Bilinear Koopman-Based Robust Model Predictive Control for Unknown Nonlinear Systems via Contraction Metrics

Kazuhiro Sato; Yuki Higuchi

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Bilinear Koopman-Based Robust Model Predictive Control for Unknown Nonlinear Systems via Contraction Metrics

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that a tube-based model predictive controller built on a bilinear Koopman predictor can robustly satisfy the original nonlinear constraints of an unknown system, stay feasible at every step, and drive the true state to a n

desk verdict The framework is a genuine contribution, but the abstract's guarantee about the true closed-loop trajectory outruns the proof; the authors concede the missing bridge in Remark 4. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25658 v1 pith:42RZP6FL submitted 2026-07-28 math.OC

Yuki Higuchi , Kazuhiro Sato This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 93B4593C1093C5593D09

keywords Koopmanoperatortheorybilinearrealizationrobustmodelpredictivecontroltube-basedMPCcontractionmetricdata-drivennonlinearconstraintsrecursivefeasibility

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

The paper aims to give an unknown nonlinear system a model-predictive controller that can be trusted even though the model is learned from data. Its tool is a bilinear Koopman realization—a high-dimensional lifted model where the control appears multiplicatively—which approximates nonlinear dynamics better than a purely linear lifted model. The central fix is to never run the lifted model for several steps in lifted coordinates; instead, every predicted lifted state is projected back to the original state space, so the one-step error certificate stays valid, and the remaining mismatch is treated as a bounded disturbance. With a state-dependent contraction metric, the paper builds a tube around a nominal trajectory whose radius evolves by a simple worst-case recursion. Under the assumption that the true dynamics are always inside the modeled error set along the closed loop, the true trajectory respects the original constraints, the MPC problem remains feasible forever, and the state converges to an explicit neighborhood of the target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a discrete-time robust control contraction metric M(x), a state-dependent positive-definite metric satisfying the one-step contraction property A_cl(x,u,d)ᵀM(x⁺)A_cl(x,u,d)⪯(1−ρ_c)M(x), which makes distances between disturbed and nominal trajectories shrink at rate √(1−ρ_c) plus a fixed worst-case error L_E. This metric defines a Riemannian distance V(x,x̄) and a local feedback κ via geodesic lifting. The companion mechanism is manifold reprojection: predicted lifted states are mapped back through the matrix C to the original state space after every step, so the one-step prediction error set W remains the only uncertainty and multi-step drift never invalidates the

What would settle it

Run the proposed controller on a system, record the realized one-step error w_k=x(k+1)−f~(x(k),u(k)) at every step, and check whether any w_k falls outside the modeled set W. If it does, the containment premise of Theorem 1 fails and the robust constraint guarantee no longer applies. Equivalently, one can compute the empirical frequency of w_k∈W over many closed-loop rollouts and compare it with the validation coverage level p; a persistent shortfall would indicate the data-to-true-system bridge is broken.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the manifold-drift problem of finite-dimensional Koopman predictors can be dissolved by reprojection, and that the resulting error-affine discrete-time model fits a robust control contraction metric (RCCM) homothetic-tube MPC framework. For the learned predictor f~(x,u)=C(Az(x)+∑u_iH_iz(x)+Bu) and estimated error set W, the disturbed model is x⁺=f~(x,u)+E(x,u)d with d∈D. Under Assumption 1, a metric M(x) satisfies the discrete contraction inequality A_clᵀM(x⁺)A_cl⪯(1−ρ_c)M(x); this yields a geodesic feedback κ and a contraction bound V(x⁺,x̄⁺)≤√(1−ρ_c)V(x,x̄)+L_E. From this come the tube recursion δₖ₊₁=√(1−ρ_c)δₖ+L_E, tightened constraints h_j(x̄,ū)+c_jδ≤0, and the ter

