Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Safety and Security: Experimental Validation of Encrypted Model Predictive Control

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that model predictive control can be encrypted end-to-end—states and controller coefficients stay secret on an untrusted cloud—by evaluating a stabilizing polynomial proxy of the explicit MPC law under fully homomorphic enc

desk verdict Real hardware demo of encrypted polynomial MPC, but the central stability proof collapses on a false error bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21136 v1 pith:NK4PZKQS submitted 2026-07-23 eess.SY cs.SY

Juraj Holaza , Martin Kalúz , Matúš Furka , Martin Klaučo , Juraj Oravec This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords encryptedcontrolhomomorphicencryptionBFVcryptosystemexplicitmodelpredictivepolynomialapproximationrobustMPCrecursivefeasibilityquantization
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

Encrypted control has been stuck between two compromises: partially homomorphic schemes force the controller or the data to stay public, and encrypted implicit MPC requires an online optimizer or a second trusted machine. This paper tries to break that by outsourcing the controller as a low-degree polynomial—a certified stand-in for the explicit MPC law—evaluated with a fully homomorphic encryption scheme that supports both addition and multiplication on ciphertexts. The trick is to fold the inevitable quantization error of the encryption step into the MPC prediction model as an additive disturbance, so the robust formulation already covers the damage the encryption does. A laboratory experiment on a fan/flex-resistor plant runs the loop at a 10 ms sampling period, with per-evaluation times around 3 ms, and the paper reports that stability and recursive feasibility are preserved by construction. If the claim stands, any third-party platform can safely evaluate a constrained, optimal-ish control law without ever learning the process measurements or the controller's coefficients.

What carries the argument

The mechanisms are three. The identity that converts the cryptographic nuisance into a design handle is the exact rewrite of the quantized closed loop as an LTI system plus additive disturbance: f(·)=Ax+Bu+W w(t), w=(d,qx,qu), W=[D A B]; rounding errors enter the robust MPC prediction model as a bounded set, so the standard robust-feasibility argument applies. The second is the stabilizing polynomial approximation: coefficients α come from a stability-tube LP on a PWA Lyapunov function with Pólya multipliers, so the cloud avoids the explicit-MPC point-location problem and online optimization entirely. The third is the BFV fully homomorphic scheme, which supports homomorphic addition and mult

What would settle it

Take the reported controller α=[0, −2.3110, 0.0098, 0.00078], state bounds |x|≤4, and a precision θx matching the experiment. For each x∈[−4,4], compute the worst-case evaluation error eµ(x̂)−eµ(x) with x̂=x+qx for qx at the claimed quantization level, and compare it with the disturbance bound max|Ww|≤0.05 used in the design. If at any x the true error exceeds that bound, or if a simulation of the closed loop with that state-dependent error leaves the feasible tube T(L,γ), the paper's stability guarantee fails for those settings. The same check can be run for larger polynomial degrees or tight

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a constrained model predictive controller can be fully outsourced to an untrusted cloud over encrypted channels without sacrificing closed-loop guarantees. The construction replaces the explicit piecewise-affine MPC law with a certified stabilizing polynomial eµ(x) = Σ α_i x^i, evaluates that polynomial on encrypted, quantized states and encrypted coefficients using the BFV fully homomorphic scheme, and folds the quantization error into the robust MPC's prediction model as an additive disturbance w=(d,qx,qu) with W=[D A B]. Lemma 1 and Corollary 1 argue that the encrypted quantized polynomial controller remains stabilizing and recursively feasible. Experimen

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every error introduced by encryption and quantization is representable as a bounded additive disturbance inside the robust MPC's prediction model—in particular, that evaluating the polynomial on the quantized state produces a control-input error q_u that stays inside the pre-designed set Q_u, for every feasible state x. If the actual error is state-dependent (as polynomial powers make it) and escapes those bounds, the stability and recursive-f

