Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Intrinsic Stochastic Successive Convexification on SE(3) for Chance Constrained 6-DOF Rendezvous

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents an intrinsic stochastic successive convexification method on SE(3) that jointly optimizes nominal pose, covariance, and feedback law for chance-constrained 6-DOF rendezvous, improving probabilistic constraint…

desk verdict A real new combination of intrinsic SCvx, covariance steering, and chance constraints on SE(3), but the key performance claim needs hard violation counts, not just plots. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04114 v1 pith:ANNNKIBS submitted 2026-08-04 eess.SY cs.SY

Fabio D'Onofrio , Renato Zanetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords successiveconvexificationSE(3)rendezvouschanceconstraintscovariancesteering6-DOFtrajectoryoptimizationLiegroupstochasticoptimalcontrol
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

This paper tries to establish that stochastic trajectory optimization for six-degree-of-freedom spacecraft rendezvous should be posed on the SE(3) manifold as a single coupled problem, not as a deterministic trajectory followed by a separately designed feedback controller. The authors construct an intrinsic stochastic successive convexification method in which each iteration linearizes the dynamics in tangent coordinates of se(3), while the accepted reference pose stays on the manifold. The convex subproblem jointly optimizes the nominal trajectory, the covariance sequence, and an affine feedback law under Gaussian chance constraints covering collision avoidance, docking corridor, camera field of view, and control magnitudes. Monte Carlo simulations show that this joint design shapes the closed-loop dispersion so that the probabilistic constraints are satisfied more reliably than when a deterministic reference is tracked by feedback linearization. If correct, the paper provides a general template for pose-level robust guidance that preserves the geometric structure of rigid-body motion while planning under uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the left invariant retraction pair on the matrix Lie group $SE(3)\times\mathbb{R}^{n_c}$: the retraction $\bar{x}^+=\delta\bar{x}\oplus_{G,l}\bar{x}=\operatorname{Exp}_G(\delta\bar{x})\bar{x}$ moves the accepted reference pose along the manifold, while the inverse retraction $\delta x=x\ominus_{G,l}\bar{x}=\operatorname{Log}_G(x\bar{x}^{-1})$ measures optimized and random corrections as vectors in the six-dimensional Lie algebra se(3) plus Euclidean velocity coordinates. Around this, the concentrated Gaussian model represents a random pose as $\operatorname{Exp}_G(\tilde{x})\bar{x}$ with $\tilde{x}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,P)$, so all covariance algebra remains Euclidean in tangent coordinates. The third mechanism is the convexified covariance recursion: with $Y_k=K_kP_k$, the nonconvex update becomes the Schur complement relaxation, and Gaussian chance constraints are transcribed through tangent Jacobian projections $G_{j,k}P_kG_{j,k}^{\top}$ into affine inequalities with risk-dependent margins. Together, these parts keep the nominal trajectory on the manifold while making mean, dispersion, and feedback jointly optimizable in each convex subproblem.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo study of the same rendezvous scenario with the initial attitude covariance inflated until typical sample rotation errors approach the injectivity radius of the SO(3) logarithm, for instance principal rotation angles well beyond $\pi/2$, while keeping the optimized nominal trajectory and feedback law fixed. If the empirically observed constraint-violation frequencies then substantially exceed the allocated risks $\epsilon_{\text{path}}=\epsilon_{\text{ctrl}}=0.05$, the concentrated-Gaussian tangent-space transcription is the component that fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that stochastic sequential convex programming in the form of iterative covariance steering with chance constraints can be carried out intrinsically on SE(3) for full six-degree-of-freedom pose trajectory optimization, something the authors state no existing work has done. The key move is the left invariant inverse retraction $\boldsymbol{\xi}=Y\ominus_{G,l}X=\operatorname{Log}_G(YX^{-1})$, which turns a pose perturbation into a six-dimensional tangent vector, and the left concentrated Gaussian model $X\sim\mathcal{N}_l(\bar{x},P)$, whose covariance lives in that same tangent space. From there the nonlinear SE(3) dynamics are linearized in tangent coordinates, the covariance recursion is convexified through the change of variables $Y_k=K_kP_k$ with a Schur complement relaxation, and Gaussian chance constraints become deterministic inequalities built from tangent-space covariance projections. The accepted solution of each convex subproblem is a nominal pose trajectory on the manifold together with a covariance sequence and an affine feedback law. The numerical study indicates that jointly steering nominal trajectory, covariance, and feedback shapes the closed-loop dispersion so that coupled position-attitude constraints are satisfied with higher probability than when a deterministic reference is tracked by the feedback-linearization baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the pose uncertainty stays concentrated in a small neighborhood of its mean, where the SE(3) logarithm is single-valued and the group's curvature is nearly flat, so that treating the pose distribution as a Euclidean Gaussian on the tangent space remains accurate; if the dispersion grows large, the computed covariances and chance-constraint margins stop matching true violation probabilities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Planners can stop treating covariance as a byproduct of tracking a deterministic reference; the nominal path and feedback law are designed together from the start.
  • One covariance model covers coupled translation and rotation, so constraints that depend on the full relative pose are evaluated under a single uncertainty propagation.
  • The same derivation carries over to unit dual quaternion implementations, because dual quaternions share the se(3) tangent space; only the retraction and inverse retraction realization changes.
  • A nominally feasible trajectory is not enough for safe proximity operations: the closed-loop distribution must be pushed away from constraint boundaries, and the method does that at prescribed risk levels.
  • A terminal covariance requirement can be imposed directly, so the guidance can deliver a specified docking accuracy instead of relying on the feedback loop to achieve it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural robustness diagnostic would track the largest expected principal rotation angle or the trace of the covariance along the trajectory and flag iterates where the dispersion approaches the injectivity radius of the SE(3) logarithm, since the concentrated-Gaussian assumption is the fragile part.
  • Because the feedback law is expressed in body-frame tangent coordinates, the formulation should extend to estimation uncertainty by adding measurement noise to the covariance recursion, an extension the paper mentions only as future work.
  • A testable prediction of the coupling argument is that the SE(3) advantage over a Euclidean/MRP formulation grows with the strength of position-attitude coupling in the constraints, and nearly disappears for purely translational constraints such as a spherical keep-out zone.
  • The trust-region acceptance machinery is inherited from deterministic SCvx; a formal convergence guarantee for the stochastic manifold setting is not established, so practical reliability rests on the concentrated-Gaussian local model remaining valid across accepted iterates.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an intrinsic stochastic successive convexification (isSCvx) method on SE(3) × R^{n_c} for 6-DOF spacecraft rendezvous. Nominal pose trajectories are kept on the manifold, while perturbations, covariance propagation, feedback gains, and chance constraints are expressed in left-invariant tangent coordinates of se(3). At each outer iteration, the nonlinear dynamics are linearized in tangent coordinates, discretized with first-order hold, and a convex SDP is solved over mean corrections, feedforward controls, covariance matrices, and affine feedback gains, subject to Gaussian chance constraints on collision, docking corridor, field of view, and actuator limits. A trust-region outer loop accepts or rejects candidates using merit and feasibility residuals. The numerical study compares the resulting controller against a feedback-linearization baseline tracking a deterministic reference and against an MRP-position stochastic formulation, using 200-sample Monte Carlo simulations. The paper claims improved probabilistic constraint satisfaction and claims to be the first stochastic sequential convex programming method for 6-DOF pose trajectory optimization on SE(3).

