Markov Kernels, Distances and Optimal Control: A Parable of Linear Quadratic Non-Gaussian Distribution Steering

Abhishek Halder; Alexis M.H. Teter; Sachin Shivakumar; Wenqing Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Markov Kernels, Distances and Optimal Control: A Parable of Linear Quadratic Non-Gaussian Distribution Steering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A closed-form Markov kernel is derived for a linear time-varying diffusion with quadratic killing of probability mass, making the linear-quadratic non-Gaussian Schrödinger bridge exactly solvable.

desk verdict A genuinely new Markov kernel for LQ non-Gaussian steering, but the main theorem's proof rests on an unproved matrix identity that a referee must check. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15753 v1 pith:AG5B2I2K submitted 2025-04-22 math.OC cs.LGcs.SYeess.SYmath.PRmath.STstat.TH

Alexis M.H. Teter , Wenqing Wang , Sachin Shivakumar , Abhishek Halder This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OCcs.LGcs.SYeess.SYmath.PRmath.STstat.TH MSC 49N1093E2060J6035K5760H10

keywords MarkovkernelSchrödingerbridgelinearquadraticcontrolnon-Gaussiandistributionsteeringreaction-advection-diffusionPDERiccatimatrixODEoptimaldistanceSinkhornrecursion

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 derives a closed-form Markov kernel for a controlled linear time-varying diffusion whose probability mass is killed at a time-varying quadratic rate. The kernel is the Green's function of a linear reaction-advection-diffusion PDE, written as a Gaussian in the endpoint pair whose matrix is built from a solution of a Riccati matrix ODE. If correct, this makes the linear-quadratic non-Gaussian Schrödinger bridge exactly solvable: any endpoint distributions with finite second moments can be steered to each other by dynamic Sinkhorn recursions that use kernel-based integral transforms instead of path-integral Monte Carlo. The derivation rests on a template: postulate the kernel as a distance-based exponential, obtain the distance from a deterministic optimal control problem, then fix the prefactor from the Dirac-delta initial condition.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is the template 'Markov kernel $\leftarrow$ distance $\leftarrow$ deterministic optimal control problem.' The paper postulates $\kappa=c(t,t_0)\exp(-\tfrac12\mathrm{dist}_{tt_0}^2(x,y))$, defines $\mathrm{dist}$ as the value of the LQ optimal control problem (24), and uses the Riccati ODE (25) together with Proposition 1 to convert the soft quadratic state cost into the modified LTV system $\hat A_\tau=A_\tau-\hat B_\tau\hat B_\tau^\top\Pi(\tau,0,t)$. The distance then becomes the quadratic form governed by the matrix $M_{tt_0}$ in (30). The prefactor is not fixed by normalization; it is obtained by substituting the ansatz into the PDE and matching the Dirac-delta initial condition, which yields $\dot c=-\theta(t)c$ and the constant $a$ in (35). The proof also relies on the by-product identity $\dot M_{tt_0}=S_{tt_0}$ to separate the spatially independent and quadratic terms.