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A cloud service can now evaluate a constrained MPC law on encrypted states and encrypted coefficients, so neither process data nor control strategy is exposed, while the closed-loop stability and recursive feasibility of the original robust MPC are preserved by design.
  • The controller's memory footprint drops from the explicit PWA law's 0.84 kB to a 0.2 kB polynomial, opening room for embedded deployment of encrypted control.
  • Per-evaluation times around 3.3 to 6.3 ms with BFV parameters N=4096 fit comfortably in the 10 ms sampling period of the reported experiment, evidence that fully homomorphic encrypted control is not too slow for fast laboratory-scale loops.
  • The design procedure gives a principled recipe for choosing encryption precision (θx, θα, plaintext modulus τ): quantization errors are consumed by the robust MPC's disturbance set, so the closed loop is guaranteed by construction rather than by post-hoc tuning.
  • The same two-step recipe—explicit robust MPC, then certified polynomial approximation—can be carried out for any LTI plant that satisfies Assumption 1, making the result a template for encrypted constrained control, not a one-off experiment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the polynomial proxy has a fixed degree and fixed coefficients, the same architecture could be applied to nonlinear plants or to non-MPC controllers as long as a stabilizing polynomial can be certified; the paper's formulation is specific to LTI robust MPC, but the trade-off it exploits (a small degree for a large region of certified stability) is general.
  • The reported degree-3 polynomial has a Lipschitz constant on the order of 2.4 on the state domain, roughly 2.5 times larger than the A=0.966 coefficient that the disturbance model uses for the state-quantization term. A direct check of whether the true evaluation error eµ(x̂)−eµ(x) stays inside the designed disturbance set W would settle whether the guarantee is as tight as the paper suggests.
  • The cloud still observes the polynomial degree κ and the ciphertext arithmetic pattern, so 'controller privacy' means the coefficients stay hidden while the controller family is revealed; whether that meets industrial secrecy requirements is a threat-model question the paper leaves open.
  • The numerical results are for a scalar state and scalar input; extending the scalar-product evaluation to multi-input systems would multiply the number of encrypted products, so the reported ~3 ms timing should be read as a lower-bound benchmark rather than a guarantee for higher-dimensional plants.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an encrypted MPC architecture: design a robust explicit MPC for an LTI system with additive uncertainty, approximate its PWA control law by a polynomial, encrypt the polynomial coefficients with the BFV fully homomorphic encryption scheme, evaluate the polynomial on encrypted state measurements in the cloud, and claim closed-loop stability, recursive feasibility, and data/controller privacy. The experimental implementation on the Flexy2.0 laboratory device is used to demonstrate the practicality of the encrypted evaluation pipeline. The central theoretical claim is that the quantization errors introduced by the encryption encoding can be represented as an additive disturbance in the prediction model, and that evaluating the control law on a quantized state changes the control input exactly by the input quantization error q_u.

Significance. If the proof were sound, the contribution would be meaningful: it would combine fully homomorphic encryption with polynomial approximation of explicit MPC, avoiding both online optimization and the point-location problem, while ostensibly preserving robust stability and recursive feasibility. The paper builds on established tools, namely Borrelli et al. [28] for robust explicit MPC and Kvasnica et al. [31] for stabilizing polynomial approximation, and reports concrete experimental timings and quantization levels, which are useful engineering data points. However, the central equivalence on which the stability guarantee rests is incorrect, so the claimed closed-loop guarantee is not established; the experimental sections do not compensate for this theoretical gap.

major comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 1, Eq. (14a)] Equation (14a) asserts that ||μ̂(x̂) − μ(x)||∞ = ||q_u||∞ 'by design'. This is false. For x̂ = x + q_x, if x and x̂ lie in the same region R_i, then μ̂(x̂) − μ(x) = F_i q_x. If they lie in different regions R_i and R_j, the difference is (F_i x̂ + g_i) − (F_j x + g_j), which is state- and region-dependent. The equality is not a design property but a substantive assumption that is generally violated. Since Lemma 1 is the basis for Corollary 1, the closed-loop stability and recursive-feasibility claim for the encrypted loop is unsupported.
  2. [Definition 1 and Section 3.1, Eqs. (6)/(13)] The disturbance model uses W = [D A B], so the prediction model (6)/(13) only accounts for A q_x + B q_u plus the process disturbance. The actual closed-loop with the quantized controller is A(x + q_x) + B μ̂(x̂) = A x + B μ(x) + B(μ̂(x̂) − μ(x)) + A q_x. The term B(μ̂(x̂) − μ(x)) is not included in W unless μ̂(x̂) − μ(x) = q_u, which is false. For the polynomial controller (15) used in Section 4, μ̂(x̂) − μ(x) has a first-order term α_1 q_x with α_1 = −2.311 from (31), plus higher-order state-dependent terms. The robust MPC (8) therefore does not cover the actual encryption-induced control perturbation.
  3. [Corollary 1 and Section 3.2, Eq. (22)] The stabilizing-polynomial argument in Corollary 1 inherits the gap. Lemma 3.5 of [31], cited in Proof 2, applies to eμ(x), i.e., evaluation on the exact state; the stabilizing tube LP (22) is constructed with the exact state x and eμ(x), as seen in Eqs. (19)–(20). No condition in (22) enforces a property of eμ(x̂) for x̂ = x + q_x with q_x ≠ 0. Thus even if the polynomial approximation is stabilizing for exact states, the proof does not extend to the encrypted implementation.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eq. (31) and Table 1] The reported experiments do not validate the robust stability/feasibility claim. The S2 setup reports q_x = 1.7·10^-4 and q_u = 0.6·10^-4. The first-order state-quantization-induced control error is |α_1 q_x| ≈ 3.9·10^-4, about 6.5 times larger than q_u. The tube and the robust MPC were designed against the smaller disturbance set, so the experimental runs at S2 do not exercise the actual worst-case perturbation. Finite disturbance-rejection trajectories at two precision settings cannot substitute for the missing invariance argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 6] In line 6, the variable x_{I,k} should be u_{I,k} or a similar control-input symbol; the step decrypts and decodes the control input, not the state.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The quantization definition is written as m_I = (m·10^θ) without an explicit rounding/floor operation. Please state precisely which rounding is used and how overflow beyond the plaintext modulus is avoided.
  3. [References] References [36] and [37] are identical. Please correct the duplicate or point to the intended source.
  4. [Section 3.1 and 3.2] There are minor typographical errors: 'n the objective function' on page 11 and 'empathized' on page 9 should read 'In the objective function' and 'emphasized'.
  5. [Section 4.3] The reported suboptimality of 56% for eμ relative to μ is large; the abstract/conclusion describe the result as 'close-to-optimal'. Please clarify the metric and discuss whether this level of suboptimality is consistent with the claimed closeness.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The quantized-control guarantee is defined rather than derived: Lemma 1's Eq. (14a) sets the encryption error equal to the q_u against which the robust MPC was already designed.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, Definition 1 / Lemma 1, Eq. (14a)-(14b)]
    "according to Definition 1, for any ∥q_x∥∞ ∈ Q_x, the associated quantize system state ˆx(t) = x(t) + q_x(t) leads to the quantized control law in (12), such that the corresponding worst-case quantize error by design satisfies ∥ˆµ(ˆx(t))−µ(x(t))∥∞ = ∥ˆu(t)−u(t)∥∞ = ∥q_u∥∞"

    The robust MPC in (8)/(13) is constructed with W = [D A B], absorbing q_x and q_u as pre-existing bounded disturbances. Lemma 1 claims to prove that the quantized evaluation of the PWA law incurs exactly the error q_u used in that design. But the equality ∥µ̂(x̂)−µ(x)∥ = ∥q_u∥ is not derived from (9) and (12); it is asserted 'by design'. Thus the stability/recursive-feasibility conclusion holds only if the premise (14a) is true, which is precisely the property the lemma is supposed to establish. The guarantee therefore reduces to its own assumption.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.2, Proof of Corollary 1]
    "By substituting any bounded quantization errors q_u ∈ Q_u, q_x ∈ Q_x into (13), it follows from Lemma 1 and the from equivalence of (13) and (6), that eµ by design ensures closed-loop system stability and recursive feasibility of eµ(ˆx) in (15) for any feasible ˆx ∈ Ω."