Load-bearing premise

The guarantees rest on the true next state being expressible as the learned predictor plus a disturbance inside the modeled set W at every state-input pair the closed loop ever visits; the paper validates this only probabilistically on independent samples, and its Remark 4 concedes that the bound is not established along the true closed-loop trajectory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If a learned bilinear Koopman model and its error set satisfy the contraction condition, robust constraint, feasibility, and convergence guarantees hold even when the Koopman dictionary is not invariant—removing a standard obstacle to applying Koopman MPC to genuinely unknown systems.
The online MPC problem remains a single nominal-trajectory optimization with tightened constraints; the worst-case tube radius is precomputed offline from the metric and the error bound, avoiding expensive min–max online optimization.
Terminal ingredients reduce to a single equilibrium (x_ref,u_ref) of the learned model; if the observables satisfy z(0)=0, then (0,0) is automatically a valid terminal choice.
The guaranteed ultimate neighborhood has the explicit radius δ_f/√α₁, so design choices such as data amount, lifting dimension, and contraction ratio can be tuned to shrink the worst-case target set.
In the numerical experiment, the adaptive tube permits near-maximum input authority from early steps and reaches the target considerably faster than a linear-Koopman tube MPC baseline.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the reprojection step produces an error-aware control-affine discrete-time model with bounded disturbance, the same construction could be reused inside min-max, scenario, or stochastic MPC; only the feasibility and stability proofs would need to be adapted.
The probabilistic validation of W is not a closed-loop certificate; replacing it with deterministic, state-dependent error bounds for bilinear Koopman surrogates would upgrade the guarantee from 'if containment holds' to 'containment by construction'—the paper itself names this direction as future work.
The large gap between the conservative ultimate bound (0.540) and the observed error near the target (about 1e-7 at step 150) suggests the tube radius could be tightened by online adaptation or a state-dependent L_E, at the cost of a more involved stability analysis.
The contraction-metric distance V could plausibly serve as a Lyapunov function for output-feedback, event-triggered, or distributed variants, where only occasional state measurements or delayed information are available.

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

The real novelty here is the reprojection step: after each one-step Koopman prediction, the state is mapped back onto the manifold, so the predictor stays in the region where the error certificate applies. That is a clean way to avoid the dictionary invariance assumption, and it is the main reason this paper is worth reading. The TMPC design that follows—discrete-time RCCM, homothetic tubes, terminal ingredients—is a competent adaptation of the existing RCCM-TMPC machinery, and the paper is honest about its lineage. The internal proofs for the disturbed model (8) are consistent, and the experiments show the method working and beating a linear Koopman baseline.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader puts it: the bridge from the probabilistic error set to the true system is missing. Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 require that for every state/input visited by the closed loop there is a d in D such that f(x,u) = f̃(x,u) + E(x,u)d. Algorithm 2 only certifies W with probability p on i.i.d. validation samples, not on the closed-loop trajectory, and Remark 4 says this explicitly. So the proofs establish robust guarantees for the disturbed model, not for the actual unknown system. The abstract claims more. That is a real gap, though not a hidden one—the authors flag it themselves, which is to their credit. The fix is straightforward: either state the guarantees as probabilistic (valid with confidence 1−δ over the data), or replace Algorithm 2's W with a deterministic trajectory-valid error bound of the kind in [31],[32].

A smaller issue: Proposition 1 uses scaled disturbances s·d along a geodesic, which implicitly requires D to be convex and contain 0. The generalized formulation does not state this, though the hyper-rectangle used in experiments satisfies it. That is minor and easily fixed.

Also worth flagging: Assumption 1 assumes the RCCM exists and is computable, and Remark 5 points to SOS for polynomial observables. That is acceptable for a theory paper, but the numerical section does not actually synthesize the metric, so the practical bottleneck remains.

Overall: the idea is solid, the gap is explicit and addressable, and the framework is genuinely useful for soft-robotics-style problems where only data is available. It deserves a serious referee, and with the claims tightened and the D conditions stated, I would be comfortable with it. I would happily bring it to a reading group and would cite it once the error-set issue is resolved.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven robust MPC scheme for unknown nonlinear systems. It learns a bilinear Koopman predictive model from input-state transition data, estimates a modeling error set using Hoeffding's inequality, and then builds a discrete-time robust control contraction metric and a homothetic tube-based MPC problem for the resulting disturbed control-affine model. The claims are robust satisfaction of the original state/input constraints by the true closed-loop trajectory, recursive feasibility of the MPC, and convergence to a neighborhood of the target. The numerical section demonstrates the method on an inverted pendulum and compares it with a linear-Koopman tube MPC baseline.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap in Koopman-based MPC literature: it avoids the unrealistic dictionary-invariance assumption by reprojecting lifted predictions, and it transfers contraction-metric tube MPC to bilinear Koopman predictors. If the stated guarantees were valid for the true unknown system, this would be a useful and fairly complete pipeline. The conditional theory for the disturbed surrogate model (8) is coherent: the tube recursion, recursive feasibility, and convergence arguments are standard and, conditional on Proposition 1, correct. The numerical comparison is encouraging. The main caveat is that the link between the probabilistically estimated error set W and the true closed-loop trajectory is explicitly unresolved (Remark 4), so the abstract's deterministic claim for the true system is not currently supported.

