Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 81 references

A Model Predictive Control-Inspired Quantum Algorithm

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A model-predictive-control algorithm for quantum circuits is guaranteed to match feedback-based methods and can beat them in practice.

desk verdict Clean control-to-algorithms transfer with a real (if narrow) guarantee and honest small-n gains; the proof does not cover the only scalable implementation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24992 v1 pith:IYG4VEER submitted 2026-07-27 quant-ph

Dominic Messina , Alicia B. Magann , Mohan Sarovar , Helen Durand This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords modelpredictivecontrolquantumcomputingvariationalalgorithmsfeedback-basedgroundstatepreparationcombinatorialoptimizationPaulipropagationhybridquantum-classical
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 introduces a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm that designs parameterized quantum circuits the way industrial controllers plan: it repeatedly optimizes gate parameters over a short future horizon using a classical model of the quantum dynamics, applies only the first step, then measures and re-plans. The method unifies the classical optimization of variational quantum algorithms with the layer-by-layer feedback of algorithms such as FALQON. With a terminal constraint that forces the predicted end-of-horizon state to equal FALQON’s state, plus a cumulative cost and a shrinking horizon, the closed-loop sum of the problem energy over any fixed number of layers is proven never worse than FALQON’s. Without that constraint, simulations on Max-Cut graphs and a two-dimensional transverse-field Ising model show that a simple terminal-cost version can reach lower energies in fewer layers. The design is presented as a natural place to couple quantum processors with high-performance classical simulation for the predictive model.

What carries the argument

The terminal-constraint MPC problem (forcing the predicted state at the end of the horizon to equal the FALQON state) together with the cumulative-cost objective and a shrinking horizon; Theorem 1 proves that the closed-loop sum of problem-Hamiltonian expectation values is then at most the corresponding FALQON sum.

What would settle it

On matched Max-Cut or TFIM instances, run terminal-constraint MPC (perfect or truncated Pauli-propagation model) and FALQON for the same layer count and step size; if MPC’s cumulative energy sum exceeds FALQON’s, the guarantee fails. Separately, if unconstrained terminal-cost MPC never reaches lower energy in fewer layers across a broad suite, the practical-improvement claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A receding-horizon, model-based optimization of circuit parameters—model predictive control applied layer by layer—can be guaranteed to at least match the performance of the feedback-based algorithm FALQON, and relaxed versions of the same strategy can improve on FALQON for ground-state preparation and approximate combinatorial optimization.