    Corollary 1 transfers the same unproven identity to the polynomial law. The stability of eµ(x̂) is said to follow by substituting q_u ∈ Q_u into (13), but that substitution is legitimate only if eµ(x+q_x) − eµ(x) can be represented as A q_x + B q_u with q_u ∈ Q_u — which is exactly the 'by design' claim (14a) moved from the PWA law to the polynomial law. So the encrypted polynomial controller's stability argument inherits the circularity of Lemma 1.

full rationale

The paper's pipeline has substantial independent content: the robust explicit MPC stability rests on the external textbook result [28, Thm 15.9], the polynomial-approximation stability rests on the external lemma [31, Lemma 3.5], and the BFV encryption implementation is validated on a real laboratory device. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the cited [31] is not authored by the present authors, and the self-cited device papers [36,37] only supply the experimental plant model. The circularity is localized to the novel theoretical bridge connecting the unquantized robust controller to the encrypted evaluated controller. Lemma 1 does not derive the quantization-induced control error; it defines q_u to be that error ('by design') and then uses the robust model built against q_u to conclude stability. Corollary 1 repeats the move for the polynomial law. Consequently, the central claim that encrypted evaluation preserves closed-loop stability and recursive feasibility is guaranteed only up to the asserted identity (14a), which is the very property needing proof. This is a partial, construction-level circularity (score 6), even though the surrounding components are externally grounded and the experimental demonstration is genuine. Separately, the identity (14a) is also factually doubtful — evaluating a PWA or polynomial law on x+q_x produces state-dependent terms such as F_i q_x, not merely an independent q_u — but that is a correctness concern distinct from the circularity noted here.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's theoretical claim rests on the external approximation theorem [31] and on an unproven additive-disturbance model of quantization. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'stabilizing tube' and polynomial approximation are from prior literature.

free parameters (7)
  • Polynomial coefficients α = [0, -2.3110, 0.0098, 0.00078]
    Obtained by solving LP (22); the stabilizing property depends on feasibility of that LP.
  • MPC weights Qx=10, Qu=1, horizon N=10 = 10, 1, 10
    User-chosen; they define J* which is used as the Lyapunov function.
  • Disturbance bound = -0.05 ≤ W w ≤ 0.05
    Chosen bound for the robust MPC; actual worst-case quantization may exceed it (S1 average qx=0.017).
  • Lyapunov contraction factor γ = 0.99
    Chosen for tube construction; close to 1.
  • Polynomial degree κ and Pólya degree φ = κ=3 in text but α has 4 terms; φ=1
    Design choices; text inconsistency.
  • Precision degrees θx, θα = S1: (1,4), S2: (3,4)
    User-chosen; set the quantization magnitudes.
  • Plaintext modulus τ = S1: 1,032,193; S2: 100,016,129
    Generated by Algorithm 2; no overflow certificate is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: (A,B) controllable; X,U,W contain origin in interiors
    Invoked before (8); standard stabilizability/feasibility conditions.
  • domain assumption There exists a PWA Lyapunov function L=J* such that L(f_CL(x,w))≤γL(x) for all x∈Ω,w∈W
    Stated before (16); not proven for the robust LP solution, only cited generally [32,33].
  • domain assumption A full-dimensional stability tube T(L,γ) with proj_x T_i = R_i exists for every region R_i
    Used to build Pólya polynomials (19)-(20); existence is assumed, not checked in the experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper Quantization errors qx(t), qu(t) are bounded by compact sets Qx, Qu and their effect on dynamics is exactly the additive term W w(t) in (6),(13)
    This assumption breaks: evaluating the control law on x̂ introduces F_i qx and polynomial cross-terms not in W.
  • standard math Lemma 3.5 of [31]: any feasible α of LP (22) yields a stabilizing recursively-feasible eµ(x)
    External theorem used in Corollary 1 proof.
  • standard math BFV security relies on RLWE hardness
    Cited [27]; needed for the privacy claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safety and Security: Experimental Validation of Encrypted Model Predictive Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NK4PZKQS