major comments (2)

[Section II-C / Remark 4 and Theorem 1] The central claim in the abstract -- robust constraint satisfaction by the true closed-loop trajectory -- is not established. Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 are stated for x(k+1)=f(x(k),u(k)), but Proposition 1 proves contraction only under the premise that, for the true f, there exists d in D with f(x,u)=f_W(x,u,d). Algorithm 2 only certifies P[w in W] >= p on an i.i.d. validation set; Remark 4 concedes that the guarantee is not established along the true closed-loop trajectory. A single visited point with error outside W breaks the induction in Theorem 1, and the same step underlies Theorem 2's recursive-feasibility proof. Thus the results establish a property of the disturbed model (8), not of the unknown system f. The authors should either add and verify a deterministic containment assumption f(x,u)-tilde f(x,u) in E(x,u)D for all admissible (x,u), or weaken all trajectory guarantees to e
[Proposition 1 proof] The proof uses the scaled disturbance s d for s in [0,1] along the geodesic curve. This requires s d in D for every d in D, i.e. D must contain 0 and be convex. Assumption 1 and the generalized disturbed model (8) do not state this; Algorithm 2 gives no general convexity guarantee for the accepted W. Without such an assumption, the inequality in Assumption 1 is only available at d, not at s d, so the contraction step ‖A_cl(...)dot gamma‖ <= sqrt(1-rho_c)‖dot gamma‖ is not justified. The hyper-rectangular W of Remark 2 would satisfy the needed property, but an explicit assumption or proof is required.

minor comments (5)

[Section II-B, Eq. (7)] The expression tilde f(x,u)=tilde f(x)+tilde g(x)u is used, but tilde g is not defined. Define the matrix in terms of C, H_i, and B.
[Algorithm 2, Step 5] The algorithm says 'reject W and go to Step 1' but gives no guarantee that an acceptable W exists or a termination condition. If no set is accepted, the overall method has no certificate. Please add a practical fallback (e.g. return the largest candidate) and state the implications.
[Proposition 2] The constant c_j is stated as a maximum over ar x,ar u without an explicit domain. If it is intended as a Lipschitz constant for h_j along geodesics, the dependence on M along the curve should be clarified, or the maximum should be over the relevant compact safe set.
[Theorem 2 proof] The statement 'By compactness of the constraints and continuity of the cost, lim ell=0' is imprecise; the limit follows from summability of nonnegative terms and Q>0. This is harmless but should be corrected.
[Section IV, Fig. 2] The x-axis label 'Angle x1 / hat x1 (rad)' is confusing for a phase-plane plot; please clarify the plotted quantities. Also state which trajectory/radius determines the ellipses in Fig. 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No constructional circularity; the central derivation is conditional on an unverified model-class containment, which is a soundness gap rather than a fitted-input circularity.

full rationale

The learning and control chain is not circular: Algorithm 1 fits a bilinear Koopman predictor; Algorithm 2 estimates a probabilistic error set W that is then used as an input to the disturbed model (8) and to L_E, δ_f, and the tube recursion. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a predicted quantity, and the RCCM conditions in Assumption 1 are stated independently of the data fit. Proposition 1, Theorem 1, and Corollary 1 are genuine consequences of (a) Assumption 1 and (b) the containment premise that for each visited transition there exists d∈D with f(x,u)=f~(x,u)+E(x,u)d. The proof of Proposition 1 asserts this containment as 'By the definition of the error set D', but the actual set W from Algorithm 2 is only certified with probability p on i.i.d. validation samples; Remark 4 explicitly concedes that the probabilistic guarantee is not established along the true closed-loop trajectory. Thus the true-trajectory guarantee is conditional on an unverified premise. This is a soundness/validity limitation, not a definitional circularity: the bound is not produced by fitting to the quantity it predicts, and the final theorem does not reduce to its own output by construction. The paper is therefore assigned a low circularity score, with the caveat that the abstract's unconditional phrasing overstates what the stated premises prove.