Significance. If correct, the contribution is a useful and timely extension of iterative covariance steering to the SE(3) pose manifold: it couples translational and rotational dispersion in a consistent tangent-space uncertainty model, jointly optimizes nominal pose, covariance, and feedback, and provides a reasonably complete algorithmic template that could be adapted to dual quaternions and free-final-time problems. The mathematical structure is coherent; the retraction/inverse-retraction machinery, the Schur-complement covariance relaxation, and the deterministic Gaussian chance-constraint transcriptions are standard and applied in a consistent way. The paper is also well organized and the simulation setup is documented with tables of parameters. However, the central empirical claim—improved probabilistic constraint satisfaction—is not yet supported by quantitative Monte Carlo statistics, and the MRP comparison is underspecified. The significance is therefore conditional on the authors closing that validation gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9] The paper's main claim is that isSCvx improves probabilistic constraint satisfaction, but the evidence is limited to 200-sample Monte Carlo plots. No empirical violation rates are reported, no confidence intervals are given, and no comparison with the prescribed 5% risk levels is made. This matters because Eq. (74) is only a first-order tangent-space Gaussian transcription and the FOV constraint in Eq. (30) is nonconvex; the transcription is not guaranteed to be conservative for the true closed-loop distribution. Please report, for each active constraint and node, the empirical violation frequency (with binomial confidence intervals) for isSCvx, the feedback-linearization baseline, and the MRP solution, and state how these compare with the allocated risk levels ε_path = ε_ctrl = 0.05.
  2. [Section V.E, Eqs. (74)-(76)] The chance constraints in the convex subproblem contain nonnegative slacks s_{j,k}, χ_{j,k}, and s_{u,c,k}. If any of these slacks is nonzero at the converged solution, the corresponding probabilistic constraint is not enforced by the convex program. The objective penalizes the slacks, but the paper never reports their converged values or the constraint residual χ_cc from Eq. (89). Please report the final slack and residual values and verify that the slacks are zero for active constraints; if any active constraint retains nonzero slack, the Monte Carlo violation rate must be used to support the chance-constraint claim.
  3. [Section VI, Figs. 8 and 9] The comparison with the MRP-position formulation is not reproducible as reported. The text says the solution is generated 'as in [12]' but gives no algorithm parameters, risk allocation, discretization, trust-region settings, number of Monte Carlo samples, or convergence criteria for the MRP run. Because the SE(3)-versus-MRP comparison is used to support the intrinsic-coupling motivation, please specify the MRP baseline completely or remove the comparison from the claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (52)] The notation Σ_{w,k} = A_k W_k A_k^T (G_k G_k^T) is ambiguous; please define the square root G_k explicitly or rewrite the equality to make clear which quantity is the process-noise covariance.
  2. [Eqs. (27)-(28)] Please clarify that the discrete triggering in Eq. (28), which evaluates g_dock on the reference mean, is a modeling simplification relative to the continuous state-triggered constraints in Eqs. (26)-(27); the two formulations are not equivalent when the actual random state crosses the trigger boundary.
  3. [Figures 6 and 7] The captions refer to 'mean' and 'deterministic' without defining whether 'mean' is the Monte Carlo sample mean and 'deterministic' is the nominal reference; please add explicit legends and definitions.
  4. [Throughout] There are typographical and formatting issues, including 'constraintsatisfaction' in the abstract, ambiguous spacing in the displayed Problem 2, and inconsistent notation for the process-noise covariance; a careful copyedit is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, the stochastic optimization is checked against nonlinear Monte Carlo simulation, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is methodologically standard and does not reduce to its inputs. The main components are: (i) representing pose perturbations via the left inverse retraction on SE(3), (ii) assuming a concentrated Gaussian distribution on the tangent space, (iii) linearizing the nonlinear dynamics about the current reference trajectory, (iv) propagating covariance through a Schur-complement relaxation, and (v) transcribing Gaussian chance constraints into deterministic convex constraints using the inverse normal CDF with prescribed risk levels. None of these steps is circular: the previous-iterate values enter only as linearization points and trust-region references, which is standard SCvx behavior rather than self-reference. The chance-constraint risk levels epsilon_path and epsilon_ctrl are prescribed, not fitted to the data. The quantities shown as outcomes, such as terminal covariance and constraint satisfaction, are evaluated on 200 Monte Carlo samples propagated through the original nonlinear stochastic dynamics, not re-evaluated through the same linearized equations used to generate them. The comparison baseline, feedback linearization tracking from Zhang et al. [12], is an external controller rather than a quantity defined by the present paper's fitted parameters. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in through the authors' prior work. The absence of empirical violation counts versus the 0.05 risk level is a missing-support or correctness-risk issue, not a circularity issue. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on prescribed risk levels, a hand-chosen noise intensity, and the concentrated-distribution assumption; these carry the main burden of the chance constraint validity.

