Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Finite-Sample-Based Reachability for Safe Control with Gaussian Process Dynamics

T0 review · 4 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 establishes that a finite number of GP-posterior dynamics samples suffices to build a provably safe, non-conservative reachable set, and that the resulting MPC is recursively feasible with high probability.

desk verdict Solid new finite-sample GP-MPC paper with a clever recursive-feasibility mechanism, but Theorem 1 as stated is vacuous for SE/Matérn kernels over R^n until moved to a compact domain. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07594 v1 pith:CTEE5WIV submitted 2025-05-12 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SYmath.OC

Manish Prajapat , Johannes Köhler , Amon Lahr , Andreas Krause , Melanie N. Zeilinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SYmath.OC
keywords Gaussianprocessesmodelpredictivecontrolreachablesetssamplecomplexitysmallballprobabilitysafeuncertaintypropagationlearning-based
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

Model predictive control with Gaussian-process models currently faces a trade-off: approximation-based methods are tractable but lack safety guarantees, while worst-case robust methods are safe but overly conservative. This paper claims to resolve the trade-off by sampling a finite number of dynamics functions from the GP posterior: for any tolerance $\epsilon>0$ and confidence $1-\delta$, there is a finite sample count $N$ such that, with probability at least $1-\delta$, one sampled function is uniformly $\epsilon$-close to the unknown dynamics. With that sample in hand, the paper builds a reachable set that contains the true trajectory with high probability and designs a sampling-based MPC that is recursively feasible and satisfies state and input constraints with the same probability. The payoff is a safety certificate for nonlinear control that is neither heuristic nor hopelessly conservative.

What carries the argument

Three components carry the argument. The first is the small-ball probability of the prior GP, $\Pr(\|g\|_\infty < \epsilon) = e^{-\phi(\epsilon)}$, which measures how often a random draw lands inside an $\epsilon$-ball around the mean; known bounds for squared-exponential and Matérn kernels control $\phi(\epsilon)$. The second is a measure-shift lemma: shifting a centered GP by an RKHS function $h$ lowers the probability of any symmetric ball by no more than a factor $e^{-\|h\|_k^2/2}$, so the paper converts small-ball probabilities around the posterior mean into probabilities around the unknown $g^*$, using $C_D$ from Lemma 2 to bound $\|g^* - \mu\|_{k_D}/2$. The third is the reachable-set construction: trajectories simulated from the $N$ sampled dynamics are inflated by balls of radius roughly $\epsilon L^k$ (with $L$ the dynamics' Lipschitz constant), and a filtering rule $N_{k+1} = \{n : \|x^i_{n|k+1} - x^{i+1}_{n|k}\| \le c_i\}$ removes samples falsified by the closed-loop data; retaining the $\epsilon$-close sample is what makes recursive feasibility and the probability-$1-\delta$ safety guarantee go through.

What would settle it

Take a known target $g^*$ inside the kernel's RKHS with $\|g^*\|_k \le B_g$, compute $C_D$ exactly, estimate $\phi(\epsilon)$ by Monte Carlo, and repeatedly draw $N$ samples as in Eq. (7). If the empirical frequency with which at least one draw satisfies $\|g_n - g^*\|_\infty < \epsilon$ falls below $1-\delta$ consistently, the bound in Theorem 1 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a finite-sample coverage guarantee for GP dynamics models. Under the assumption that the unknown function $g^*$ belongs to the RKHS of the chosen kernel with known norm bound $B_g$, Theorem 1 states that drawing $N \ge \log(\delta/2) / \log(1 - e^{-(C_D + \phi(\epsilon))})$ independent functions from the GP posterior ensures that, with probability at least $1-\delta$, at least one sample $g_n$ satisfies $\|g_n - g^*\|_\infty < \epsilon$, where $C_D$ is a data-dependent constant and $\phi(\epsilon)$ is the prior's small-ball exponent. The paper then propagates only the residual $\epsilon$-epistemic uncertainty and bounded aleatoric noise through a Lipschitz tube to obtain a reachable set containing the true trajectory with probability $1-\delta$ (Theorem 2). Building on this, the sampling-based GP-MPC optimizes over all sampled dynamics jointly, removes dynamics samples that are falsified by observed transitions, and thereby achieves recursive feasibility, closed-loop constraint satisfaction with probability $1-\delta$ (Theorem 3), and practical asymptotic stability (Theorem 4).