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

The two largest pulled-in premises are Assumption 1 (existence of a discrete-time RCCM, never constructed in the paper) and the containment of the true dynamics in the data-driven model class (8), which is only certified probabilistically on i.i.d. data. The proof of Proposition 1 also silently assumes D is convex/contains 0, and the terminal design assumes the learned model has an equilibrium at the reference.

free parameters (4)

RCCM contraction rate ρ_c = not reported
Assumption 1 requires 0<ρ_c<1 satisfying (15); no synthesis procedure or numerical value is given, yet it drives the tube radius recursion (22b) and the ultimate bound (25).
Metric lower bound α1 = 0.0422
Used in Corollary 1 (25); Section IV reports the value without describing how M(x), K(x), α1, and ρ_c were computed.
Disturbance bound L_E = implied by δf=0.111 via (19)
L_E = max_{(x,u)∈Zsafe,d∈D} ||E(x,u)d|| depends on the estimated error set W and metric M; the underlying hyper-rectangle radii r_i are selected from a construction dataset (Remark 2).
Error-set radii r_i (component-wise) = selected from construction dataset via Remark 2
These define W; the robust guarantees hold only if true errors lie in W, which is not certified along the closed-loop trajectory.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Assumption 1: existence of smooth M(x), continuous K(x), 0<ρ_c<1, and α1,α2>0 satisfying the discrete-time RCCM inequality (15) for all (x,u)∈Zsafe and d∈D.
Introduced in Section III-A; the entire tube contraction, constraint satisfaction, recursive feasibility, and convergence results depend on it. No constructive synthesis or numerical verification is provided.
domain assumption True dynamics are contained in the disturbed model class: for every visited (x,u) there is d∈D with f(x,u)=f̃(x,u)+E(x,u)d.
Used in Proposition 1 and Theorem 1 ('By the definition of the error set D, there exists d∈D'); Remark 4 admits this holds only probabilistically on a validation set, not along the true trajectory.
ad hoc to paper The disturbance set D is convex and contains 0 (or at least sd∈D for all s∈[0,1] for each d∈D).
The proof of Proposition 1 constructs c+(s)=fW(γ*(s),γu(s),sd) and must apply Assumption 1 at (γ*(s),γu(s),sd); no convexity/0-containment assumption on D is stated.
domain assumption The learned model has an equilibrium at the reference: xref = f̃(xref, uref).
Required by Proposition 3 for the terminal set and terminal controller; Remark 7 says uref must be computed via (21) and adopted only if the residual is small, or z(0)=0 must hold.
standard math Hoeffding's inequality applies to i.i.d. validation samples.
Used in Algorithm 2 to certify coverage of W; the i.i.d. sampling assumption is stated in Section II-C and is the basis of the probabilistic error-set guarantee.
standard math A minimizing geodesic γ* exists for the metric M and is differentiable.
Used throughout Section III-B; existence follows from the uniform bounds (15b), citing [24], but is not proved in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bilinear Koopman-Based Robust Model Predictive Control for Unknown Nonlinear Systems via Contraction Metrics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42RZP6FL

@misc{pith2026260725658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bilinear Koopman-Based Robust Model Predictive Control for Unknown Nonlinear Systems via Contraction Metrics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42RZP6FL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25658}
}