free parameters (3)
  • path and control risk allocations = epsilon_path = epsilon_ctrl = 0.05
    Prescribed risk levels in Sec. VI determine the tightening margins in chance constraints Eqs. (73)-(76); no risk allocation optimization is performed and results depend on this choice.
  • process noise intensity G_c = diag(2e-4, 5e-4, 2e-5, 5e-4) per tangent block
    The continuous-time diffusion matrix in Eq. (100) is set by hand without calibration from sensor or actuator models; Monte Carlo results depend on these values and no sensitivity study is provided.
  • initial and terminal covariance P0, Pf = P0 as in Eq. (98), Pf = 0.5 P0
    Prescribed boundary covariance values; the optimizer steers to these, so the demonstrated terminal covariance performance is relative to a chosen target.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The probability mass of the vehicle state distribution is concentrated in a neighborhood of the mean where the SE(3) logarithm is well-defined and the group Jacobian is close to identity.
    Introduced in Sec. III around Eqs. (9)-(12); the covariance algebra and chance constraint transcriptions in Sec. V.E rely on this local Euclidean treatment of uncertainty.
  • domain assumption The stochastic disturbance is an additive Wiener process with known, constant diffusion intensity G_c acting on the linearized tangent dynamics.
    Eqs. (45)-(49) assume this noise model; the diffusion values in Eq. (100) are prescribed without calibration.
  • domain assumption Chance constraints are transcribed by linearizing g_j in tangent coordinates and treating the linearized scalar as Gaussian.
    Sec. V.E Eqs. (69)-(73); the resulting deterministic constraints are valid only under the Gaussian tangent approximation.
  • domain assumption Standard convex SCvx convergence theory applies to the stochastic manifold setting.
    The outer loop trust region and virtual control mechanics follow [14] and [15]; no convergence proof specific to stochastic SE(3) is given.
  • standard math SE(3) exponential, logarithm, and left Jacobian formulas from [3] and [20] are correct.
    These are standard results used throughout Secs. II and V.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic Stochastic Successive Convexification on SE(3) for Chance Constrained 6-DOF Rendezvous." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANNNKIBS

@misc{pith2026260804114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic Stochastic Successive Convexification on SE(3) for Chance Constrained 6-DOF Rendezvous},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANNNKIBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04114}
}
read the original abstract

This work presents an intrinsic stochastic successive convexification method formulated on the Special Euclidean group SE(3) for six degrees of freedom spacecraft rendezvous trajectory optimization. The proposed approach extends stochastic successive convexification, originally developed for Euclidean state spaces, to the nonlinear manifold of SE(3), thereby enabling a consistent covariance steering and chance constrained optimization of rigid body pose trajectories. While conventional trajectory optimization methods often treat position and attitude separately, or account for stochastic dispersion only after a deterministic reference trajectory has been generated, the proposed SE(3)-based formulation captures the intrinsic coupling between translational and rotational motion uncertainty. This coupling is especially important for rendezvous problems with safety constraints that depend on the full relative pose, including collision avoidance, docking corridor, camera field of view, and probabilistic force and torque bounds. Numerical simulations show that jointly optimizing the nominal trajectory, covariance, and feedback law shapes the closed loop dispersion and improves probabilistic constraint satisfaction relative to tracking a deterministic reference with a feedback linearization controller.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Stochastic Trajectory Optimization for 6-DOF Spacecraft Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking with Nonlinear Chance Constraints,

    Zhang, Y., Cheng, M., Nan, B., and Li, S., “Stochastic Trajectory Optimization for 6-DOF Spacecraft Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking with Nonlinear Chance Constraints,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 208, 2023, pp. 62–73. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.04.004

    doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.04.004 2023

  2. [13]

    Multiplicative Approach to Constrained Stochastic Attitude Control with Application to RendezvousandProximityOperations,

    Takubo, Y., and D’Amico, S., “Multiplicative Approach to Constrained Stochastic Attitude Control with Application to RendezvousandProximityOperations,”AAS/AIAAAstrodynamicsSpecialistConference,2024. URLhttps://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:271856199

    work page 2024

  3. [18]

    Intrinsic Successive Convexification: Trajectory Optimization on Smooth Manifolds,

    Kraisler, S., Mesbahi, M., and Acikmese, B., “Intrinsic Successive Convexification: Trajectory Optimization on Smooth Manifolds,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, Vol. 9, 2025, pp. 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1109/LCSYS.2025.3571671