What would settle it

Choose a nontrivial scalar example, say $A_t=-t$, $B_t=1$, $Q_t=1+t^2$; solve the Riccati ODE (25) numerically, form $M_{tt_0}$ from (30), assemble the kernel (36), and test directly whether it satisfies the reaction-advection-diffusion PDE (33) for all $x,y$ and whether the $t\downarrow t_0$ limit is a Dirac delta. The claim fails if the residual is not identically zero or if the limit in (35) is not finite and positive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under assumptions A1 and A2, the paper claims that the Markov kernel solving the reaction-advection-diffusion initial value problem (33) is $$\kappa(t_0,x,t,y)=a\,$e^{{-\int_{t_0}}$^{t}\$\theta$(s)\,ds}\exp\big(-\tfrac12\binom{x}{y}^{\top} M_{tt_0}\binom{x}{y}\big),$$ where $M_{tt_0}$ is the positive-definite matrix in (30) formed from the modified transition matrix $\hat\Phi_{tt_0}$, the controllability Gramian $\hat\Gamma_{tt_0}$, and the Riccati solution $\Pi(t_0,0,t)$; $\theta$ is defined by (34) and the prefactor $a$ by the limit (35). This is the Green's function for the forward Kolmogorov-type operator with advection, diffusion, and quadratic killing. As direct consequences, the kernel specializes to the heat kernel, the linear LTV kernel without killing, and the zero-drift constant-$Q$ kernel of previous work, and it makes the dynamic Sinkhorn iteration (41) implementable through the closed-form integral transforms (37).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the limit defining the constant $a$ in (35) exists and is positive, and that the derivative identity $\dot M_{tt_0}=S_{tt_0}$ holds; the paper asserts existence in Remark 3 and states the identity as a by-product without a standalone proof, so the closed-form kernel stands or falls on these two points.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The LQ non-Gaussian Schrödinger bridge is exactly solvable: the optimal controlled density can be produced by the dynamic Sinkhorn recursion (41), with each pass applying the kernel-based transforms (37).
Endpoint distributions with finite second moments are allowed; no Gaussianity or other structural restriction on the marginals is needed.
The kernel unifies previously disjoint cases: the Euclidean heat kernel, the LTV advection-diffusion kernel, and the constant-Q zero-drift kernel of prior work all appear as specializations of (36).
For mixture-of-Gaussian endpoint functions the Sinkhorn updates can be evaluated in closed form, giving a concrete numerical recipe.
Because the kernel is explicit, the Feynman-Kac/Monte Carlo approximation for each Sinkhorn pass is no longer needed.

Reading between the lines

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

The same distance-from-optimal-control template may extend to non-quadratic killing rates whenever the associated deterministic optimal control problem has an explicit value function; the paper does not attempt that extension.
Since the kernel is a Gaussian in the endpoint pair, approximating endpoint densities by conic mixtures of Gaussians yields closed-form Sinkhorn updates, and Example 1 supplies the needed formula; this suggests a practical fixed-point algorithm only sketched in the paper.
The by-product identity $\dot M_{tt_0}=S_{tt_0}$ could itself serve as an evolution law for the kernel's covariance, potentially bypassing recomputation of the Riccati solution at every time step.
Pairing the distance form with Varadhan-type short-time asymptotics suggests that $\mathrm{dist}_{tt_0}$ is the geodesic distance of a metric associated with the modified controlled dynamics, a geometric reading the authors flag but do not develop.

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 headline: this paper derives a genuinely new closed-form Markov kernel for an LTV diffusion with quadratic killing, and uses it to make non-Gaussian LQ Schrödinger bridges solvable by Sinkhorn iteration. The claimed generalization is real—the kernel in Theorem 1 covers generic controllable (A_t,B_t) and time-varying Q_t, and the earlier kernels from [5],[8] fall out as special cases. The new technique, finding the distance in the exponential from a deterministic OCP, is a clean idea and it works. The paper is well-written and the derivation is self-contained up to two gaps.

What I like: the kernel is not just a guess. They derive the distance from a min-energy control problem, then verify the Gaussian ansatz against the PDE and fix the prefactor via the Dirac-delta initial condition. The special-case recovery in Proposition 3 and Corollary 2 is strong evidence. The Sinkhorn application is practical, and the mixture-of-Gaussians example shows the kernel is actually usable. The citation pattern is fine: earlier work by the same group is the natural baseline and is cited as such.

The soft spots are real. In Appendix C, Step 1, equation (71) holds only if the quadratic forms match, i.e., dot M = S. The paper calls this a "by-product" and never proves it. That identity is load-bearing: without it, you cannot separate the constant terms and get the ODE for c. This is not a cosmetic omission. The limit defining a in (35) is also only asserted in Remark 3; no proof or reference is given. Recovering the known kernels suggests the formula is right, but a closed-form Green's function needs those two steps nailed down. They may be routine—matrix algebra plus Riccati theory—but right now Theorem 1 rests on an unverified identity.