read the original abstract

Data-driven model predictive control (MPC) using Koopman operator theory is a promising approach for constrained control of unknown nonlinear systems. While linear Koopman realizations are commonly used due to their simplicity, bilinear Koopman realizations can provide significantly higher approximation accuracy for nonlinear control systems. However, robust MPC (RMPC) formulations that account for modeling errors in bilinear Koopman realizations remain limited. This paper proposes a RMPC framework for unknown nonlinear systems with general nonlinear constraints based on data-driven bilinear Koopman realizations. A central difficulty is that finite-dimensional Koopman predictors need not preserve the manifold of valid lifted states, so multi-step prediction in lifted coordinates may leave the region where one-step error certificates apply. We address this issue by reprojecting each predicted lifted state back onto the manifold, thereby obtaining an error-aware discrete-time control-affine predictor in the original state space without impractical assumptions. For this predictor, we develop a discrete-time robust control contraction metric based homothetic tube construction, and then formulate a tube-based RMPC problem with terminal ingredients. Under the proposed formulation, we prove robust satisfaction of the original nonlinear constraints by the true closed-loop trajectory, recursive feasibility, and convergence to a neighborhood of the target state. Numerical experiments demonstrate robust stabilization of nonlinear systems and the advantages of the proposed method over existing Koopman-based RMPC approaches in terms of performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25658 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Comparison with baseline [8]. Top: baseline method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Closed-loop trajectory, nominal trajectory, and tu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Tube MPC for Bilinear Koopman Models using Robust Control Contraction Metrics
math.OC 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A tube MPC scheme for bilinear Koopman models with neural-network contraction metrics yields recursive feasibility, robust constraint satisfaction, and ISS guarantees.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[31]

Kernel-based error bounds of bilinear Koopman surrogate m odels for nonlinear data-driven control,

R. Strässer, M. Schaller, J. Berberich, K. Worthmann, a nd F. Allgöwer, “Kernel-based error bounds of bilinear Koopman surrogate m odels for nonlinear data-driven control,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 9, pp. 1892–1897, 2025

2025
[32]

Safedmd: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design f ramework for nonlinear dynamical systems,

R. Strässer, M. Schaller, K. Worthmann, J. Berberich, a nd F. Allgöwer, “Safedmd: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design f ramework for nonlinear dynamical systems,” Automatica, vol. 185, p. 112732, 2026

2026
[1]

Constrai ned model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P . Scokaert, “Constrai ned model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

2000
[2]

V erl, A

A. V erl, A. Albu-Schäffer, O. Brock, and A. Raatz, eds., Soft Robotics: Transferring Theory to Application . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 03 2015

2015
[3]

Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,

B. O. Koopman, “Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 315–318, 1931

1931
[4]

Linear model predictive contr ol with lifted bilinear models by Koopman-based approach,

M. Kanai and M. Y amakita, “Linear model predictive contr ol with lifted bilinear models by Koopman-based approach,” SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration , vol. 15, pp. 162–171, 06 2022

2022
[5]

Extending data-driven Koopman analysis to ac tuated systems,

M. O. Williams, M. S. Hemati, S. T. Dawson, I. G. Kevrekidi s, and C. W. Rowley, “Extending data-driven Koopman analysis to ac tuated systems,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 704–709, 2016. 10th IFAC Symposium on Nonlinear Control Systems NOLCOS 201 6

2016
[6]

Koopman operator based observer synthesis f or control- afﬁne nonlinear systems,

A. Surana, “Koopman operator based observer synthesis f or control- afﬁne nonlinear systems,” in 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pp. 6492–6499, 2016

2016

Show all 36 references

[7]

Advantages of biline ar Koopman realizations for the modeling and control of systems with un known dynamics,

D. Bruder, X. Fu, and R. V asudevan, “Advantages of biline ar Koopman realizations for the modeling and control of systems with un known dynamics,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, pp. 4369– 4376, 2020

2020
[8]

Robust t ube- based model predictive control with Koopman operators,

X. Zhang, W. Pan, R. Scattolini, S. Y u, and X. Xu, “Robust t ube- based model predictive control with Koopman operators,” Automatica, vol. 137, p. 110114, 2022

2022
[9]

Robust mod el predictive control with data-driven Koopman operators,

G. Mamakoukas, S. Di Cairano, and A. P . Vinod, “Robust mod el predictive control with data-driven Koopman operators,” i n 2022 American Control Conference (ACC) , pp. 3885–3892, 2022

2022
[10]

Learning-based robust mode l pre- dictive control with data-driven Koopman operators,

M. Wang, X. Lou, and B. Cui, “Learning-based robust mode l pre- dictive control with data-driven Koopman operators,” International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics , vol. 14, pp. 1–27, 04 2023

2023
[11]

Koopman-base d hybrid modeling and zonotopic tube robust mpc for motion control of automated vehicles,

H. Zheng, Y . Li, L. Zheng, and E. Hashemi, “Koopman-base d hybrid modeling and zonotopic tube robust mpc for motion control of automated vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 13598–13612, 2024