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [1]

    Safeand ConstrainedRendezvous, ProximityOperations, andDocking,

    Petersen, C., Caverly, R.J., Phillips, S., andWeiss, A., “Safeand ConstrainedRendezvous, ProximityOperations, andDocking,” 2023 American Control Conference (ACC), 2023, pp. 3645–3661. https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC55779.2023.10155826

    arXiv 2023

  5. [2]

    Optimal Powered Descent Guidance Under Thrust Pointing Constraint,

    Ito, T., and Sakai, S., “Optimal Powered Descent Guidance Under Thrust Pointing Constraint,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2023, pp. 695–708. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G006727

    doi:10.2514/1.g006727 2023

  6. [3]

    Volume 2: Analytic Methods and Modern Applications, Birkhauser, 2012

    Chirikjian, G.,Stochastic Models, Information Theory, and Lie Groups. Volume 2: Analytic Methods and Modern Applications, Birkhauser, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-4944-9

    doi:10.1007/978-0-8176-4944-9 2012

  7. [4]

    https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-0611

    Ridderhof, J., and Tsiotras, P.,Uncertainty Quantication and Control During Mars Powered Descent and Landing using Covariance Steering, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-0611

    doi:10.2514/6.2018-0611 2018

  8. [5]

    Multivariable Robust Control for the Powered Descent of a Multibody Lunar Landing System,

    Kamath, A. G., Assadian, F. F., and Robinson, S. K., “Multivariable Robust Control for the Powered Descent of a Multibody Lunar Landing System,” 2020. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:243866968, AAS 20-682

    work page 2020

Show all 35 references
  1. [6]

    Skogestad, S., and Postlethwaite, I.,Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2005

    2005

  2. [7]

    Optimal Covariance Control for Stochastic Systems Under Chance Constraints,

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

    2018

  3. [8]

    Chance-ConstrainedSequentialConvexProgrammingforRobustTrajectoryOptimization,

    Lew,T.,Bonalli,R.,andPavone,M.,“Chance-ConstrainedSequentialConvexProgrammingforRobustTrajectoryOptimization,” Proceedings of the European Control Conference, 2020. https://doi.org/10.23919/ECC51009.2020.9143595

    2020 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Optimal covariance control for discrete-time stochastic linear systems subject to constraints,

    Bakolas, E., “Optimal covariance control for discrete-time stochastic linear systems subject to constraints,”2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2016, pp. 1153–1158. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2016.7798422

    2016

  5. [10]

    Optimal Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear Stochastic Systems,

    Liu, F., Rapakoulias, G., and Tsiotras, P., “Optimal Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear Stochastic Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. PP, 2024, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2024.3472788

    2024

  6. [11]

    Nonlinear Uncertainty Control with Iterative Covariance Steering,

    Ridderhof, J., Okamoto, K., and Tsiotras, P., “Nonlinear Uncertainty Control with Iterative Covariance Steering,”2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2019, pp. 3484–3490. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC40024.2019.9029993. 37

    2019

  7. [14]

    Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajectories Reliably and Efficiently,

    Malyuta, D., Reynolds, T. P., Szmuk, M., Lew, T., Bonalli, R., Pavone, M., and Acikmese, B., “Convex Optimization for Trajectory Generation: A Tutorial on Generating Dynamically Feasible Trajectories Reliably and Efficiently,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 42, No. 5, 2022...

    2022

  8. [15]

    Successive Convexification: A Superlinearly Convergent Algorithm for Non-convex Optimal Control Problems,

    Mao, Y., Szmuk, M., and Acikmese, B., “Successive Convexification: A Superlinearly Convergent Algorithm for Non-convex Optimal Control Problems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06539, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.06539

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    SuccessiveConvexificationforReal-Time6-DoFPoweredDescentGuidancewithState-Triggered Constraints,

    Szmuk,M.,andAcikmese,B.,“SuccessiveConvexificationforReal-Time6-DoFPoweredDescentGuidancewithState-Triggered Constraints,”AIAA SciTech Forum, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-0920

    2018 doi

  10. [17]