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee hinges on the unknown dynamics actually belonging to the function space associated with the chosen kernel and having a known, usable size bound there; if that bound is wrong, too loose, or unavailable, the required sample count becomes meaningless or the claimed $1-\delta$ safety no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can precompute a concrete sample budget $N$ from $\epsilon$, $\delta$, the kernel, and the data, so the safety guarantee does not rely on asymptotic arguments or post-hoc scenario validation.
  • Recursive feasibility means the probability-$1-\delta$ constraint satisfaction holds at every closed-loop time step, not just for a single finite-horizon prediction.
  • Only the residual uncertainty (the tolerance $\epsilon$ plus process noise) is propagated through the Lipschitz constant, so the reachable set avoids the exponential blow-up that sequential worst-case propagation produces in the robust GP-MPC baseline.
  • As $\epsilon \to 0$, the sample count grows like $(1/\epsilon)^{C(\log(1/\epsilon))^d}$ for squared-exponential kernels and like $e^{C(1/\epsilon)^{d/\nu}}$ for Matérn kernels, which tells a practitioner how much additional computation buys a given improvement in tightness.
  • With positive definite costs, the closed loop is practically asymptotically stable: trajectories converge to a residual ball whose radius shrinks to zero as the process noise and $\epsilon$ vanish jointly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is an adaptive stopping rule: sample dynamics sequentially and keep only those consistent with the observed transition tube; the required number of samples would then be data-dependent and potentially far smaller than the a priori $N$ of Eq. (7), though the probability argument would need a stopping-time correction.
  • The falsified-sample filtering rule is a generic recursive-feasibility mechanism for sampling-based MPC, so the same idea could be applied to ensemble or particle representations of uncertainty in finite-dimensional settings where scenario approaches currently give only a-posteriori guarantees.
  • The residual tube's radius grows like $L^k$, so for unstable dynamics ($L>1$) long horizons still incur exponential growth; pairing the samples with a local feedback law or a contraction metric, as the paper sketches in Remark 2, is likely to be necessary in practice, and the quantitative trade-off between feedback gain and sample count is not analyzed.
  • If the chosen kernel is misspecified and the true dynamics lies outside its RKHS, the entire $1-\delta$ statement has no formal footing; a robustness margin on $B_g$ or a data-driven kernel selection step would be needed before the method could be deployed where the regularity assumption is doubtful.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a finite-sample reachability and MPC framework for discrete-time nonlinear systems whose dynamics contain an unknown component g* modeled with Gaussian process regression. Theorem 1 gives a sample complexity bound N (Eq. (7)) such that, with probability at least 1-delta, at least one of N independent draws from the GP posterior is uniformly epsilon-close to g* in the sup norm; the proof combines a Cameron-Martin shift bound (Lemma 1) with a data-dependent constant C_D (Lemma 2) and a small-ball exponent phi(epsilon) (Definition 1). Theorem 2 extends this to a sampling-based reachable set that contains the true trajectory with high probability by propagating the residual epsilon-epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty with Lipschitz tubes. Building on this, the proposed sampling-based GP-MPC (Problem (16), Algorithm 1) is shown to be recursively feasible by removing falsified samples (Corollary 2, Theorem 3), and to yield an average-cost bound and practical asymptotic stability (Theorem 4). Two numerical examples illustrate the approach on a car lane-change maneuver and a pendulum stabilization task.

