Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Continuous-Time Covariance Steering with Common Free-Final Time: Finite-Horizon Solutions and Infinite-Horizon Limits

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read When a free final time for covariance steering exists only at infinity, this paper pins down the exact condition.

desk verdict A solid first systematic treatment of free-final-time covariance steering with a clean transversality condition, but the main dichotomy in Theorem V.2 is conditional on an unverified regularity assumption that stress-testing shows is not benign. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10267 v1 pith:E7PHEKOX submitted 2026-08-10 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Akan Selim , Fengjiao Liu , Siddhartha Ganguly , Panagiotis Tsiotras This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY MSC 93E2093E0349K2049L9958E2565K10
keywords covariancesteeringfree-finaltimestochasticoptimalcontroltransversalityconditionHamiltonian-zeroasymptoticgatewayturnpiketrust-regionlinesearch
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 studies the problem of steering the covariance of a stochastic linear system from one prescribed Gaussian to another, where the final time itself is a decision variable shared by all realizations. It establishes the correct transversality condition for the optimal common final time, shows when that time is finite, and characterizes when the optimality condition is achieved only as the horizon goes to infinity. The central dichotomy is governed by an 'Asymptotic Gateway' set G∞: if the uncontrolled covariance dynamics admit a positive-definite stationary covariance on which the state cost vanishes, then the Hamiltonian-zero is approached only asymptotically; otherwise a finite optimal time exists. The paper also provides a trust-region line-search algorithm that detects both regimes.

What carries the argument

The Asymptotic Gateway is the set G∞ of positive-definite stationary covariances of the uncontrolled dynamics on which the state cost trace(Q Sigma) vanishes: G∞ = { Sigma > 0 : A Sigma + Sigma A^T + D = 0 and trace(Q Sigma) = 0 }. It carries the argument by identifying the only states near which a long-horizon trajectory can linger without accumulating running cost, and its nonemptiness is equivalent to the existence of an asymptotic Hamiltonian-zero.

What would settle it

Construct an LTI system satisfying the standing controllability assumptions with Q = 0, omega = 0, and a nonempty gateway set, but pick endpoint covariances so that the family of fixed-horizon optimal covariance trajectories oscillates periodically in the large-horizon limit (for instance, by including a center-mode structure in A that excites oscillation without violating boundedness). If the family then admits no pointwise limit Sigma_infinity > 0, the equivalence in Theorem V.2 would fail even though the gateway is nonempty, exposing Assumption III.1 as indispensable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under controllability and a regularity assumption on the limiting covariance trajectory, the paper proves that an optimal common final time is approached only in the infinite-horizon limit exactly when the time penalty is zero (omega = 0) and there exists a positive-definite stationary covariance Sigma_s of the uncontrolled dynamics, A Sigma_s + Sigma_s A^T + D = 0, on which the state cost vanishes, trace(Q Sigma_s) = 0. In that regime the Hamiltonian of the fixed-horizon problem tends to zero as the horizon tends to infinity, defining an asymptotic Hamiltonian-zero, while the finite-horizon optimal trajectories approach the gateway set G∞ and remain near it for most of the horizon before departing to meet the terminal constraint. If the gateway is empty or the time penalty is positive, the large-horizon Hamiltonian remains strictly positive, and since the small-horizon Hamiltonian diverges to -infinity, a finite Hamiltonian-zero exists by continuity.