Load-bearing premise

The classical predictive model of the quantum circuit must stay accurate enough over the chosen horizon that the first optimized gate still improves the real quantum state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Circuit design can be tuned continuously between pure feedback (FALQON) and full-horizon variational optimization (QAOA) by choice of horizon length and constraints.
  • High-performance classical computing becomes a direct performance lever for near-term quantum algorithms via longer or more accurate prediction horizons.
  • Reduced-order models based on Pauli propagation and classical shadows can keep the classical optimization tractable while still yielding usable gate parameters.
  • The same receding-horizon framework applies to any parameterized ansatz, not only the alternating problem/driver layer structure used here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The productive energy fluctuations under terminal-cost MPC suggest a general way short-horizon planners can escape the monotonic but myopic trajectories of pure Lyapunov feedback.
  • Whether the method scales past roughly ten qubits hinges on truncation error in Pauli propagation growing slower than the benefit of longer horizons—an empirical question left open.
  • The same measurement-plus-forecast loop may transfer to other hybrid settings such as quantum optimal control or adaptive error mitigation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The manuscript introduces a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm that applies model predictive control (MPC) ideas to the layer-wise construction of parameterized quantum circuits, unifying the optimization-based design of VQAs with the feedback-based design of FQAs (specifically FALQON). At each layer, a classically simulated model predicts the state evolution over a horizon of N future layers, an optimizer selects gate parameters minimizing a terminal or cumulative cost in ⟨Hp⟩, and only the first parameter is implemented. The main theoretical result (Theorem 1, Appendix A) adapts a known economic-MPC performance argument to show that a terminal-constraint, cumulative-cost variant with a shrinking horizon achieves a cumulative ⟨Hp⟩ sum no worse than FALQON's, under a perfect model. To make the prediction step tractable, Section IV proposes a reduced-order model based on truncated Pauli propagation plus classical shadows. Numerical demonstrations on Max-Cut (4–8 nodes) and a 4×2 TFIM show that relaxed (unconstrained) terminal-cost MPC reaches lower ⟨Hp⟩ in fewer layers than FALQON, explore the (N, Δt) hyperparameter landscape, and test truncation strategies, finding that weight-based truncation fails on the TFIM while coefficient-based truncation at 10⁻⁶ remains close to exact simulation.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution at the interface of control theory and quantum algorithm design: it gives a clean, non-circular performance guarantee (Theorem 1) derived from feasibility of the FALQON trajectory rather than fitted to the claim, and it demonstrates on explicit Hamiltonians that the relaxed variant can outperform an independent FALQON baseline. The honest treatment of truncation failure modes (Fig. 9) and the fluctuation analysis (Appendix D, Figs. 12–13) are genuinely informative. The work also articulates a concrete use case for HPC–quantum integration. The main limitation on significance is scope: the guarantee attaches only to a variant whose terminal constraint requires exact classical simulation of FALQON (2ⁿ cost), and all numerical evidence is at n ≤ 8 with empirically chosen truncation thresholds, so the practical impact at scale remains to be established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-B, Eq. (12d); Abstract] The headline claim that the algorithm 'can be guaranteed to at least match the performance of FQAs' needs a scope qualification that is currently missing from the abstract. Theorem 1 applies only to the terminal-constraint variant, and the constraint of Eq. (12d) requires the exact FALQON state |ϕ_{k+N−1}⟩ and the FALQON feedback values ν_i as targets — i.e., exact classical simulation of FALQON at 2^n cost. The guaranteed variant is therefore implementable only on instances where FALQON is already classically simulable, while every demonstrated improvement over FALQON (Figs. 3–8) comes from the relaxed, unconstrained variant, which carries no guarantee. The abstract and §III-B should state this division of labor explicitly, and the authors should discuss whether any quantitative guarantee survives an approximate terminal constraint (the simulations in Fig. 4 enforce the constraint only
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (27); §IV] The proof's key identification — that predicted states under the implemented β*_k coincide with the actual trajectory (last equality of Eq. (27)) — holds only for a perfect model. Under the truncated Pauli-propagation model of §IV, which is the only scalable implementation offered, the bound of Eq. (13) acquires an additive per-layer model-error term that the manuscript neither bounds nor estimates. This matters because the truncation thresholds (w_th, ε_th) are chosen empirically, the term count grows as poly(n)·2^{O(N)}, Pauli weights grow up to O(2^N) (inflating the classical-shadows measurement cost), and Fig. 9 already shows weight-based truncation visibly degrading TFIM performance. I do not demand a full robust-MPC analysis, but the paper should (i) state explicitly that Theorem 1 does not transfer to the reduced-order implementation, and (ii) provide at least a heuristic error di
  3. [§V-C, Figs. 7–9] The claim that the MPC-based algorithm reaches target ⟨Hp⟩ values 'in a reduced number of layers compared to FALQON' is supported at n ≤ 8, but the evidence base is thin for the strength of the conclusion: a single 8-node Max-Cut graph and one TFIM parameter set, with truncation thresholds tuned by hand, and Fig. 7's inset shows FALQON eventually surpassing the MPC estimate after the 200-layer window used for the comparison. The layer-count advantage should be reported alongside a classical-cost accounting (each MPC layer requires solving an N-dimensional optimization with a model whose cost grows exponentially in N), since 'fewer layers' is not obviously 'fewer total resources.' A per-layer or total-cost comparison, even approximate, would substantially strengthen §V-C.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (39) and (42)] The FALQON-side summation in Eqs. (39) and (42) runs from k = N, whereas the corresponding sum in Eq. (33) runs from k = N+1. This appears to be a typo and does not affect the result either way, but the indexing should be made consistent and the intended limit verified.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (28)] The 'without loss of generality' assumption that ⟨ψ|Hp|ψ⟩ ≥ 0 should be justified explicitly: for the indefinite Hamiltonians of Eqs. (18)–(19) this requires a shift Hp → Hp + cI, which adds the same constant fc to both sides of Eq. (13) and so leaves the bound invariant. One sentence making this explicit would preempt confusion, especially since §V remarks on negative ⟨Hp⟩ values.
  3. [§IV, below Eq. (17)] The complexity statement 'computed in O(e^N) time' is loose notation; presumably O(poly(n)·c^N) for a constant c set by the branching factor is meant. Also, the worst-case Pauli-weight growth to O(2^N) stated here should be reconciled with Appendix B's statement that weights up to n may be generated.
  4. [§V, optimization details] The solver switches from L-BFGS-B (§V preamble) to Nelder–Mead (§V-C) without comment; since Nelder–Mead does not natively handle the [−2π, 2π] box bounds, the implementation of the bounds in the Pauli-propagation runs should be clarified. Reporting optimizer iteration counts or wall-clock times per layer would also help readers assess the classical overhead.
  5. [General] Typos: 'concerete' (§IV, first paragraph); 'off-set' (§V-C2); double period after 'i.e.,' in §V-B. Fig. 9's caption says 'frequency-based truncations' where 'coefficient-based' is meant. A statement on code/data availability (beyond citing PauliPropagation.jl) would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a standard feasibility bound, and numerics compare against an independent baseline.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claim (Theorem 1 / Eq. 13) is that a terminal-constraint MPC with cumulative cost and shrinking horizon has closed-loop cumulative ⟨Hp⟩ no worse than FALQON. The proof (Appendix A) establishes this by showing the FALQON gate sequence is a feasible point of the constrained MPC at each layer, then using recursive feasibility of the shifted prior optimum plus the next FALQON parameter, telescoping differences of optimal costs, and a shrinking-horizon bookkeeping argument. That is ordinary constrained-optimization reasoning (adapted from EMPC performance proofs in the control literature), not a definition of the bound in terms of itself. Numerical claims compare relaxed terminal-cost MPC trajectories to FALQON on explicit Max-Cut and TFIM Hamiltonians; hyperparameters and truncation thresholds are chosen empirically but are not fitted to force the claimed outperformance. Self-citations to prior FALQON work supply the comparison method and ansatz, not a uniqueness theorem or hidden definition of the result. Concerns about perfect-model assumptions and classical cost of the terminal constraint affect transferability/correctness scope, not circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The theoretical guarantee rests on standard quantum dynamics, the FALQON Lyapunov feedback law, and classical MPC terminal-constraint arguments. The practical algorithm additionally depends on hand-chosen hyperparameters (N, Δt, objective form, truncation thresholds) and on the modeling assumption that truncated Pauli propagation is a faithful enough predictor. No new physical entities are postulated; the ‘invented’ object is the algorithm itself.