Significance. If the results are made fully correct, this is a valuable contribution to learning-based MPC. The core idea of treating epistemic uncertainty by sampling candidate dynamics and then retaining only those consistent with the observed trajectory is a natural way to avoid the conservatism of sequential robust propagation, and the recursive-feasibility mechanism for sampling-based MPC is of independent interest. The derivation is largely self-contained: the sample-complexity proof uses established small-ball, RKHS, and Cameron-Martin results, and the paper provides reproducible open-source code. The claimed finite-sample guarantees, if valid, would improve on scenario approaches that require the ground truth and the samples to share the same distribution. However, the current statement of Theorem 1 is not valid on the domain used in the paper, and the numerical implementation does not use the certified constants appearing in the theorem; these issues must be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (Notation) and Definition 1 / Theorem 1] The paper defines the Banach space B as functions g: R^n -> R with sup norm over the whole of R^n, and Definition 1 defines the small-ball exponent through Pr(||g||_infinity < epsilon) for g ~ GP(0,k). For the stationary squared-exponential and Matérn kernels used in the paper, a zero-mean Gaussian process on R^n has sample paths that are unbounded almost surely, so Pr(||g||_infinity < epsilon) = 0 for every epsilon > 0. Consequently phi(epsilon) = infinity, and Eq. (7) gives no finite N. This makes Theorem 1, and therefore Theorems 2-4 which invoke it, vacuous on the stated domain. The cited small-ball bounds in [40] are for compact domains, and the numerical examples indeed evaluate on compact grids, so the natural repair is to state all sup-norm statements over a compact set Z, e.g., X x U or a bounded superset of the reachable set, and to adapt Definition 1, Eq. (8), and Corollary 1 accordingly. This is a load-bearing correctness gap in the main claim, although it appears fixable without changing the proof structure.
  2. [Section 5.2, Eq. (19) and Lemma 3] The definition of c_i in Eq. (19) is inconsistent with the proof of Lemma 3. In the proof, the one-step bound (20) gives ||x^n_{0|k+1} - x^n_{1|k}|| <= epsilon, and the recursion then yields c_i = L^i epsilon + 2||B_d||epsilon * sum_{j=0}^{i-1} L^j, where L^i is the i-th power of the Lipschitz constant. As printed, however, Eq. (19) uses the cumulative constant L_i defined before Theorem 2, which gives c_0 = 0 and would therefore remove the epsilon-close sample in the update rule (17), breaking Corollary 2 and Theorem 3. Please correct Eq. (19) and the surrounding notation so that the exponentiation is unambiguous and c_0 equals the correct one-step deviation bound.
  3. [Section 6.1 (Implementation details) and Corollary 1] The simulations do not use the certified small-ball exponent phi(epsilon) that appears in Theorem 1 and Corollary 1. Instead, the paper states that phi(epsilon) is 'empirically estimated' by evaluating how many GP posterior samples fall within an epsilon ball around the mean. Consequently, the numbers N reported in Figures 2-4 do not inherit the 1-delta guarantee of Theorem 1, and the sample-complexity rates in Corollary 1 are not what is actually used in the experiments. The authors should either compute phi(epsilon) via the certified upper bounds for the SE kernel on a compact domain, or explicitly present the numerical study as illustrative and not as a certified implementation of the theoretical guarantee.
  4. [Section 6.3 (Pendulum example) and Assumptions 4/6] The terminal ingredients are validated only on 100 newly sampled dynamics drawn around the upright position, while Assumptions 4 and 6 require the terminal set and terminal cost to satisfy invariance and the decrease condition for all n in N_0, i.e., for the N = 70 samples actually used in Problem (16). A common Lyapunov function found from 100 independent samples does not certify the property for the specific finite set N_0 used in the MPC. This is a gap between the theoretical assumptions and the numerical validation; please either verify Assumptions 4 and 6 on the actual sample set or state the weaker claim that the terminal ingredients are heuristically designed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 1] The statement of Lemma 1 omits the square in the exponent: it should read e^{-(1/2)||h||_k^2}, since the proof and the subsequent use in Eq. (8) rely on the squared RKHS norm.