Who should read this: anyone working on Schrödinger bridges, stochastic control with distribution steering, or exact kernels for reaction-diffusion PDEs. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to peer review, and ask the referee to verify dot M = S from the definitions and to supply a proof of the limit in (35). If those check out, this is a publishable result. If they don't, the kernel formula needs revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a closed-form Markov kernel for a linear time-varying Itô diffusion with an additional quadratic killing rate, i.e. the Green's function for the linear reaction-advection-diffusion PDE (33). The derivation follows the template: Markov kernel ← distance function ← deterministic optimal control problem. The distance is obtained as the value of a finite-horizon LQ optimal control problem, and the prefactor is fixed by the Dirac-delta initial condition. The main result, Theorem 1, gives the kernel in Eq. (36) in terms of the solution of a Riccati matrix ODE. The authors then explain how this kernel enables dynamic Sinkhorn recursions for the linear quadratic non-Gaussian Schrödinger bridge. They also show that known kernels in the literature are recovered as special cases in Proposition 3 and Corollary 2.

Significance. If the result is fully established, this is a valuable contribution to stochastic control and Schrödinger bridge theory. It generalizes previously known kernels for the zero-drift, identity-diffusion case to general controllable LTV systems with time-varying quadratic killing, and it provides a systematic method ('Markov kernel from optimal control distance') that goes beyond Hermite-polynomial and Weyl-calculus approaches. The paper also demonstrates the usefulness of the kernel for solving non-Gaussian distribution steering problems with an explicit mixture-of-Gaussians example. However, the proof of the main theorem currently has load-bearing gaps: an unproved matrix identity and an unproved limit assertion. These gaps must be addressed before the central claim can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)

[Appendix C, Step 1, Eq. (71)] The proof asserts 'As a by-product of the above calculation, we get ˙Mtt0 = Stt0, but this will not be used hereafter.' This identity is not proved, yet it is needed to verify that the Gaussian ansatz (32) satisfies the PDE (33a) for all x and y: equating the quadratic terms in (71) is exactly the identity ˙Mtt0 = Stt0. Without a derivation of this identity from the definitions of Φ̂tt0, Γ̂tt0, and Π(t0,0,t), Theorem 1 is not established. Please supply a proof, for example by differentiating (30) and using the Riccati equation (25) together with the transition-matrix and Gramian identities.
[Theorem 1, Eq. (35), Remark 3] The existence, finiteness, and positivity of the limit defining the constant a is only asserted in Remark 3, with the statement that it is 'not too difficult to show'. This limit is load-bearing because it determines the prefactor of the kernel and the positivity property κ>0. Please provide a complete proof of the existence and positivity of this limit under Assumptions A1–A2. The special-case computation in Appendix D does not cover the general time-varying case.
[Appendix C, Step 2, Eqs. (76)–(77)] The interchange of limit and integral is justified by saying the integrand is bounded in x, but boundedness alone does not provide an integrable dominating function independent of t as t↓t0, so the dominated convergence theorem is not applicable as stated. Since the Gaussian integral is available in closed form via Lemma 1 for each fixed t, the evaluation in (77) can be obtained without exchanging the limit and the integral. Please either remove the DCT step and evaluate the integral first, or supply a valid uniform integrability argument.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix D, Eq. (83)] The displayed computation of θ(s) appears to have a typo: the argument of coth should be 2√Dii(s−t0) rather than √Dii(s−t0), to be consistent with the following integral and with ωi = 2√Dii in the final result.
[References] References [9] and [10] appear to be duplicate citations of the same ACC 2015 paper by Chen, Georgiou, and Pavon; please merge them.
[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract says the linear quadratic non-Gaussian Schrödinger bridge is 'exactly solvable', but the proposed dynamic Sinkhorn recursion is an iterative algorithm; this wording could be misread as a fully closed-form solution. Consider rephrasing to 'the kernel is explicit, making the dynamic Sinkhorn recursion implementable'.
[Introduction, Eq. (4) and Eq. (33a)] The operator notation changes from 'BtB⊤t ∆xκ' in the introduction to '⟨BtB⊤t, ∇²xκ⟩' in the PDE (33a); these are consistent for scalar functions, but the equivalence could be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
[Section IV-C, after Eq. (43)] Lemma 1 is referenced in the text before it is stated in Appendix A; consider adding a forward reference or moving the lemma to an earlier position.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proposed kernel is verified against the PDE and initial condition, and prior self-citations are used only as special-case benchmarks.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The ansatz (32) is not assumed to solve the PDE; it is substituted into (33a), the pre-factor is obtained from the ODE (73), and the constant a is fixed by the Dirac-delta initial condition through (75)-(82). The distance functional entering the ansatz is derived from the deterministic optimal control problem (24) via standard LQ/Riccati identities (Proposition 1 from Brockett [29]), not fitted to the PDE or to any endpoint data. The same matrix M appears in the OCP value and in the kernel, but that is a computed quantity, not an input renamed as a prediction. Prior same-author results [5], [8] appear only as motivation and as special-case recovery checks (Proposition 3, Corollary 2), and no load-bearing premise is delegated to them; the external citations (controllability, Riccati theory, Gaussian integration) are standard parameter-free results. The main caveat is not circularity: Appendix C states the identity dot M = S as an unproved by-product and Remark 3 only sketches existence of the limit defining a; these are correctness/completeness gaps in establishing Theorem 1, not reductions of the conclusion to the assumptions.