Load-bearing premise

The dichotomy hinges on Assumption III.1: that the limiting covariance trajectory, as the horizon goes to infinity, actually converges to a bounded positive-definite limit rather than oscillating or becoming singular.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the gateway condition holds, the optimal final time is not achieved at any finite horizon, and any numerical solver that targets a finite Hamiltonian-zero must be modified to detect the asymptotic regime.
  • If the gateway is empty or the time penalty is positive, the transversality condition H_tf = 0 has a finite root, and the trust-region line-search algorithm provably locates it.
  • The characterization extends the turnpike picture to stochastic covariance steering: for long horizons the optimal covariance path is composed of a forward arc from the initial covariance to the gateway and a backward arc from the terminal covariance to the gateway, stitched together near G∞.
  • For matched control and noise channels, the co-state and Hamiltonian sensitivities can be computed analytically, enabling a Hessian-like update in the algorithm and second-order information about the value function.
  • In Gaussian-mixture steering, the per-component free-final-time solution is no worse than the common-final-time solution, and the gap (the 'price of synchronization') vanishes as the mixture components merge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same dichotomy likely governs discrete-time covariance steering with free final time, where the Lyapunov equation is replaced by its discrete analogue and the gateway would be the set of stationary covariances under the uncontrolled one-step map; the paper does not treat this case.
  • The asymptotic Hamiltonian-zero suggests a candidate definition of overtaking optimality for covariance steering in which the terminal constraint is approached rather than met, and the gateway point plays the role of a Skorokhod-like boundary; this interpretation is not made by the authors beyond a remark.
  • A testable consequence is that when (A, B) is controllable, D is nearly singular, and Q = 0, the approach to a singular gateway drives the feedback gain to blow up near the terminal constraint; this could be verified by observing the norm of the computed gain along the trajectory in the numerical experiments.
  • The finiteness criterion Theorem IV.1 could be sharpened to an explicit upper bound on the optimal final time in terms of the spectrum of A and the data (Sigma_0, Sigma_f, Q, R, D), since the intermediate value argument only shows existence; the paper does not provide such a bound.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies continuous-time covariance steering with a common free final time, where both the feedback control law and the horizon are optimized. The SDE-constrained problem is reformulated as a deterministic covariance optimal control problem (Section III), from which the authors derive the Hamiltonian transversality condition H=0 for candidate optimal final times (Theorem III.1). Under standing controllability and strict endpoint-covariance assumptions (Assumption II.1) together with an asymptotic pointwise convergence assumption on the family of fixed-horizon optimal covariance trajectories (Assumption III.1), the paper gives sufficient conditions for existence of a finite candidate horizon (Theorem IV.1), introduces Asymptotic Gateways G∞ and Asymptotic Connections, and proves the main dichotomy (Theorem V.2): an asymptotic Hamiltonian-zero exists iff the time penalty and state cost vanish and G∞ is nonempty. The paper then derives final-time sensitivity formulas (Section VI-A) and proposes a trust-region line-search algorithm with an infinite-horizon detector, demonstrated on an illustrative example, a spacecraft maneuver, and Gaussian-mixture steering.