@misc{pith2026260721136,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safety and Security: Experimental Validation of Encrypted Model Predictive Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NK4PZKQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21136}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we revisit the problem of an encrypted model predictive control (MPC) design, representing a significant challenge in the recent field of secure process control. Existing methods in secure optimization-based control are non-existent and even partial implementation fails to address the closed-loop system stability and recursive feasibility properties of the constrained MPC. To overcome these limitations, we propose a novel approach that utilizes a polynomial approximation of the optimal control law. This method evaluates the explicit control law within a fully homomorphic encryption framework, ensuring that the controller is securely deployed on any third-party or cloud-based platform, with both process data and controller coefficients protected. Experimental results from a laboratory-scale implementation and validation of the proposed privacy-aware control method demonstrate its advantages.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21136 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the closed-loop control system with fully homomor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. In this figure, the states x and control inputs u are the real-valued messages m encrypted to ciphertexts of states cx and inputs cu. The cipher￾text of designed polynomial controller is noted as cα, while the evaluation of the control law over ciphertexts is denoted by function f E (·). 2.3. Problem Statement The main aim of this paper is to design a secure, robust, stable, and easy to implement MPC policy. The sec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Encrypted MPC design flowchart. The designed robust MPC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Laboratory device Flexy 2.0 with a flex-bend as controlled variables and fan￾speed as manipulated variable. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Block diagram of the encrypted polynomial control setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Approximated explicit MPC policy. Here, the optimal feedback law [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Control performance of encrypted polynomial control. The upper graph repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Borrelli, A

    F. Borrelli, A. Bemporad, M. Morari, Predictive Control for Linear and Hybrid Systems, Cambridge University Press, 2017.doi:10.1017/ 9781139061759

    2017

  2. [31]

    Kvasnica, J

    M. Kvasnica, J. Löfberg, M. Fikar, Stabilizing polynomial approx- imation of explicit MPC, Automatica 47 (10) (2011) 2292–2297. doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2011.08.023. URLhttps://www.uiam.sk/assets/publication_info.php?id_ pub=1171

    work page doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2011.08.023 2011

  3. [1]

    Teranishi, T

    K. Teranishi, T. Sadamoto, K. Kogiso, Input–output history feedback controller for encrypted control with leveled fully homomorphic encryp- tion, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems 11 (1) (2024) 271–283.doi:10.1109/TCNS.2023.3280460

    arXiv 2024

  4. [2]

    M. S. Darup, A. B. Alexandru, D. E. Quevedo, G. J. Pappas, Encrypted control for networked systems: An illustrative introduction and current challenges, IEEE Control Systems Magazine 41 (3) (2021) 58–78.doi: 10.1109/MCS.2021.3062956

    arXiv 2021

  5. [3]

    J.Singh, T.Pasquier, J.Bacon, H.Ko, D.Eyers, Twentysecurityconsid- erations for cloud-supported internet of things, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 3 (3) (2016) 269–284.doi:10.1109/JIOT.2015.2460333

    arXiv 2016

  6. [4]

    E. D. Knapp, J. T. Langill, Chapter 3 - industrial cyber security history and trends, in: Industrial Network Security (Second Edition), second edition Edition, Syngress, Boston, 2015, pp. 41–57.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420114-9.00003-4

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-420114-9.00003-4 2015

  7. [5]

    W. Lin, Y. Ni, X. Ren, W. Yang, C. Yang, Privacy preservation by pub- lic design in cloud-based cooperative lqg control systems, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control n/a (n/a) (2025).arXiv: 29 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rnc.7778, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.7778. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/...

    work page doi:10.1002/rnc.7778 2025

  8. [6]

    J. Chen, V. Gupta, D. E. Quevedo, P. Tesi, Privacy and se- curity of cyberphysical systems, International Journal of Ro- bust and Nonlinear Control 30 (11) (2020) 4165–4167.arXiv: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rnc.5051, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.5051. URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rnc. 5051

    work page doi:10.1002/rnc.5051 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [7]