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

The central derivation rests on the controllability/PSD assumptions A1-A2, on Brockett's optimal-control equivalence, and on two internal assertions (the existence of the limit a and the identity ˙M=S) that are stated without complete proof. No free parameters are fitted, and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption A1: (Aτ,Bτ) uniformly controllable, bounded and continuous on [t0,t].
Assumed in Section IV; guarantees invertibility of controllability Gramians and existence of the Riccati solution via Remark 1.
domain assumption A2: Qτ is continuous, bounded, PSD on [t0,t], and Qs≻0 for some s.
Assumed in Section IV; ensures Π(τ,0,t)≻0 and hence Mtt0≻0 (Remark 2), needed for the Gaussian integrations.
standard math Proposition 1 (Brockett): the state-cost OCP (24) is equivalent to a minimum-energy problem for (Âτ,B̂τ), with value identity (27).
Cited from [29, p.140-141] and used in Section IV-A to derive the distance functional (29)-(30).
standard math The Riccati ODE (25) has a unique global solution Π(τ,K1,t) for K1≽0 under A1-A2.
Cited from [30, Thm. 8-10]; used in Remark 1 and throughout Section IV-A.
ad hoc to paper The limit in (35) defining the constant a exists, is finite, and is positive.
Asserted in Remark 3 with only a sketch; the kernel formula (36) depends on this limit.
ad hoc to paper The identity ˙Mtt0 = Stt0 (blockwise) used to separate the ODE for c from the quadratic terms in the PDE.
Stated as a by-product in Appendix C, Step 1, without detailed proof; needed to conclude (73).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Markov Kernels, Distances and Optimal Control: A Parable of Linear Quadratic Non-Gaussian Distribution Steering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AG5B2I2K

@misc{pith2026250415753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Markov Kernels, Distances and Optimal Control: A Parable of Linear Quadratic Non-Gaussian Distribution Steering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AG5B2I2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15753}
}

abstract

For a controllable linear time-varying (LTV) pair $(\boldsymbol{A}_t,\boldsymbol{B}_t)$ and $\boldsymbol{Q}_{t}$ positive semidefinite, we derive the Markov kernel for the It\^{o} diffusion ${\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{x}_{t}=\boldsymbol{A}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}_t {\mathrm{d}} t + \sqrt{2}\boldsymbol{B}_{t}{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{w}_{t}$ with an accompanying killing of probability mass at rate $\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{x}^{\top}\boldsymbol{Q}_{t}\boldsymbol{x}$. This Markov kernel is the Green's function for an associated linear reaction-advection-diffusion partial differential equation. Our result generalizes the recently derived kernel for the special case $\left(\boldsymbol{A}_t,\boldsymbol{B}_t\right)=\left(\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{I}\right)$, and depends on the solution of an associated Riccati matrix ODE. A consequence of this result is that the linear quadratic non-Gaussian Schr\"{o}dinger bridge is exactly solvable. This means that the problem of steering a controlled LTV diffusion from a given non-Gaussian distribution to another over a fixed deadline while minimizing an expected quadratic cost can be solved using dynamic Sinkhorn recursions performed with the derived kernel. Our derivation for the $\left(\boldsymbol{A}_t,\boldsymbol{B}_t,\boldsymbol{Q}_t\right)$-parametrized kernel pursues a new idea that relies on finding a state-time dependent distance-like functional given by the solution of a deterministic optimal control problem. This technique breaks away from existing methods, such as generalizing Hermite polynomials or Weyl calculus, which have seen limited success in the reaction-diffusion context. Our technique uncovers a new connection between Markov kernels, distances, and optimal control. This connection is of interest beyond its immediate application in solving the linear quadratic Schr\"{o}dinger bridge problem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[5]