Significance. If the main results are accepted, the paper fills a genuine gap: previous continuous-time covariance steering typically fixes the horizon, whereas here the final time is optimized and the possibility of only asymptotic optimality is characterized. The turnpike-type interpretation via Asymptotic Gateways is conceptually useful, and the numerical examples illustrate the claimed finite, unbounded-gateway, and singular-gateway regimes. The derivation builds on PMP and on the authors' earlier fixed-horizon well-posedness theorem rather than assuming the free-final-time result, so the reliance on [LT24b] is not circular. However, the significance is presently limited because the central dichotomy is conditional on Assumption III.1, which is explicitly not verified in the paper and is not implied by the standing assumptions. Without a verifiable sufficient condition for that assumption, the advertised characterization is a result about a regularity class rather than a complete solution of the general problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-C, Theorem V.2 and Remark III.2] The 'if and only if' characterization in Theorem V.2 is conditional on Assumption III.1, but Remark III.2 explicitly disclaims any derivation of sufficient conditions for that assumption. The assumption is load-bearing: Proposition B.1(b) uses the bounded positive-definite limit to bound co-states uniformly in the horizon, and Lemma B.2 applies Barbalat's lemma to a limiting covariance arc obtained from that assumption. It is not a consequence of Assumption II.1. For example, the scalar system A=0, B=1, D=1, Q=0, xi=0, R=1, Sigma0=1, Sigmaf=2 satisfies Assumption II.1. The fixed-horizon extremal has Pi(t)=1/(C-t) with C-tf tending to Sigmaf/D=2 as tf goes to infinity, and the Hamiltonian satisfies H_tf tending to 0, so tf=+infinity is an asymptotic Hamiltonian-zero. Yet the Lyapunov equation A Sigma_s + Sigma_s A^T + D=0 reduces to 1=0, so G_infinity is empty, and the limiting covariance is Sigma_star(t)=1+t, unbounded, so Assumption III.1 fails. Thus the unconditional reading of Theorem V.2 is false. The authors should either prove verifiable sufficient conditions for Assumption III.1 or restate Theorem V.2 as a conditional theorem and explicitly discuss the failure mode illustrated by this counterexample.
  2. [Section IV, Theorem IV.1] Theorem IV.1 is advertised as giving simple sufficient conditions for the finiteness of the candidate optimal final time, but the data conditions (IV.1-a)--(IV.1-c) are not sufficient on their own: the theorem also assumes Assumption III.1. The scalar counterexample above satisfies condition (IV.1-c), since the Lyapunov equation has no positive-definite solution, yet it has no finite Hamiltonian-zero because H_tf remains strictly positive for every finite tf and only tends to zero asymptotically. The theorem therefore does not deliver the stated data-only sufficiency result. The statement and the accompanying discussion in Section I-C should be revised to separate the data conditions from the unverified asymptotic regularity assumption, and the applicability to the numerical examples should be justified.
  3. [Section VI-A, Eq. (20)] The sensitivity formula (20) is stated without derivation and is central to Algorithm 1: the algorithm uses deltaH/delta tf to build the Hessian approximation B^(k), and Remark VI.1 uses (20) to conclude that the first and second derivatives of the value function vanish along Asymptotic Connections. As written, the identity 1/2 trace(deltaPi_{tf;0}/delta tf Sigma_dot(0)) = 1/2 trace(deltaPi_{tf}/delta tf Sigma_dot(tf)) is not evident from the preceding equations, and no proof or citation is supplied. A rigorous derivation, including existence of the endpoint variations and the differentiability of Pi_{tf}(0) with respect to tf under the stated assumptions, is needed. In addition, Eq. (24) refers to 'a solution Y' of a Lyapunov equation but does not discuss unique solvability; this should be clarified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definition IV.1] There is a typo in the sentence introducing the vector field: 'Let hte vector field' should read 'Let the vector field'.
  2. [Section VI-A, Eqs. (21)--(24)] The switch from the general sensitivity identity (20) to the special case D=kappa B B^T is abrupt; please state explicitly that (21)--(24) are taken from [CGP18a] with the relevant sign conventions, since a reader comparing with the cited formulas will otherwise have difficulty verifying the signs in (21) and (23).
  3. [Algorithm 1] The output flag in Line 12 is returned as '†=1' but the flag values are never defined; please document what the flag indicates. In addition, Line 23 uses the symbol 'epsilon' for the step-size threshold while the convergence tolerance is denoted 'varepsilon', which is confusing.