  2. [Section 4, Theorem 2] The symbol epsilon is used both for the tolerance in Theorem 1 and for the tube radius epsilon := ||B_d||(epsilon + wbar). This overloaded notation is confusing when epsilon_k is defined as epsilon L_k; please use distinct symbols for the tolerance and the radius of the uncertainty ball.
  3. [Theorem 1, proof around Eq. (9)] The proof switches between the strict inequality ||g_n - g*||_infinity < epsilon in Eq. (8) and the non-strict inequality <= epsilon in Eq. (9). This is harmless but should be made consistent.
  4. [Appendix A, Lemma 4] The formula for sqrt(beta_D) in Lemma 4 is missing a parenthesis around the log-determinant term; the intended expression is sqrt(beta_D) = B_g + sqrt(log det(I + lambda^{-2} K_D) + 2 log(2/delta)). Please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sample-complexity and reachability theorems reduce only to external small-ball, Cameron-Martin, and GP confidence results, not to their own conclusions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1 (Eq. (7)) combines Definition 1's small-ball exponent φ(ε) (external [40]) with the Cameron-Martin shift lower bound (Lemma 1, [45]), the posterior-vs-prior small-ball comparison (Lemma 5, [61]), and the data-dependent C_D bound (Lemma 2, built on GP confidence intervals [7] and the RKHS norm identity [8]). Each ingredient is stated with assumptions (RKHS regularity, Assumption 1) that do not include the target conclusion, so the finite-N guarantee is a genuine composition rather than a restatement. Theorems 2–4 then propagate this 1−δ guarantee through Lipschitz tube arguments and a standard recursive-feasibility candidate solution; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The in-house citations ([12] for Assumption 1, [35] for the SQP solver, [41,49] for optional noise/reachability tools) are auxiliary: Assumption 1 is a standard RKHS regularity condition, and [35] is used only to solve the numerical MPC, not to prove the sample-complexity or safety theorems. Two caveats are worth stating but are not circularity: (i) Section 6.1/6.3 empirically estimates φ(ε) ('we empirically estimate small ball probability φ(ε) by evaluating the number of samples that fall within an ε ball around the mean'), so the simulation's N does not literally inherit the certified 1−δ guarantee; and (ii) the sup-norm in Definition 1 is over R^n, which can make φ(ε)=∞ for stationary kernels, potentially vacating Theorem 1 on that domain. Both are correctness/implementation concerns, not reductions of the derivation to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard GP confidence bounds and small-ball probability results, plus four domain assumptions (RKHS norm bound, Lipschitz dynamics, bounded noise, robust positive invariant terminal set). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • small ball exponent phi(epsilon) in simulations = empirically estimated from posterior samples (not certified)
    Section 6.1 estimates phi(epsilon) empirically to compute N, whereas Theorem 1 requires a certified upper bound. Using the empirical value can lead to an underestimated N and loss of the 1-delta guarantee.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: g* is in the RKHS H_k with known norm bound B_g.
    Section 2; used in Lemma 2 and Theorem 1 to bound the shift g* - mu.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: true dynamics f* is L-Lipschitz in x.
    Section 4; used for tube propagation in Theorem 2 and Lemma 3.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: process noise is bounded by w_bar.
    Section 4; needed for a bounded reachable set.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: terminal set X_f is robust positive invariant for all sampled dynamics.
    Section 5.3; required for recursive feasibility.
  • domain assumption Assumptions 5 and 6: stage and terminal costs are Lipschitz, and terminal cost decreases sufficiently.
    Section 5.4; used for stability and cost decrease.
  • standard math Lemma 1 (Cameron-Martin shift inequality) from [45].
    Used in Theorem 1 to shift the small ball probability by g* - mu.
  • standard math Lemma 5 (Anderson inequality) from [61].
    Used to lower-bound the posterior small ball probability by the prior one.
  • standard math Small ball probability upper bounds for SE and Matern kernels from [40].
    Used in Corollary 1 for sample complexity rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-Sample-Based Reachability for Safe Control with Gaussian Process Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CTEE5WIV