free parameters (5)
  • prediction horizon N = typically 2–60 in demos; N=10 common
    Integer horizon length chosen by computational budget and heuristics; strongly affects both classical cost and observed performance (Figs. 5–6).
  • step size Δt = 0.05 or 0.1 in most plots
    Trotter-like layer duration; scanned empirically, not derived from a continuity argument as in FALQON.
  • Pauli truncation thresholds (w_th, ε_th) = e.g. W>4..7; Coeff ≤ 1e-3..1e-6
    Weight and coefficient cutoffs that define the reduced-order model; chosen empirically and shown to change TFIM vs Max-Cut behavior (Figs. 8–9).
  • objective function choice (terminal vs cumulative cost) = terminal cost preferred in later sections
    Design choice that materially changes whether MPC beats FALQON (Fig. 3); not fixed by theory for the unconstrained case.
  • gate-parameter box bounds and optimizer initialization = [-2π, 2π]; warm-start as described in Sec. V
    β ∈ [−2π, 2π]; warm-start from previous layer / zeros at k=2; affects local optima found by L-BFGS-B/Nelder-Mead.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Closed-system Schrödinger evolution under piecewise-constant controls with Trotterized Up, Ud layers (Eqs. 1, 7b).
    Standard NISQ circuit model; noise and non-Markovian effects are ignored.
  • domain assumption FALQON parameter law ν_k = −⟨i[Hd, Hp]⟩ yields monotonic decrease of ⟨Hp⟩ when Δt is small enough (cited [6],[7]).
    Used both as baseline and as the feasible trajectory inside the terminal-constraint proof.
  • standard math Classical MPC terminal-constraint / shrinking-horizon performance arguments carry over when the stage cost is a lower-bounded function of state and input (Appendix A, adapted from [71],[81]).
    Proof structure is standard EMPC; applied here to quantum expectation values.
  • ad hoc to paper Truncated Pauli propagation plus classical shadows supplies a usable surrogate for ⟨Hp⟩ over short horizons (Sec. IV).
    Necessary for scalability claims; accuracy is only demonstrated numerically on small n, not proved.
invented entities (1)
  • MPC-based quantum algorithm (terminal-cost / cumulative-cost / terminal-constraint variants)
    purpose: Unify VQA-style finite-horizon optimization with FQA-style layerwise feedback for ground-state and combinatorial tasks.
    The algorithm is the paper’s central construct; it is defined operationally (Eqs. 7, 12) rather than postulated as a physical object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Model Predictive Control-Inspired Quantum Algorithm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IYG4VEER