  4. [Algorithm 2 and Section VI-B] The condition 'any(Sigma(·) in G_infinity)' in Algorithm 2 is implemented through sampled trajectory points and tolerances, but there is no discussion of how the sampling grid and threshold eta_G affect the reliability of detecting an asymptotic Hamiltonian-zero; a brief comment on this approximation would be useful.
  5. [Remark VI.1] The claim that (20) implies lim_{tf to infinity} deltaH/delta tf = 0 requires uniform boundedness of the co-state sensitivity deltaPi_{tf}/delta tf as tf tends to infinity; this boundedness is not established in the paper and should be stated as an additional condition or proved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the free-final-time theorem is derived from first principles and published fixed-horizon results, not from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Problem 1 is reduced to the deterministic OCP Problem 2 via the feedback-gain parameterization (Proposition III.1), yielding the Hamiltonian transversality condition (Theorem III.1). The paper then imports only fixed-horizon well-posedness, uniqueness, and the homeomorphism property from [LT24b] (Fact III.1); that cited work is a published TAC theorem that does not contain the free-final-time result, so the import is genuine external support rather than a self-referential chain. The central dichotomy (Theorem V.2) is not definitionally forced: the Asymptotic Gateway G∞ is defined independently as the set of positive-definite stationary covariances of the uncontrolled dynamics with trace(QΣ)=0, while the asymptotic Hamiltonian-zero is defined as lim H_tf = 0; Theorem V.1 and Lemma B.2 then prove the equivalence rather than presuppose it. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; the only numerical procedure is a solver for the derived condition. The one notable weakness is Assumption III.1 (pointwise convergence to a positive-definite limit), which is explicitly acknowledged in Remark III.2 as beyond the scope of the paper to verify. That is a regularity hypothesis limiting the theorem's applicability, not a circular step: it does not assert the theorem's conclusion, and the counterexample-style concern in the skeptic note (A=0, D>0, scalar) falls outside the assumption's scope. The conclusion of Theorem V.2 is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted free parameters; all numerical choices are illustrative problem data or user-set tolerances. The key unverified input is Assumption III.1, which the authors acknowledge. The invented mathematical objects (Gateway and Connection) are definitions within the theory, not unexplained physical entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The pair (A, B) is controllable and Sigma_0, Sigma_f are positive definite and unequal.
    Used throughout as Assumption II.1; standard controllability and well-posedness conditions for covariance steering.
  • domain assumption The limiting finite-horizon optimal covariance trajectory as tf tends to infinity has a bounded positive-definite limit.
    Load-bearing for Theorem V.2; authors explicitly leave verification to future work in Remark III.2.
  • domain assumption Fixed-horizon two-point boundary value problem admits a unique solution and the map from initial co-state to terminal covariance is a homeomorphism.
    Self-cited published theorem [LT24b] used to justify PMP application and compactness arguments; not re-derived here.
  • standard math Standard Pontryagin maximum principle and Ito calculus are valid for the deterministic reformulation.
    Basis for the deterministic reformulation and the transversality condition.
invented entities (2)
  • Asymptotic Gateway G_infinity = {Sigma > 0 : A Sigma + Sigma A^T + D = 0, trace(Q Sigma) = 0}
    purpose: Characterizes the stationary covariances that govern long-horizon optimal trajectories and asymptotic Hamiltonian-zeros.
    A mathematical definition (Def. V.1), not a physical entity; its nonemptiness is used in the detector algorithm, so it has an algorithmic handle but no external empirical falsifier.
  • Asymptotic Connection
    purpose: Describes limiting covariance trajectories that approach the Asymptotic Gateway, providing a turnpike interpretation for large horizons.
    A limiting object defined in Def. V.2; it is a theoretical construct, not something observable independently of the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous-Time Covariance Steering with Common Free-Final Time: Finite-Horizon Solutions and Infinite-Horizon Limits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E7PHEKOX