@misc{pith2026250507594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-Sample-Based Reachability for Safe Control with Gaussian Process Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CTEE5WIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07594}
}
read the original abstract

Gaussian Process (GP) regression is shown to be effective for learning unknown dynamics, enabling efficient and safety-aware control strategies across diverse applications. However, existing GP-based model predictive control (GP-MPC) methods either rely on approximations, thus lacking guarantees, or are overly conservative, which limits their practical utility. To close this gap, we present a sampling-based framework that efficiently propagates the model's epistemic uncertainty while avoiding conservatism. We establish a novel sample complexity result that enables the construction of a reachable set using a finite number of dynamics functions sampled from the GP posterior. Building on this, we design a sampling-based GP-MPC scheme that is recursively feasible and guarantees closed-loop safety and stability with high probability. Finally, we showcase the effectiveness of our method on two numerical examples, highlighting accurate reachable set over-approximation and safe closed-loop performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the proposed sampling-based reach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of uncertainty propagation for a given input sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of sample complexity rate for the car [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optimal airfoils in the intermediate Reynolds number range

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Zero-thickness cambered airfoils are globally optimal within the Joukowski family for glide ratio and endurance factor across Re 1-3000, with optimal camber peaking near Re 40-50 and sensitivity to shape increasing with Re.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [40]

    Information rates of nonparametric gaussian process methods

    Aad Van Der Vaart and Harry Van Zanten. Information rates of nonparametric gaussian process methods. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 12(6), 2011

    2011

  2. [35]

    Zeilinger

    Manish Prajapat, Amon Lahr, Johannes K¨ ohler, Andreas Krause, and Melanie N. Zeilinger. Towards safe and tractable gaussian process-based mpc: Efficient sampling within a sequential quadratic programming framework. In Proc. IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 7458–7465, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [22]

    Learning-Based Model Predictive Control for Safe Exploration

    Torsten Koller, Felix Berkenkamp, Matteo Turchetta, and Andreas Krause. Learning-Based Model Predictive Control for Safe Exploration. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [1]

    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning . Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [2]

    Near-optimal multi-agent learning for safe coverage control

    Manish Prajapat, Matteo Turchetta, Melanie Zeilinger, and Andreas Krause. Near-optimal multi-agent learning for safe coverage control. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:14998–15012, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [3]

    Bayesian time series learning with Gaussian processes

    Roger Frigola-Alcalde. Bayesian time series learning with Gaussian processes . University of Cambridge (United Kingdom), 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [4]

    Performance- driven constrained optimal auto-tuner for MPC

    Albert Gassol Puigjaner, Manish Prajapat, Andrea Carron, Andreas Krause, and Melanie N Zeilinger. Performance- driven constrained optimal auto-tuner for MPC. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [5]

    Using model knowledge for learning inverse dynamics

    Duy Nguyen-Tuong and Jan Peters. Using model knowledge for learning inverse dynamics. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 2677–2682, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 61 references
  1. [6]

    Gaussian process regression for materials and molecules

    Volker L Deringer, Albert P Bart´ ok, Noam Bernstein, David M Wilkins, Michele Ceriotti, and G´ abor Cs´ anyi. Gaussian process regression for materials and molecules. Chemical Reviews, 121(16):10073–10141, 2021

    2021

  2. [7]

    Online learning for linearly parametrized control problems

    Yasin Abbasi-Yadkori. Online learning for linearly parametrized control problems . PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 2013

    2013

  3. [8]

    Information-theoretic regret bounds for gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting

    Niranjan Srinivas, Andreas Krause, Sham M Kakade, and Matthias W Seeger. Information-theoretic regret bounds for gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting. IEEE transactions on information theory , 58(5):3250–3265, 2012

    2012

  4. [9]

    A tutorial on bayesian optimization

    Peter I Frazier. A tutorial on bayesian optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02811, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Submodular reinforcement learning

    Manish Prajapat, Mojmir Mutny, Melanie Zeilinger, and Andreas Krause. Submodular reinforcement learning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  6. [11]

    Uniform error bounds for gaussian process regression with application to safe control