2024
[12]

Koopman-based robust model predictive control with online identiﬁcation for nonlinea r dynamical systems,

R. Ke, J. Tang, Z. Zuo, and Y . Shi, “Koopman-based robust model predictive control with online identiﬁcation for nonlinea r dynamical systems,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica , vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 1947–1949, 2025

1947
[13]

Koop man data- driven predictive control with robust stability and recurs ive feasibility guarantees,

T. de Jong, V . Breschi, M. Schoukens, and M. Lazar, “Koop man data- driven predictive control with robust stability and recurs ive feasibility guarantees,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 140–145, 2024

2024
[14]

Data-driven Koopman mpc using mixed stochastic–deterministic tubes,

Z. Zhong, E. A. del Rio-Chanona, and P . Petsagkourakis, “Data-driven Koopman mpc using mixed stochastic–deterministic tubes,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 155, p. 103533, 2025

2025
[15]

Model predictive control wit h model error compensation by Koopman approach,

M. Kanai and M. Y amakita, “Model predictive control wit h model error compensation by Koopman approach,” in IECON 2022 – 48th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Socie ty, pp. 1–6, 2022

2022
[16]

Lifted bilinear model-based linear model predictive control with scalability,

M. Kanai and M. Y amakita, “Lifted bilinear model-based linear model predictive control with scalability,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 9405–9410, 2023. 22nd IFAC World Congress

2023
[17]

Data-driven mode l predictive control using interpolated Koopman generators,

S. Peitz, S. E. Otto, and C. W. Rowley, “Data-driven mode l predictive control using interpolated Koopman generators,” SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2162–2193, 2020

2020
[18]

Koopman nmpc: Koopman- based learning and nonlinear model predictive control of control -afﬁne systems,

C. Folkestad and J. W. Burdick, “Koopman nmpc: Koopman- based learning and nonlinear model predictive control of control -afﬁne systems,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , p. 7350–7356, IEEE Press, 2021

2021
[19]

Data-drive n feedback stabilisation of nonlinear systems: Koopman-based model p redictive control,

A. Narasingam, S. H. Son, and J. S.-I. Kwon, “Data-drive n feedback stabilisation of nonlinear systems: Koopman-based model p redictive control,” International Journal of Control , vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 770– 781, 2023

2023
[20]

Data-driven mpc with terminal conditions in the Koo pman framework,

K. Worthmann, R. Strässer, M. Schaller, J. Berberich, a nd F. All- göwer, “Data-driven mpc with terminal conditions in the Koo pman framework,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 146–151, 2024

2024
[21]

Data-driven model predictive control: Asymptotic stabil ity despite approximation errors exempliﬁed in the Koopman framework,

I. Schimperna, K. Worthmann, M. Schaller, L. Bold, and L . Magni, “Data-driven model predictive control: Asymptotic stabil ity despite approximation errors exempliﬁed in the Koopman framework, ” 2026

2026
[22]

Data-enabled predictive control for no nlinear sys- tems based on a Koopman bilinear realization,

Z. Xiong, Z. Y uan, K. Miao, H. Wang, J. Cortés, and A. Pa- pachristodoulou, “Data-enabled predictive control for no nlinear sys- tems based on a Koopman bilinear realization,” in 2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pp. 6498–6503, 2025

2025
[23]

Data- driven mpc with stability guarantees using extended dynamic mode d ecom- position,

L. Bold, L. Grüne, M. Schaller, and K. Worthmann, “Data- driven mpc with stability guarantees using extended dynamic mode d ecom- position,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 534–541, 2025

2025
[24]

Control contrac tion metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback desig n,

I. R. Manchester and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Control contrac tion metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback desig n,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, pp. 3046–3053, 2015

2015
[25]

Tube-certiﬁed trajectory tracking for nonlinear systems with robust control contraction metrics,

P . Zhao, A. Lakshmanan, K. Ackerman, A. Gahlawat, M. Pav one, and N. Hovakimyan, “Tube-certiﬁed trajectory tracking for nonlinear systems with robust control contraction metrics,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5528–5535, 2022

2022
[26]

Robust adaptiv e mpc using control contraction metrics,

A. Sasﬁ, M. N. Zeilinger, and J. Köhler, “Robust adaptiv e mpc using control contraction metrics,” Automatica, vol. 155, p. 111169, 2023