@misc{pith2026260810267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous-Time Covariance Steering with Common Free-Final Time: Finite-Horizon Solutions and Infinite-Horizon Limits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E7PHEKOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10267}
}
read the original abstract

This article studies the optimal common free-final time problem for steering the state covariance of a continuous-time stochastic linear system between prescribed initial and terminal covariance matrices. We first establish a deterministic reformulation of the SDE-constrained free-final time stochastic optimal control problem (SOCP). For the ensuing SOCP, we provide necessary conditions for optimality and establish sufficient conditions for the optimal common final time to be finite. Subsequently, we characterize the asymptotic behavior of the finite-horizon optimal solutions as the final time tends to infinity, the invariant sets and trajectories associated with this limiting regime, and derive the sensitivity of the Hamiltonian with respect to the common final time. Finally, leveraging these sensitivities, we develop a trust-region line-search algorithm together with an infinite-horizon case detection method, and demonstrate its performance on three different problems: (a) an illustrative covariance-steering example, (b) a demonstration of spacecraft maneuver using covariance control, and (c) Gaussian mixture to Gaussian mixture steering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Asymptotic connections and limiting regimes of the Asymptotic Gateway G∞. (a) illustrates finite-horizon covariance trajectories whose subsequential limiting trajectories pass through the Asymptotic Gateway G∞ at stationary covariances Σs ∈ G∞. (b) illustrates the loss of boundedness of Σs as 𝐴 approaches marginal stability. (c) illustrates the approach of Σs to the boundary of 𝕊 𝑛 + , together with unbounded feedba… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerical example illustrating the cases of finite optimal final time, unbounded gateways, and singular gateway in free-final time covariance steering problems. Each panel shows the covariance trajectory over time together with sample paths of the associated closed-loop diffusion. The first row (𝑄 = 𝐼) exhibits finite optimal final time satisfying the transversality condition H𝑡 ∗ f (·) = 0. The second row (𝑄 = 0 an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The position and velocity distributions are shown in terms of their respective means and covariances within 3𝜎 of the uncertainty. The left panel shows the position covariance flow, while the right panel shows the velocity covariance flow, with trajectories evolving from lighter to darker shades over time. are the mixture weights 𝑤 0 and 𝑤 f , where ∑︁ 𝑗 𝜋𝑖 𝑗 = 𝑤 0 𝑖 , ∑︁ 𝑖 𝜋𝑖 𝑗 = 𝑤 f 𝑗 , 𝜋𝑖 𝑗 ≥ 0. We introduce 𝑉𝑖 𝑗… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Convergence of the optimization algorithm for the covariance steering problem initialized with both a low and a high initial guess. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 common -nal time tf 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 total m e a n + c o v aria n c e ste erin g c ost Price of synchronizat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Price of synchronization. (a) Total cost versus the common final time 𝑡f (synchronized) against the free-final time cost 𝐶ff. (b) The gap Δ and the responsibility entropy as the mixture components merge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mixture-density evolution at common times. Top: the synchro￾nized policy steers all components to their slots together at 𝑡f . Bottom: the free-final time policy yields distinct arrivals 𝑡f 𝑖 𝑗 . §VIII. Conclusion This article introduces the first systematic study of t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Turnpike interpretation of Asymptotic Connections. (a) shows a forward infinite-horizon arc approaching the Asymptotic Gateway G∞ from the initial covariance Σ0. (b) shows a backward infinite-horizon arc approach￾ing G∞ in reverse time from the terminal covariance Σf .…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Villani , title =

    C. Villani , title =. 2009 , isbn =

    2009

  2. [2]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright , title =. 2006 , NOTE =

    2006

  3. [3]

    J. F. Le Gall , TITLE =. 2016 , PAGES =

    2016

  4. [4]

    A. L. Dontchev and T. R. Rockafellar , TITLE =. 2014 , PAGES =

    2014

  5. [5]

    C. M. Bishop , title =. 2006 , isbn =

    2006

  6. [6]

    H. D. Curtis , title =

  7. [7]

    2017 , address =

    Studies in the. 2017 , address =

    2017

  8. [8]

    A. V. Skorokhod , title =. 1961 , address =

    1961

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Zheng and D

    X. Zheng and D. Lin and P. Tang and S. He , title =. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , volume =. 2026 , NOTE =

    2026

  2. [10]

    Kondo and Y

    K. Kondo and Y. Wu and V. Kumar and J. P. How , title =. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , year =

  3. [11]

    Gabriel Nagy , title =

  4. [12]

    Halder and E

    A. Halder and E. D. B. Wendel , booktitle=. Finite horizon linear quadratic. 2016 , volume=

    2016

  5. [13]

    Sial and A

    T. Sial and A. Halder , year=. Fixed Horizon Linear Quadratic Covariance Steering in Continuous Time with. 2510.21944 , archivePrefix=

  6. [14]

    Nakashima and S

    H. Nakashima and S. Ganguly and K. Kashima , booktitle=. Data-driven. 2025 , volume=

    2025

  7. [15]

    Parmar and D

    C. Parmar and D. Chatterjee , journal=. Robust density steering for uncertain. 2026 , publisher=

    2026

  8. [16]

    D. E. Kirk , year=. Optimal

  9. [17]

    Stanford University , title =

  10. [18]

    Patrick Billingsley , title =

  11. [19]

    2023 , note =

    Ian Biringer , title =. 2023 , note =

    2023

  12. [20]

    Charles Walkden , title =

  13. [21]

    2004 , note =

    Hitoshi Ishii , title =. 2004 , note =

    2004

  14. [22]