    Armin Lederer, Jonas Umlauft, and Sandra Hirche. Uniform error bounds for gaussian process regression with application to safe control. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  7. [12]

    Safe guaranteed exploration for non-linear systems

    Manish Prajapat, Johannes K¨ ohler, Matteo Turchetta, Andreas Krause, and Melanie N Zeilinger. Safe guaranteed exploration for non-linear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  8. [13]

    Ostafew, Angela P

    Chris J. Ostafew, Angela P. Schoellig, and Timothy D. Barfoot. Robust Constrained Learning-based NMPC enabling reliable mobile robot path tracking. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 35(13), 2016

    2016

  9. [14]

    Lai, and Fakhrul Alam

    Gang Cao, Edmund M.-K. Lai, and Fakhrul Alam. Gaussian Process Model Predictive Control of an Unmanned Quadrotor. J Intell Robot Syst , 88(1), 2017

    2017

  10. [15]

    Zeilinger

    Lukas Hewing, Juraj Kabzan, and Melanie N. Zeilinger. Cautious Model Predictive Control Using Gaussian Process Regression. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol , 28(6), 2020

    2020

  11. [16]

    Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control

    Anna Scampicchio, Elena Arcari, Amon Lahr, and Melanie N Zeilinger. Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02310 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Friction- Adaptive Stochastic Predictive Control for Trajectory Tracking of Autonomous Vehicles

    Sean Vaskov, Rien Quirynen, Marcel Menner, et al. Friction- Adaptive Stochastic Predictive Control for Trajectory Tracking of Autonomous Vehicles. InProc. American Control Conference (ACC), 2022

    2022

  13. [18]

    Girard, J

    Joaquin Quinonero-Candela, A. Girard, J. Larsen, and C.E. Rasmussen. Propagation of uncertainty in Bayesian kernel models - application to multiple-step ahead forecasting. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings. (I...

    2003

  14. [19]

    Marruedo, T

    D.L. Marruedo, T. Alamo, and E.F. Camacho. Input-to-state stable mpc for constrained discrete-time nonlinear systems with bounded additive uncertainties. In Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002. , volume 4, pages 4619–4624 vol.4, 2002

    2002

  15. [20]

    Robust adaptive MPC using control contraction metrics

    Andr´ as Sasfi, Melanie N Zeilinger, and Johannes K¨ ohler. Robust adaptive MPC using control contraction metrics. Automatica, 155:111169, 2023

    2023

  16. [21]

    Villanueva

    Boris Houska and Mario E. Villanueva. Robust Optimization for MPC , pages 413–443. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019

    2019

  17. [23]

    Robust multi-stage nonlinear model predictive control

    Sergio Lucia. Robust multi-stage nonlinear model predictive control. Shaker Dortmund, 2015

    2015

  18. [24]

    The scenario approach to robust control design

    Giuseppe Carlo Calafiore and Marco C Campi. The scenario approach to robust control design. IEEE Transactions on automatic control, 51(5):742–753, 2006

    2006

  19. [25]

    A simple and efficient sampling-based algorithm for general reachability analysis

    Thomas Lew, Lucas Janson, Riccardo Bonalli, and Marco Pavone. A simple and efficient sampling-based algorithm for general reachability analysis. In Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, pages 1086–1099. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  20. [26]

    Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control

    Grady Williams, Paul Drews, Brian Goldfain, James M Rehg, and Evangelos A Theodorou. Aggressive driving with model predictive path integral control. In 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 1433–

    2016

  21. [27]

    Bonzanini, Joel A

    Angelo D. Bonzanini, Joel A. Paulson, Georgios Makrygiorgos, and Ali Mesbah. Fast approximate learning- based multistage nonlinear model predictive control using Gaussian processes and deep neural networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 145, 2021

    2021

  22. [28]

    Sampling-based reachability analysis: A random set theory approach with adversarial sampling

    Thomas Lew and Marco Pavone. Sampling-based reachability analysis: A random set theory approach with adversarial sampling. In Conference on robot learning, pages 2055–2070. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  23. [29]