    Dual Quaternion-Based Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,

    Reynolds, T. P., Szmuk, M., Malyuta, D., Mesbahi, M., Acikmese, B., and Carson, J. M., “Dual Quaternion-Based Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 43, No. 8, 2020, pp. 1584–1599. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004536

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13467-3

    Hall,B.,LieGroups,LieAlgebras,andRepresentations: AnElementaryIntroduction,GraduateTextsinMathematics,Springer, New York, NY, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13467-3

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics,

    Sola, J., Deray, J., and Atchuthan, D., “A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537,

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    V., and Jupp, P

    Mardia, K. V., and Jupp, P. E.,Directional Statistics, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, Wiley, New York, NY, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316979

    1999 doi

  14. [22]

    Error Propagation on the Euclidean Group with Applications to Manipulator Kinematics,

    Wang, Y., and Chirikjian, G. S., “Error Propagation on the Euclidean Group with Applications to Manipulator Kinematics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2006, pp. 591–602. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2006.878978

    2006

  15. [23]

    Associating Uncertainty With Three-Dimensional Poses for Use in Estimation Problems,

    Barfoot, T. D., and Furgale, P. T., “Associating Uncertainty With Three-Dimensional Poses for Use in Estimation Problems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2014, pp. 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2014.2298059

    2014

  16. [24]

    Applebaum, D., and Heyer, H.,Probability on Compact Lie Groups, Probability Theory and Stochastic Modelling, Springer International Publishing, New York, NY, 2014. 38

    2014

  17. [25]

    Defining a mean on Lie group,

    Miolane, N., “Defining a mean on Lie group,” Master’s thesis, Imperial College London, Sep 2013. URL https://inria.hal. science/hal-00938320

    2013

  18. [26]

    IntrinsicStatisticsonRiemannianManifolds: BasicToolsforGeometricMeasurements,

    Pennec, X., “IntrinsicStatisticsonRiemannianManifolds: BasicToolsforGeometricMeasurements,”JournalofMathematical Imaging and Vision, Vol. 25, 2006, pp. 127–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-006-6228-4

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    TerminalGuidanceSystemforSatelliteRendezvous,

    Clohessy,W.H.,andWiltshire,R.S.,“TerminalGuidanceSystemforSatelliteRendezvous,”JournaloftheAerospaceSciences, Vol. 27, No. 9, 1960, pp. 653–658. https://doi.org/10.2514/8.8704

    1960 doi

  20. [28]

    Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization Under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering,

    Kumagai, N., and Oguri, K., “Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization Under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 48, No. 12, 2025, pp. 2725–2743. https://doi.org/10. 2514/1.G009092

    2025

  21. [29]

    Covariance Steering With Optimal Risk Allocation,

    Pilipovsky, J., and Tsiotras, P., “Covariance Steering With Optimal Risk Allocation,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. 57, No. 6, 2021, pp. 3719–3733. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2021.3086956

    2021

  22. [30]

    Solving Nonconvex Optimal Control Problems by Convex Optimization,

    Liu, X., and Lu, P., “Solving Nonconvex Optimal Control Problems by Convex Optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2014, pp. 750–765. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.62110

    2014 doi

  23. [31]

    Chance-ConstrainedCovarianceControlforLow-ThrustMinimum-FuelTrajectory Optimization,

    Ridderhof,J.,Pilipovsky,J.,andTsiotras,P.,“Chance-ConstrainedCovarianceControlforLow-ThrustMinimum-FuelTrajectory Optimization,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 2021. Paper AAS 20-618

    2021

  24. [32]

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

    Benedikter, B., Zavoli, A., Wang, Z., Pizzurro, S., and Cavallini, E., “Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 11, 2022, pp. 2061–2075. https://doi.org/10...

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    YALMIP: A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB,

    Löfberg, J., “YALMIP: A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB,”2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 2004, pp. 284–289. https: //doi.org/10.1109/CACSD.2004.1393890

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Version 10.2, 2023

    MOSEK ApS,The MOSEK Optimization Toolbox for MATLAB Manual. Version 10.2, 2023. URL https://docs.mosek.com/ latest/toolbox/index.html. 39

    2023

  27. [2018]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.01537

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.