    Evans , title =

    Lawrence C. Evans , title =

  15. [23]

    D. A. Carlson and A. B. Haurie and A. Leizarowitz , edition =. Infinite. 1991 , NOTE =

    1991

  16. [24]

    Teschl , title =

    G. Teschl , title =. 2012 , NOTE =

    2012

  17. [25]

    Set-Valued and Variational Analysis , volume =

    Necessary Conditions in Infinite-Horizon Control Problems that Need no Asymptotic Assumptions , author =. Set-Valued and Variational Analysis , volume =. 2023 , NOTE =

    2023

  18. [26]

    Mathematical Control and Related Fields , volume =

    Necessary Conditions for Infinite Horizon Optimal Control Problems with State Constraints , author =. Mathematical Control and Related Fields , volume =. 2018 , NOTE =

    2018

  19. [27]

    2025 , issn =

    Optimal transport of linear systems over equilibrium measures , journal =. 2025 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2025.112222 , author =

    2025

  20. [28]

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , volume =

    Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization , author =. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , volume =. 2022 , NOTE =

    2022

  21. [29]

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , volume =

    Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization Under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering , author =. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , volume =. 2025 , NOTE =

    2025

  22. [30]

    IFAC-PapersOnLine , volume =

    Cautious Nonlinear Covariance Steering using Variational. IFAC-PapersOnLine , volume =. 2021 , issn =

    2021

  23. [31]

    I. M. Balci and E. Bakolas , booktitle=. Covariance Control of Discrete-Time. 2021 , volume=

    2021

  24. [32]

    Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages=

    Covariance Steering for Uncertain Contact-Rich Systems , author=. Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages=. 2023 , month =

    2023

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pages =

    Covariance Steering in Zero-Sum Linear-Quadratic Two-Player Differential Games , author =. Proceedings of the 58th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pages =. 2019 , month =

    2019

  26. [34]

    2023 , eprint=

    Covariance Steering for Nonlinear Control-affine Systems , author=. 2023 , eprint=

    2023

  27. [35]

    2016 , volume=

    IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , title=. 2016 , volume=

    2016

  28. [36]

    2023 , pages=

    Covariance Steering for Systems Subject to Unknown Parameters , booktitle=. 2023 , pages=

    2023

  29. [37]

    Optimal Control: Linear Quadratic Methods , year =

  30. [38]

    and Willems, J

    Callier, F. and Willems, J. , journal=. Criterion for the convergence of the solution of the. 1981 , volume=

    1981

  31. [39]

    J. T. Betts , TITLE =. 2020 , PAGES =

    2020

  32. [40]

    1976 , publisher =

    Walter Rudin , title =. 1976 , publisher =

    1976

  33. [41]

    A. F. Hotz and R. E. Skelton , booktitle=. A Covariance Control Theory , year=

  34. [42]

    Schrödinger , title =

    E. Schrödinger , title =. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch-mathematische Klasse , year =

  35. [43]

    1997 , issn =

    Minimum-energy Covariance Controllers , journal =. 1997 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0005-1098(96)00188-4 , author =

    1997 doi

  36. [44]

    and Skelton, R

    Collins, E. and Skelton, R. , journal=. A Theory of State Covariance Assignment for Discrete Systems , year=

  37. [45]

    Yong and X

    J. Yong and X. Y. Zhou , TITLE =. 1999 , PAGES =

    1999

  38. [46]

    H. K. Khalil , title =

  39. [47]

    Kumagai and K

    N. Kumagai and K. Oguri , year =. AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference , title =

  40. [48]

    and Tsiotras, P

    Ridderhof, J. and Tsiotras, P. , title =. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference , chapter =. 2018 , pages =

    2018

  41. [49]

    Szmuk and B

    M. Szmuk and B. A. Successive Convexification for 6-. AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference , NOTE =. 2018 , month =

    2018

  42. [50]

    Peng , title =

    S. Peng , title =. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , volume =. 1990 , NOTE =

    1990

  43. [51]

    Liberzon , title =

    D. Liberzon , title =. 2012 , NOTE =

    2012

  44. [52]