    J. Fan, F. Vercauteren, Somewhat practical fully homomorphic encryp- tion, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2012/144 (2012)

    2012

  2. [8]

    X. Shen, X. Li, Data-driven output-feedback LQ secure control for un- known cyber-physical systems against sparse actuator attacks, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 51 (9) (2021) 5708–5720.doi:10.1109/TSMC.2019.2957146

    2021

  3. [9]

    Stobbe, T

    P. Stobbe, T. Keijzer, R. M. Ferrari, A fully homomorphic encryp- tion scheme for real-time safe control, in: 2022 IEEE 61st Confer- ence on Decision and Control (CDC), 2022, pp. 2911–2916.doi: 10.1109/CDC51059.2022.9993055

    2022

  4. [10]

    T. Sui, J. Wang, W. Liu, J. Pan, L. Wang, Y. Zhao, L. Kong, Optimizing encrypted control algorithms for real-time secure con- 30 trol, Journal of the Franklin Institute 361 (5) (2024) 106677. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2024.106677. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com...

    2024

  5. [11]

    M. S. Darup, Encrypted polynomial control based on tailored two-party computation, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 30 (11) (2020) 4168–4187.doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.5003

    2020 doi

  6. [12]

    Teichrib, J

    D. Teichrib, J. Adamek, P. Binfet, M. S. Darup, Polynomial function approximations with leading integer coefficients for efficient encrypted implementations, IEEE Access 13 (2025) 157455–157462.doi:10.1109/ ACCESS.2025.3606013

    2025

  7. [13]

    Z. Feng, G. Cao, K. M. Grigoriadis, Q. Pan, Secure MPC-based path following for uas in adverse network environment, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 19 (11) (2023) 11091–11101.doi:10.1109/TII. 2022.3232772

    2023

  8. [14]

    K.-Y. Peng, W. Xie, L. Zhang, W.-j. Mo, Homomorphically encrypted robust mpc for privacy-preserving control under system uncertainties, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems 13 (2) (2026) 923– 934.doi:10.1109/TCNS.2026.3667762

    2026

  9. [15]

    Y. A. Kadakia, F. Abdullah, A. Alnajdi, P. D. Christofides, Encrypted distributed model predictive control of nonlinear processes, Control Engineering Practice 145 (2024) 105874. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2024.105874. 31 URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...

    2024

  10. [16]

    X. Huo, M. Liu, Encrypted decentralized multi-agent optimization for privacy preservation in cyber-physical systems, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 19 (1) (2023) 750–761.doi:10.1109/TII.2021. 3132940

    2023 doi

  11. [17]

    Marcantoni, B

    M. Marcantoni, B. Jayawardhana, M. P. Chaher, K. Bunte, Secure formation control via edge computing enabled by fully homomorphic encryption and mixed uniform-logarithmic quantization, IEEE Control Systems Letters 7 (2023) 395–400.doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2022.3188944

    2023

  12. [18]

    Paillier, Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residu- osity classes, in: ADVANCES IN CRYPTOLOGY - EUROCRYPT’99, Vol

    P. Paillier, Public-key cryptosystems based on composite degree residu- osity classes, in: ADVANCES IN CRYPTOLOGY - EUROCRYPT’99, Vol. 1592 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1999, pp. 223–238

    1999

  13. [19]

    Schlüter, P

    N. Schlüter, P. Binfet, M. Schulze Darup, A brief survey on encrypted control: From the first to the second generation and beyond, Annual Reviews in Control 56 (2023) 100913.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.arcontrol.2023.100913

    2023

  14. [20]

    S. Bian, Y. Jin, D. Zhao, Y. Fu, H. Pan, Y. Chen, B. Zhang, C. Ren, P. Yin, J. Dong, Z. Guan, Enclose: Encrypted nonlinear closed-loop control over fully homomorphic encryption, IEEE Transactions on In- formation Forensics and Security 21 (2026) 3928–3943.doi:10.1109/ TIFS.202...