2023
[27]

Tube-based mpc for two-timescale discrete-time nonlinear processes with robust control con traction met- rics*,

Y . Guo, P . Sauerteig, and S. Streif, “Tube-based mpc for two-timescale discrete-time nonlinear processes with robust control con traction met- rics*,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pp. 5527–5532, 2024

2024
[28]

Tube mpc-based tracking control of auvs using contraction metric,

K. Zhang and Y . Shi, “Tube mpc-based tracking control of auvs using contraction metric,” in 2024 American Control Conference (ACC) , pp. 905–910, 2024

2024
[29]

Lea rning an approximate model predictive controller with guarantee s,

M. Hertneck, J. Köhler, S. Trimpe, and F. Allgöwer, “Lea rning an approximate model predictive controller with guarantee s,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 543–548, 2018

2018
[30]

Statistical learning the ory: Models, concepts, and results,

U. Luxburg and B. Schölkopf, “Statistical learning the ory: Models, concepts, and results,” Handbook of the History of Logic , vol. 10, 11 2008

2008
[33]

Control contraction metr ic synthesis for discrete-time nonlinear systems,

L. Wei, R. Mccloy, and J. Bao, “Control contraction metr ic synthesis for discrete-time nonlinear systems,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 661–666, 2021. 16th IFAC Symposium on Advanced Con trol of Chemical Processes ADCHEM 2021

2021
[34]

Nonlinear stabilizatio n via con- trol contraction metrics: A pseudospectral approach for co mputing geodesics,

K. Leung and I. R. Manchester, “Nonlinear stabilizatio n via con- trol contraction metrics: A pseudospectral approach for co mputing geodesics,” in 2017 American Control Conference (ACC) , pp. 1284– 1289, 2017

2017
[35]

CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization a nd optimal control,

J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, an d M. Diehl, “CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization a nd optimal control,” Mathematical Programming Computation , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019

2019
[36]

On the implementation of an i nterior-point ﬁlter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear pro gramming,

A. Wächter and L. Biegler, “On the implementation of an i nterior-point ﬁlter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear pro gramming,” Mathematical programming, vol. 106, pp. 25–57, 03 2006

2006

Pith tools

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

[1] [31]

Kernel-based error bounds of bilinear Koopman surrogate m odels for nonlinear data-driven control,

R. Strässer, M. Schaller, J. Berberich, K. Worthmann, a nd F. Allgöwer, “Kernel-based error bounds of bilinear Koopman surrogate m odels for nonlinear data-driven control,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 9, pp. 1892–1897, 2025

2025

[2] [32]

Safedmd: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design f ramework for nonlinear dynamical systems,

R. Strässer, M. Schaller, K. Worthmann, J. Berberich, a nd F. Allgöwer, “Safedmd: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design f ramework for nonlinear dynamical systems,” Automatica, vol. 185, p. 112732, 2026

2026

[3] [1]

Constrai ned model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P . Scokaert, “Constrai ned model predictive control: Stability and optimality,” Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

2000

[4] [2]

V erl, A

A. V erl, A. Albu-Schäffer, O. Brock, and A. Raatz, eds., Soft Robotics: Transferring Theory to Application . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 03 2015

2015

[5] [3]

Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,

B. O. Koopman, “Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 315–318, 1931

1931

[6] [4]

Linear model predictive contr ol with lifted bilinear models by Koopman-based approach,

M. Kanai and M. Y amakita, “Linear model predictive contr ol with lifted bilinear models by Koopman-based approach,” SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration , vol. 15, pp. 162–171, 06 2022

2022

[7] [5]

Extending data-driven Koopman analysis to ac tuated systems,

M. O. Williams, M. S. Hemati, S. T. Dawson, I. G. Kevrekidi s, and C. W. Rowley, “Extending data-driven Koopman analysis to ac tuated systems,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 18, pp. 704–709, 2016. 10th IFAC Symposium on Nonlinear Control Systems NOLCOS 201 6

2016

[8] [6]

Koopman operator based observer synthesis f or control- afﬁne nonlinear systems,

A. Surana, “Koopman operator based observer synthesis f or control- afﬁne nonlinear systems,” in 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pp. 6492–6499, 2016

2016