@misc{pith2026260724992,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Model Predictive Control-Inspired Quantum Algorithm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IYG4VEER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24992}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a new hybrid quantum-classical algorithm inspired by an advanced control strategy known as model predictive control (MPC). This algorithm unifies the optimization-based design of variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) with the feedback-based design of feedback-based quantum algorithms (FQAs). Variational circuit parameters are optimized using a layer-wise receding horizon strategy, where observable measurements after every layer initialize a classically simulated dynamic model used to predict quantum state evolution and optimize over future parameterized gates. This hybrid algorithm can be used for applications such as ground state preparation and approximate combinatorial optimization, and presents an ideal use case for the integration of quantum computers with high-performance computing, where the latter resource can be used to increase the scale and efficiency of the predictions critical to MPC. We show through mathematical proof and numerical evidence that the MPC-based algorithm can be guaranteed to at least match the performance of FQAs. Through simulations on Max-Cut problems and a two-dimensional transverse-field Ising model, we demonstrate that relaxed implementations of the MPC-based algorithm can also provide improved performance in practice compared to an FQA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24992 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Model predictive control illustration. The state trajectory is shown above in blue and the input trajectory is shown below in red. The solid blue line indicates the state trajectory under the inputs applied to the system, shown as solid red lines, while dashed lines indicate the predicted state and input trajectories. At time step k, a measurement of ψk−1 initializes a dynamic model that predicts the evolution of th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MPC-based quantum algorithm procedure. The initial step proceeds by initializing the quantum state as |ψ0⟩ and using that to initialize the classical model in the MPC used to obtain β ∗ 1 . Layer k = 1 then is implemented to evolve the quantum state to |ψ1⟩ = Ud(β ∗ 1 )Up |ψ0⟩. The quantum state |ψ1⟩ is then repeatedly measured to provide a reconstruction used to initialize the dynamic model that predicts the evolut… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of the terminal cost MPC and cu￾mulative cost MPC compared to FALQON. We simulate FALQON and the MPC-based algorithm for the Max-Cut problem formulated with the objective functions of Eqs. (8)- (9) over 10 instances of randomly weighted 4-node graphs. The median values of χk and of β ∗ k are plotted as solid lines in Panels (a) and (b), respectively, with the corresponding interquartile ranges shown in a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MPC-based quantum algorithm performance with N = 5 and N = 400. We present two numerical examples comparing the performance of the MPC-based quantum algorithm using different prediction horizons against FALQON for solving Max-Cut on an unweighted 4-node graph. Results …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of varying prediction horizon. We simulate the performance of the terminal cost MPC on an unweighted 4- node Max-Cut problem with varying prediction horizons and ∆t = 0.05 over 500 layers. Larger prediction horizons, shown in darker colors, tend to encourage mor…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Combined effect of prediction horizon and step size. We simulate the terminal cost MPC with varying prediction horizons and step sizes over 500 layers for a solving a Max-Cut problem on the weighted, 6-node graph shown in Appendix C. Panel (a) shows the maximum approxi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MPC-based quantum algorithm with state vector simulation for 8-node Max-Cut. We simulate the terminal cost MPC over 200 layers with state vector simulation using a range of hyperparameters N and ∆t and compare the performance with two instances of FALQON where ∆t = 0.0…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MPC-based quantum algorithm with Pauli Propagation for 8-node Max-Cut. We simulate the terminal cost MPC with Pauli propagation using varying weight-based and coefficient-based truncations. All simulations use ∆t = 0.1 and N = 10. “MPC Exact” represents the trajectory …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transverse field Ising model with Pauli propagation. We compare the performance of the terminal cost MPC using Pauli propagation with various weight-based and frequency￾based truncations used to obtain ˜ ⟨Hp⟩ k+N−1 against the trajectory of the MPC-based quantum algori…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Graphs for Max-Cut problems. Each of the graphs for the Max-Cut problems used in the simulations in this work are shown with vertex indices labeled. Panel (a) is the 4-node graph used in Figures 3 and 5, Panel (b) is the 6-node graph used in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Transverse field Ising model simulations. We simu￾late the MPC-based quantum algorithm with various values of ∆t and N and FALQON with ∆t = 0.025 and ∆t = 0.1 on a 4x2 transverse field Ising model. The FALQON trajectories are shown in green, while the ⟨Hp⟩ trajectorie…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Analysis of fluctuations. In Panel (a), we simulate the MPC-based algorithm on the Max-Cut problem over an 8-node graph for 500 layers with N = 5 and ∆t = 0.02, zooming in on a region where the trajectory fluctuates. We initialize FALQON and multiple instances of the …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Open-loop MPC trajectories. Panels (a)-(i) display predicted trajectories determined at layers 952 through 960 of the terminal cost MPC shown in Panel (a) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Variational quantum algorithms,