Schr\"{o}dinger Bridge with Quadratic State Cost is Exactly Solvable

A. M. Teter, W. Wang, and A. Halder, “Schr¨ odinger bridge with quadratic state cost is exactly solvable,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00503, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[8]

Weyl calculus and exa ctly solvable Schr¨ odinger bridges with quadratic state cost,

A. M. Teter, W. Wang, and A. Halder, “Weyl calculus and exa ctly solvable Schr¨ odinger bridges with quadratic state cost,” in 2024 60th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Comput- ing. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–8

work page 2024
[1]

D. W. Stroock, Partial differential equations for probabalists . Cam- bridge University Press, 2008, no. 112. 12

work page 2008
[2]

Wasserstein proximal algori thms for the Schr¨ odinger bridge problem: Density control with nonlinear drift,

K. F. Caluya and A. Halder, “Wasserstein proximal algori thms for the Schr¨ odinger bridge problem: Density control with nonlinear drift,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1163–1178, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Stochastic contro l liaisons: Richard Sinkhorn meets Gaspard Monge on a Schrodinger bridg e,

Y . Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Stochastic contro l liaisons: Richard Sinkhorn meets Gaspard Monge on a Schrodinger bridg e,” Siam Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 249–313, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

On the contraction co efﬁcient of the Schr¨ odinger bridge for stochastic linear systems,

A. M. Teter, Y . Chen, and A. Halder, “On the contraction co efﬁcient of the Schr¨ odinger bridge for stochastic linear systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , 2023

work page 2023
[6]

W. H. Fleming and R. W. Rishel, Deterministic and stochastic optimal control. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, vol. 1

2012
[7]

L. C. Evans, Partial differential equations . American Mathematical Society, 2022, vol. 19

2022

Show all 48 references

[9]

Optimal steering of i nertial par- ticles diffusing anisotropically with losses,

Y . Chen, T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Optimal steering of i nertial par- ticles diffusing anisotropically with losses,” in 2015 American Control Conference (ACC), 2015, pp. 1252–1257

2015
[10]

Optimal steering of inertial particles diffusing anisotropically with losses,

——, “Optimal steering of inertial particles diffusing anisotropically with losses,” in 2015 American Control Conference (ACC) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1252–1257

2015
[11]

Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a ﬁnal probability distribution—part iii,

Y . Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a ﬁnal probability distribution—part iii,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 3112–3118, 2018

2018
[12]

¨Uber die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze,

E. Schr¨ odinger, “ ¨Uber die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze,” Sitzungs- berichte der Preuss Akad. Wissen. Phys. Math. Klasse, Sonde rausgabe, vol. IX, pp. 144–153, 1931

1931
[13]

Sur la th´ eorie relativiste de l’´ electron et l’in terpr´ etation de la m´ ecanique quantique,

——, “Sur la th´ eorie relativiste de l’´ electron et l’in terpr´ etation de la m´ ecanique quantique,” in Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, vol. 2, no. 4. Presses universitaires de France, 1932, pp. 269–310

1932
[14]

Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a ﬁnal probability distribution, part i,

Y . Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a ﬁnal probability distribution, part i,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1158–1169, 2015

2015
[15]

On the behavior of the fundamental so lution of the heat equation with variable coefﬁcients,

S. R. S. V aradhan, “On the behavior of the fundamental so lution of the heat equation with variable coefﬁcients,” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 431–455, 1967

1967
[16]