    K. F. Caluya and A. Halder , journal=. Wasserstein proximal algorithms for the. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  45. [53]

    Ganguly and G

    S. Ganguly and G. Rapakoulias and P. Tsiotras , year=. Lifted. 2605.24795 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Chen and T

    Y. Chen and T. T. Georgiou and M. Pavon , journal=. Stochastic control liaisons:. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  47. [55]

    1990 , month =

    Maximum Principle for Stochastic Optimal Control with Non-convex Control Domain , booktitle=. 1990 , month =

    1990

  48. [56]

    G. M. Chari and B. A. Spacecraft Rendezvous Guidance via Factorization-Free Sequential Convex Programming using a First-Order Method , booktitle =. 2024 , month =

    2024

  49. [57]

    2023 , issn =

    Guidance for autonomous spacecraft repointing under attitude constraints and actuator limitations , journal =. 2023 , issn =

    2023

  50. [58]

    1987 , NOTE =

    Optimal control problems over large time intervals , journal =. 1987 , NOTE =

    1987

  51. [59]

    2012 , issn =

    On the continuity of optimal controls and value functions with respect to initial conditions , journal =. 2012 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2012.08.004 , author =

    2012 doi

  52. [60]

    Stochastic

    B. Stochastic. 2003 , PAGES =

    2003

  53. [61]

    Chen and T

    Y. Chen and T. T. Georgiou and M. Pavon , journal=. Optimal Steering of a Linear Stochastic System to a Final Probability Distribution, Part. 2016 , volume=

    2016

  54. [62]

    Chen and T

    Y. Chen and T. T. Georgiou and M. Pavon , journal=. Optimal Steering of a Linear Stochastic System to a Final Probability Distribution—Part. 2018 , volume=

    2018

  55. [63]

    Okamoto and M

    K. Okamoto and M. Goldshtein and P. Tsiotras , journal=. Optimal Covariance Control for Stochastic Systems Under Chance Constraints , year=

  56. [64]

    V. R. Makkapati and T. Rajpurohit and K. Okamoto and P. Tsiotras , booktitle=. Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear-Quadratic Stochastic Dynamic Games , year=

  57. [65]

    A. D. Saravanos and A. Tsolovikos and E. Bakolas and E. A. Theodorou , month =. Distributed Covariance Steering with Consensus. Robotics: Science and Systems XVII , year=

  58. [66]

    IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , month =

    Distributed Model Predictive Covariance Steering , author=. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , month =. 2022 , pages=

    2022

  59. [67]

    63rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , year=

    Computationally Efficient Chance Constrained Covariance Control with Output Feedback , author=. 63rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , year=

  60. [68]

    62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , year=

    Computationally Efficient Covariance Steering for Systems Subject to Parametric Disturbances and Chance Constraints , author=. 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , year=

  61. [69]

    arXiv:2108.09530 , year=

    Covariance Steering for Nonlinear Control-affine Systems , author=. arXiv:2108.09530 , year=

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    American Control Conference (ACC) , year=

    Covariance Steering of Discrete-Time Linear Systems with Mixed Multiplicative and Additive Noise , author=. American Control Conference (ACC) , year=

  63. [71]

    62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , month =

    Data-Driven Covariance Steering Control Design , author=. 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , month =. 2023 , pages=

    2023

  64. [72]

    Proceedings of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference , year=

    Data-Driven Robust Covariance Control for Uncertain Linear Systems , author=. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference , year=

  65. [73]

    62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , month =

    Discrete-Time Optimal Covariance Steering via Semidefinite Programming , author=. 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , month =. 2023 , address =

    2023

  66. [74]

    Pilipovsky and P

    J. Pilipovsky and P. Tsiotras , journal=. Covariance Steering With Optimal Risk Allocation , year=

  67. [75]

    Ciccone and Y

    V. Ciccone and Y. Chen and T. Tryphon Georgiou and M. Pavon , journal=. Regularized Transport Between Singular Covariance Matrices , year=

  68. [76]

    Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems , volume =

    Manifold turnpikes, trims, and symmetries , author =. Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems , volume =. 2022 , NOTE =

    2022

  69. [77]

    IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , year=

    Optimal Covariance Steering for Continuous-Time Linear Stochastic Systems With Martingale Additive Noise , author=. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , year=

  70. [78]

    Liu and P

    F. Liu and P. Tsiotras , title=. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , year=

  71. [79]

    Liu and G

    F. Liu and G. Rapakoulias and P. Tsiotras , journal=. Optimal Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear Stochastic Systems , year=

  72. [80]

    2026 , issn =

    Reachability and controllability analysis of the state covariance for linear stochastic systems , journal =. 2026 , issn =

    2026

  73. [81]

    Schmerling and L

    E. Schmerling and L. Janson and M. Pavone , booktitle=. Optimal sampling-based motion planning under differential constraints: The drift case with linear affine dynamics , year=

  74. [82]

    T. I. Seidman , title =. Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems , volume =. 1988 , NOTE =

    1988

  75. [83]

    E. Tr. Turnpike in optimal control and beyond: a survey , year =

  76. [84]

    B. D. O. Anderson and J. B. Moore , isbn=. Optimal. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  77. [85]

    and Winkin, J

    Callier, F.M. and Winkin, J. and Willems, J.L. , title =. International Journal of Control , volume =. 1994 , publisher =

    1994

  78. [86]

    Bettiol and R

    P. Bettiol and R. B. Vinter , TITLE =. 2024 , PAGES =

    2024

  79. [87]

    2019 , PAGES =

    Lipschitz. 2019 , PAGES =

    2019

  80. [88]

    Selim and S

    A. Selim and S. Ganguly and A. Pakniyat and P. Tsiotras , year=. Nonlinear Stochastic Optimal Control and Optimal Stopping using the. 2604.12153 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Peskir and A

    G. Peskir and A. Shiryaev , TITLE =. 2006 , PAGES =

    2006

  82. [90]

    V. S. Borkar , title =. Probability Surveys , number =. 2005 , NOTE =

    2005

  83. [91]

    Karatzas and S

    I. Karatzas and S. E. Shreve , TITLE =. 1991 , PAGES =

    1991

  84. [92]

    J. P. Hespanha , isbn=. Linear. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  85. [93]

    W. H. Fleming and R. W. Rishel , TITLE =. 1975 , PAGES =

    1975

  86. [94]

    E. Tr. Control in. 2024 , PAGES =

    2024

  87. [95]

    European Control Conference (ECC) , pages=

    A geometric approach to single axis time-optimal attitude manoeuvres , author=. European Control Conference (ECC) , pages=. 2015 , month =

    2015

  88. [96]

    Wang and S

    F. Wang and S. Ganguly and P. Tsiotras , year=. Covariance Steering of Discrete-Time. 2604.19994 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Chen and T

    Y. Chen and T. T. Georgiou and M. Pavon , year = 2018, month = oct, journal =. Steering the

    2018

  90. [98]

    and Tsiotras, P

    Goldshtein, M. and Tsiotras, P. , year = 2017, pages =. Finite-Horizon Covariance Control of Linear Time-Varying Systems , booktitle =

    2017

  91. [99]

    Rapakoulias and A

    G. Rapakoulias and A. R. Pedram and P. Tsiotras , year = 2025, journal =. Steering Large Agent Populations Using Mean-Field

    2025

  92. [100]

    Abdelgalil and T

    M. Abdelgalil and T. T. Georgiou , journal=. Collective steering in finite time: controllability on. 2025 , NOTE =

    2025

  93. [101]

    Brockett , journal=

    R. Brockett , journal=. Notes on the control of the. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  94. [102]

    Bakolas , year = 2017, month = may, pages =

    E. Bakolas , year = 2017, month = may, pages =. Covariance Control for Discrete-Time Stochastic Linear Systems with Incomplete State Information , booktitle =

    2017

  95. [103]

    Systems & Control Letters , volume =

    Optimal Covariance Control for Partially Observed Linear Stochastic Systems under Chance Constraints , author =. Systems & Control Letters , volume =

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.