariance for MPPI: Online estimation with stability guarantees,” 2026, companion paper P3

work page 2026
[8]

Reinforcement Learning and Control as Probabilistic Inference: Tutorial and Review

S. Levine, “Reinforcement learning and control as probabilistic inference: Tutorial and review,” arXiv:1805.00909, 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 21 references

[9]

An online learning approach to model predictive control,

N. Wagener, C.-A. Cheng, J. Sacks, and B. Boots, “An online learning approach to model predictive control,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2019

2019
[10]

Sampling complexity of path integral methods for trajectory optimization,

H. Yoon, C. Tao, H. Kim, N. Hovakimyan, and P. V oulgaris, “Sampling complexity of path integral methods for trajectory optimization,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC), 2022, pp. 3482–3487, arXiv:2203.10067

2022 arXiv
[11]

CoVO-MPC: Theoretical analysis of sampling-based MPC and optimal covariance design,

Z. Yi, C. Pan, G. He, G. Qu, and G. Shi, “CoVO-MPC: Theoretical analysis of sampling-based MPC and optimal covariance design,” in Proceedings of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC), ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 242, 2024, p...

2024
[12]

Model predictive path integral control as preconditioned gradient descent,

M. Fazlyab, S. Sharifi, and J. Wang, “Model predictive path integral control as preconditioned gradient descent,” arXiv:2603.24489, Mar. 2026

2026 arXiv
[13]

Optimality and suboptimality of MPPI control in stochastic and deterministic settings,

H. Homburger, F. Messerer, M. Diehl, and J. Reuter, “Optimality and suboptimality of MPPI control in stochastic and deterministic settings,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2025

2025
[14]

Robust model predictive path integral control: Analysis and performance guarantees,

M. S. Gandhi, B. Vlahov, J. Gibson, G. Williams, and E. A. Theodorou, “Robust model predictive path integral control: Analysis and performance guarantees,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3653–3660, 2021

2021
[15]

Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V . Rao, and P. O. M. Scokaert, “Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

2000
[16]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, and M. M. Diehl,Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design, 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Nob Hill Publishing, 2017

2017
[17]

On contraction analysis for non- linear systems,

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

1998
[18]

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 Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3046–3053, 2017

2017
[19]

Control contraction metrics on Riemannian manifolds,

R. Reiter, A. Zanelli, G. Frison, M. Diehl, and R. Quirynen, “Control contraction metrics on Riemannian manifolds,”Automatica, vol. 145, 2023

2023
[20]

Smooth stabilization implies coprime factorization,

E. D. Sontag, “Smooth stabilization implies coprime factorization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 435–443, 1989

1989
[21]

Stochastic stability of nonlinear mppi via contraction theory and control lyapunov functions: Simulation code,

H.-J. Yoon and H. Kim, “Stochastic stability of nonlinear mppi via contraction theory and control lyapunov functions: Simulation code,” https://github.com/LCAS-Lab/mppi-nonlinear-stability, 2026, accessed: July 2026

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Finite-sample closed-loop stability of model predictive path integral control for linear time-invariant systems,

H.-J. Yoon and H. Kim, “Finite-sample closed-loop stability of model predictive path integral control for linear time-invariant systems,”

work page

[2] [2]

Finite-Sample Closed-Loop Stability of Model Predictive Path Integral Control for Linear Time-Invariant Systems

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.04006

work page Pith review arXiv

[3] [3]

Model predictive path integral control: From theory to parallel computation,

G. Williams, A. Aldrich, and E. A. Theodorou, “Model predictive path integral control: From theory to parallel computation,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 344–357, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applications to autonomous driving,

G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applications to autonomous driving,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1603–1622, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control,

——, “Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control,” inProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 1433–1440

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Model predictive control via probabilistic inference: A tutorial and survey,

K. Honda, “Model predictive control via probabilistic inference: A tutorial and survey,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 61, p. 101052, 2026

work page 2026

[7] [7]

Adaptive noise covariance for MPPI: Online estimation with stability guarantees,

H. Yoon, “Adaptive noise covariance for MPPI: Online estimation with stability guarantees,” 2026, companion paper P3

work page 2026

[8] [8]

Reinforcement Learning and Control as Probabilistic Inference: Tutorial and Review

S. Levine, “Reinforcement learning and control as probabilistic inference: Tutorial and review,” arXiv:1805.00909, 2018

work page Pith review arXiv 2018