Diffusion processes and Riemannian g eometry,

S. A. Molchanov, “Diffusion processes and Riemannian g eometry,” Russian Mathematical Surveys , vol. 30, no. 1, p. 1, 1975

1975
[17]

The heat met hod for distance computation,

K. Crane, C. Weischedel, and M. Wardetzky, “The heat met hod for distance computation,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 90–99, 2017

2017
[18]

Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry

I. Chavel, Eigenvalues in Riemannian geometry . Academic press, 1984

1984
[19]

The heat kernel on hyperb olic space,

A. Grigor’yan and M. Noguchi, “The heat kernel on hyperb olic space,” Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society , vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 643– 650, 1998

1998
[20]

E. P . Hsu, Stochastic analysis on manifolds . American Mathematical Soc., 2002, no. 38

2002
[21]

Control theory and singular Riemannia n geometry,

R. W. Brockett, “Control theory and singular Riemannia n geometry,” in New Directions in Applied Mathematics: Papers Presented Ap ril 25/26, 1980, on the Occasion of the Case Centennial Celebration . Springer, 1982, pp. 11–27

1980
[22]

Sub-Riemannian geometry,

R. S. Strichartz, “Sub-Riemannian geometry,” Journal of Differential Geometry, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 221–263, 1986

1986
[23]

Carnot-Carath´ eodory spaces seen from wit hin,

M. Gromov, “Carnot-Carath´ eodory spaces seen from wit hin,” in Sub- Riemannian geometry. Springer, 1996, pp. 79–323

1996
[24]

E. B. Lee and L. Markus, F oundations of optimal control theory. Wiley New Y ork, 1967, vol. 87

1967
[25]

Schr¨ odinger bridges from 1931 to 199 1,

A. Wakolbinger, “Schr¨ odinger bridges from 1931 to 199 1,” in Proc. of the 4th Latin American Congress in Probability and Mathem atical Statistics, Mexico City , 1990, pp. 61–79

1931
[26]

Schr¨ odi nger processes and large deviations,

D. Dawson, L. Gorostiza, and A. Wakolbinger, “Schr¨ odi nger processes and large deviations,” Journal of mathematical physics , vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 2385–2388, 1990

1990
[27]

Stochastic derivatives and generalized h-transforms of markov processes,

C. L´ eonard, “Stochastic derivatives and generalized h-transforms of markov processes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1102.3172 , 2011

2011 arXiv
[28]

Probabilistic La mbert problem: Connections with optimal mass transport, Schr¨ odinger bri dge, and reaction-diffusion pdes,

A. M. Teter, I. Nodozi, and A. Halder, “Probabilistic La mbert problem: Connections with optimal mass transport, Schr¨ odinger bri dge, and reaction-diffusion pdes,” SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 16–43, 2025

2025
[29]

R. W. Brockett, Finite dimensional linear systems . John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2015

2015
[30]

A review of the matrix Riccati equation,

V . Kuˇ cera, “A review of the matrix Riccati equation,” Kybernetika, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 42–61, 1973

1973
[31]

On the matrix Riccati equation,

W. Porter, “On the matrix Riccati equation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 746–749, 1967

1967
[32]

On invariance of degre e of control- lability under state feedback,

N. Viswanadham and D. Atherton, “On invariance of degre e of control- lability under state feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 271–273, 1975

1975
[33]

Poles, zeros, and feedback: State space i nterpretation,

R. Brockett, “Poles, zeros, and feedback: State space i nterpretation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 129–135, 1965

1965
[34]

The partial differential equation ut + uux = µ xx,

E. Hopf, “The partial differential equation ut + uux = µ xx,” Commu- nications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 201–230, 1950

1950
[35]

On a quasi-linear parabolic equation occur ring in aerody- namics,

J. D. Cole, “On a quasi-linear parabolic equation occur ring in aerody- namics,” Quarterly of Applied Mathematics , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 225–236, 1951

1951
[36]

Entropic and displa cement interpolation: a computational approach using the Hilbert metric,

Y . Chen, T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Entropic and displa cement interpolation: a computational approach using the Hilbert metric,” SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 2375–2396, 2016

2016
[37]