    2026

  15. [21]

    M. S. Darup, A. Redder, I. Shames, F. Farokhi, D. Quevedo, Towards encrypted MPC for linear constrained systems, IEEE Control Systems Letters 2 (2) (2018) 195–200.doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2017.2779473

    2018

  16. [22]

    Schlüter, M

    N. Schlüter, M. S. Darup, Encrypted explicit MPC based on two-party computation and convex controller decomposition, in: 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2020, pp. 5469–5476.doi: 10.1109/CDC42340.2020.9304078

    2020

  17. [23]

    A. B. Alexandru, M. Morari, G. J. Pappas, Cloud-based MPC with encrypted data, in: 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2018, pp. 5014–5019.doi:10.1109/CDC.2018.8619835

    2018

  18. [24]

    Z. Hu, P. Shi, L. Wu, Preserving state and control privacies in net- worked systems with tokenized polytopic transforms, IEEE Transac- tions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs 69 (1) (2022) 104–108. doi:10.1109/TCSII.2021.3075471

    2022

  19. [25]

    Brakerski, C

    Z. Brakerski, C. Gentry, V. Vaikuntanathan, (leveled) fully homomor- phic encryption without bootstrapping, ACM Trans. Comput. Theory 6 (3) (2014).doi:10.1145/2633600

    2014 doi

  20. [26]

    A. Kim, Y. Polyakov, V. Zucca, Revisiting homomorphic encryption schemes for finite fields, in: Advances in Cryptology – ASIACRYPT 2021, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 608–639

    2021

  21. [27]

    Lyubashevsky, C

    V. Lyubashevsky, C. Peikert, O. Regev, On ideal lattices and learning with errors over rings, in: Advances in Cryptology – EUROCRYPT 2010, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 1–23. 33

    2010

  22. [29]

    Mayne, M

    D. Mayne, M. Seron, S. Raković, Robust model predictive con- trol of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances, Auto- matica 41 (2) (2005) 219–224.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. automatica.2004.08.019

    2005 doi

  23. [30]

    Mayne, J

    D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, P. Scokaert, Constrained model predic- tivecontrol: Stabilityandoptimality, Automatica36(6)(2000)789–814. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-1098(99)00214-9

    2000 doi

  24. [32]

    Baoti, F

    M. Baoti, F. J. Christophersen, M. Morari, Constrained optimal control of hybrid systems with a linear performance index, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 51 (12) (2006) 1903–1919.doi:10.1109/TAC. 2006.886486

    2006

  25. [33]

    D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V. Rao, P. O. M. Scokaert, Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality, Automatica 36 (6) (2000) 789–814. 34

    2000

  26. [34]

    F.Christophersen, OptimalControlofConstrainedPiecewiseAffineSys- tems, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Springer Ver- lag, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    H. N. Mok, W. K. To, Effective pólya semi-positivity for non-negative polynomials on the simplex, Journal of Complexity 24 (4) (2008) 524–544.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jco.2008.01.003. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0885064X0800006X

    2008 doi

  28. [37]

    Kalúz, M

    M. Kalúz, M. Klaučo, Ľ. Čirka, M. Fikar, Flexy2: A portable laboratory device for control engineering education, in: 12th IFAC Symposium Advances in Control Education, 2019, pp. 159–164. URLhttps://www.uiam.sk/assets/publication_info.php?id_ pub=2068

    2019

  29. [38]

    Benaissa, B

    A. Benaissa, B. Retiat, B. Cebere, A. E. Belfedhal, Tenseal: A library for encrypted tensor operations using homomorphic encryption (2021). arXiv:2104.03152

    2021 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Microsoft SEAL (release 4.0),https://github.com/Microsoft/SEAL, microsoft Research, Redmond, WA. (Mar. 2022). 35

    2022

  31. [40]

    Löfberg, YALMIP : A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB, in: Proc

    J. Löfberg, YALMIP : A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB, in: Proc. of the CACSD Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 2004. 36

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.