    Formal verification and control with conformal prediction

    Lars Lindemann, Yiqi Zhao, Xinyi Yu, George J Pappas, and Jyotirmoy V Deshmukh. Formal verification and control with conformal prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00536, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Estimating reachable sets with scenario optimization

    Alex Devonport and Murat Arcak. Estimating reachable sets with scenario optimization. In Learning for dynamics and control, pages 75–84. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  25. [31]

    Scenario-based Optimal Control for Gaussian Process State Space Models

    Jonas Umlauft, Thomas Beckers, and Sandra Hirche. Scenario-based Optimal Control for Gaussian Process State Space Models. In Proc. European Control Conference (ECC), 2018

    2018

  26. [32]

    Campi, Simone Garatti, and Maria Prandini

    Marco C. Campi, Simone Garatti, and Maria Prandini. Scenario Optimization for MPC , pages 445–463. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019

    2019

  27. [33]

    The risk of making decisions from data through the lens of the scenario approach

    Simone Garatti and Marco C Campi. The risk of making decisions from data through the lens of the scenario approach. IF AC-PapersOnLine, 54(7):607–612, 2021

    2021

  28. [34]

    Learning-based optimal control with performance guarantees for unknown systems with latent states

    Robert Lefringhausen, Supitsana Srithasan, Armin Lederer, and Sandra Hirche. Learning-based optimal control with performance guarantees for unknown systems with latent states. In Proc. European Control Conference (ECC) , pages 90–97. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  29. [36]

    On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples

    William R Thompson. On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika, 25(3/4):285–294, 1933

    1933

  30. [37]

    Scalable thompson sampling using sparse gaussian process models

    Sattar Vakili, Henry Moss, Artem Artemev, Vincent Dutordoir, and Victor Picheny. Scalable thompson sampling using sparse gaussian process models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 34:5631–5643, 2021

    2021

  31. [38]

    Li and Q.-M

    W.V. Li and Q.-M. Shao. Gaussian processes: Inequalities, small ball probabilities and applications. In Stochastic Processes: Theory and Methods , volume 19 of Handbook of Statistics, pages 533–597. Elsevier, 2001

    2001

  32. [39]

    Some small ball probabilities for gaussian processes under nonuniform norms

    Wolfgang Stolz. Some small ball probabilities for gaussian processes under nonuniform norms. Journal of Theoretical Probability, 9:613–630, 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    Stochastic model predictive control for sub-gaussian noise

    Yunke Ao, Johannes K¨ ohler, Manish Prajapat, Yarden As, Melanie Zeilinger, Philipp F¨ urnstahl, and Andreas Krause. Stochastic model predictive control for sub-gaussian noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08795 , 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Gaussian processes and kernel methods: A review on connections and equivalences

    Motonobu Kanagawa, Philipp Hennig, Dino Sejdinovic, and Bharath K Sriperumbudur. Gaussian processes and kernel methods: A review on connections and equivalences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02582, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Approximation, metric entropy and small ball estimates for gaussian measures

    Wenbo V Li and Werner Linde. Approximation, metric entropy and small ball estimates for gaussian measures. The Annals of Probability , 27(3):1556–1578, 1999

    1999

  36. [44]

    Metric entropy and the small ball problem for gaussian measures

    James Kuelbs and Wenbo V Li. Metric entropy and the small ball problem for gaussian measures. Journal of Functional Analysis, 116(1):133–157, 1993

    1993

  37. [45]

    Reproducing kernel hilbert spaces of gaussian priors

    Aad W van der Vaart, J Harry van Zanten, et al. Reproducing kernel hilbert spaces of gaussian priors. IMS Collections , 3:200–222, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    Lipschitz and h \” older continuity in reproducing kernel hilbert spaces

    Christian Fiedler. Lipschitz and h \” older continuity in reproducing kernel hilbert spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18078, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Reachability analysis of nonlinear systems with uncertain parameters using conservative linearization