An optimal transport appro ach for the Schr¨ odinger bridge problem and convergence of Sinkhorn al gorithm,

S. D. Marino and A. Gerolin, “An optimal transport appro ach for the Schr¨ odinger bridge problem and convergence of Sinkhorn al gorithm,” Journal of Scientiﬁc Computing , vol. 85, no. 2, p. 27, 2020

2020
[38]

Hilbert’s metric and positive contract ion mappings in a Banach space,

P . J. Bushell, “Hilbert’s metric and positive contract ion mappings in a Banach space,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , vol. 52, pp. 330–338, 1973

1973
[39]

Birkhoff’s version of Hilb ert’s metric and its applications in analysis,

B. Lemmens and R. Nussbaum, “Birkhoff’s version of Hilb ert’s metric and its applications in analysis,” Handbook of Hilbert Geometry , pp. 275–303, 2014

2014
[40]

Reﬂected Schr¨ odinger brid ge: Density control with path constraints,

K. F. Caluya and A. Halder, “Reﬂected Schr¨ odinger brid ge: Density control with path constraints,” in 2021 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1137–1142

2021
[41]

Øksendal, Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications

B. Øksendal, Stochastic differential equations: an introduction with applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013
[42]

Y ong and X

J. Y ong and X. Y . Zhou, Stochastic controls: Hamiltonian systems and HJB equations . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, vol. 43

2012
[43]

E. M. Stein and R. Shakarchi, Real analysis: measure theory, integration, and Hilbert spaces . Princeton University Press, 2009

2009
[44]

Zinn-Justin, Quantum ﬁeld theory and critical phenomena

J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum ﬁeld theory and critical phenomena . Oxford university press, 2021, vol. 171

2021
[45]

Zee, Quantum ﬁeld theory in a nutshell

A. Zee, Quantum ﬁeld theory in a nutshell . Princeton university press, 2010, vol. 7

2010
[46]

Phase portrait of the matrix Riccati equ ation,

M. A. Shayman, “Phase portrait of the matrix Riccati equ ation,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–65, 1986

1986
[47]

Updating the inverse of a matrix,

W. W. Hager, “Updating the inverse of a matrix,” SIAM review, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 221–239, 1989

1989
[48]

R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix analysis. Cambridge university press, 2nd ed., 2012

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [5]

Schr\"{o}dinger Bridge with Quadratic State Cost is Exactly Solvable

A. M. Teter, W. Wang, and A. Halder, “Schr¨ odinger bridge with quadratic state cost is exactly solvable,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00503, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[2] [8]

Weyl calculus and exa ctly solvable Schr¨ odinger bridges with quadratic state cost,

A. M. Teter, W. Wang, and A. Halder, “Weyl calculus and exa ctly solvable Schr¨ odinger bridges with quadratic state cost,” in 2024 60th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Comput- ing. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–8

work page 2024

[3] [1]

D. W. Stroock, Partial differential equations for probabalists . Cam- bridge University Press, 2008, no. 112. 12

work page 2008

[4] [2]

Wasserstein proximal algori thms for the Schr¨ odinger bridge problem: Density control with nonlinear drift,

K. F. Caluya and A. Halder, “Wasserstein proximal algori thms for the Schr¨ odinger bridge problem: Density control with nonlinear drift,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 1163–1178, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [3]

Stochastic contro l liaisons: Richard Sinkhorn meets Gaspard Monge on a Schrodinger bridg e,

Y . Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon, “Stochastic contro l liaisons: Richard Sinkhorn meets Gaspard Monge on a Schrodinger bridg e,” Siam Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 249–313, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [4]

On the contraction co efﬁcient of the Schr¨ odinger bridge for stochastic linear systems,

A. M. Teter, Y . Chen, and A. Halder, “On the contraction co efﬁcient of the Schr¨ odinger bridge for stochastic linear systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , 2023

work page 2023

[7] [6]

W. H. Fleming and R. W. Rishel, Deterministic and stochastic optimal control. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012, vol. 1

2012

[8] [7]

L. C. Evans, Partial differential equations . American Mathematical Society, 2022, vol. 19

2022