    Matthias Althoff, Olaf Stursberg, and Martin Buss. Reachability analysis of nonlinear systems with uncertain parameters using conservative linearization. In Proc. 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pages 4042–4048, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    Robust mpc of constrained nonlinear systems based on interval arithmetic

    D Limon, JM Bravo, T Alamo, and EF Camacho. Robust mpc of constrained nonlinear systems based on interval arithmetic. IEE Proceedings-Control Theory and Applications, 152(3):325–332, 2005

    2005

  41. [49]

    Predictive control for nonlinear stochastic systems: Closed-loop guarantees with unbounded noise

    Johannes K¨ ohler and Melanie N Zeilinger. Predictive control for nonlinear stochastic systems: Closed-loop guarantees with unbounded noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13257 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Safety verification of nonlinear stochastic systems via probabilistic tube

    Zishun Liu, Saber Jafarpour, and Yongxin Chen. Safety verification of nonlinear stochastic systems via probabilistic tube. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03328 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mayne, and Moritz Diehl

    James Blake Rawlings, David Q. Mayne, and Moritz Diehl. Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation and Design . Nob Hill Publishing, LLC, Santa Barbara, 2nd edition edition, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    Sample path regularity of gaussian processes from the covariance kernel

    Natha¨ el Da Costa, Marvin Pf¨ ortner, Lancelot Da Costa, and Philipp Hennig. Sample path regularity of gaussian processes from the covariance kernel. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14886, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Multi- stage nonlinear model predictive control applied to a semi- batch polymerization reactor under uncertainty

    Sergio Lucia, Tiago Finkler, and Sebastian Engell. Multi- stage nonlinear model predictive control applied to a semi- batch polymerization reactor under uncertainty. Journal of Process Control, 23(9), 2013

    2013

  46. [54]

    Rawlings, and David Angeli

    Rishi Amrit, James B. Rawlings, and David Angeli. Economic optimization using model predictive control with a terminal cost. Annual Reviews in Control , 35(2):178–186, December 2011

    2011

  47. [55]

    Economic nonlinear model predictive control

    Timm Faulwasser, Lars Gr¨ une, Matthias A M¨ uller, et al. Economic nonlinear model predictive control. Foundations and Trends® in Systems and Control , 5(1):1–98, 2018

    2018

  48. [56]

    Acados—a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control

    Robin Verschueren, Gianluca Frison, Dimitris Kouzoupis, Jonathan Frey, Niels van Duijkeren, Andrea Zanelli, Branimir Novoselnik, Thivaharan Albin, Rien Quirynen, and Moritz Diehl. Acados—a modular open-source framework for fast embedded optimal control. Math. Prog. Comp. , 14(1), 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Joel A. E. Andersson, Joris Gillis, Greg Horn, James B. Rawlings, and Moritz Diehl. CasADi: A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control. Math. Prog. Comp., 11(1), 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    GPyTorch: Blackbox Matrix- Matrix Gaussian Process Inference with GPU Acceleration

    Jacob Gardner, Geoff Pleiss, Kilian Q Weinberger, David Bindel, and Andrew G Wilson. GPyTorch: Blackbox Matrix- Matrix Gaussian Process Inference with GPU Acceleration. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    A nonlinear model predictive control framework using reference generic terminal ingredients

    Johannes K¨ ohler, Matthias A M¨ uller, and Frank Allg¨ ower. A nonlinear model predictive control framework using reference generic terminal ingredients. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 65(8):3576–3583, 2019

    2019

  52. [60]

    Test track for a severe lane-change manoeuvre–part 2: Obstacle avoidance

    Passenger Cars. Test track for a severe lane-change manoeuvre–part 2: Obstacle avoidance. ISO 3888-2:2011

    2011

  53. [61]

    The integral of a symmetric unimodal function over a symmetric convex set and some probability inequalities

    Theodore W Anderson. The integral of a symmetric unimodal function over a symmetric convex set and some probability inequalities. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 6(2):170–176, 1955. A Sample complexity proofs The following lemma provides high probability erro...

    1955

Pith tools

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