    M. Cerezo, A. Arrasmith, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, K. Fujii, J. R. McClean, K. Mitarai, X. Yuan, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, “Variational quantum algorithms,”Nat. Rev. Phys., vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 625–644, 2021, DOI 10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9

    doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00348-9 2021

  2. [2]

    A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,

    E. Farhi, J. Goldstone, and S. Gutmann, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4028, 2014, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.1411.4028

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1411.4028 2014

  3. [3]

    From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz,

    S. Hadfield, Z. Wang, B. O’Gorman, E. G. Rieffel, D. Venturelli, and R. Biswas, “From the quantum approximate optimization algorithm to a quantum alternating operator ansatz,”Algorithms, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 34, 2019, DOI 10.3390/a12020034

    doi:10.3390/a12020034 2019

  4. [4]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, “A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor,”Nat. Commun., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 4213, 2014, DOI 10.1038/ncomms5213

    doi:10.1038/ncomms5213 2014

  5. [5]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,”Quan- tum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018, DOI 10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018

  6. [6]

    Feedback-based quantum optimization,

    A. B. Magann, K. M. Rudinger, M. D. Grace, and M. Sarovar, “Feedback-based quantum optimization,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 129, no. 25, p. 250502, 2022, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.250502

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.250502 2022

  7. [7]

    Lyapunov-control-inspired strategies for quantum combinatorial optimization,

    ——, “Lyapunov-control-inspired strategies for quantum combinatorial optimization,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 106, no. 6, p. 062414, 2022, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.062414

    doi:10.1103/physreva.106.062414 2022

  8. [8]

    Ogunnaike and W

    B. Ogunnaike and W. H. Ray,Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994

    1994

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Con- strained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

    D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V . Rao, and P. O. Scokaert, “Con- strained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,”Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000, DOI 10.1016/S0005-1098(99)00214- 9

    doi

  2. [10]

    On the infinite horizon performance of receding horizon controllers,

    L. Grune and A. Rantzer, “On the infinite horizon performance of receding horizon controllers,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 2100–2111, 2008, DOI 10.1109/TAC.2008.927799

    2008

  3. [11]

    Contributions to the theory of optimal control,

    R. E. Kalman, “Contributions to the theory of optimal control,”Bol. Soc. Mat. Mex., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 102–119, 1960

    1960

  4. [12]

    Approximating optimal finite horizon feedback by model predictive control,

    A. L. Dontchev, I. V . Kolmanovsky, M. I. Krastanov, V . M. Veliov, and P. Vuong, “Approximating optimal finite horizon feedback by model predictive control,”Syst. Control Lett., vol. 139, p. 104666, 2020, DOI 10.1016/j.sysconle.2020.104666

    2020

  5. [13]

    Optimal nonlinear control using Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman viscosity solutions on unstructured grids,

    C. M. Chilan and B. A. Conway, “Optimal nonlinear control using Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman viscosity solutions on unstructured grids,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 30–38, 2020, DOI 10.2514/1.G004362

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Curse-of-dimensionality free method for Bellman PDEs with semiconvex Hamiltonians,

    W. M. McEneaney, “Curse-of-dimensionality free method for Bellman PDEs with semiconvex Hamiltonians,” inProceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2006, pp. 967–972, DOI 10.1109/CDC.2006.377399

    2006

  7. [15]

    Algorithm for overcoming the curse of dimensionality for certain non-convex Hamilton–Jacobi equations, projections and differential games,

    Y . T. Chow, J. Darbon, S. Osher, and W. Yin, “Algorithm for overcoming the curse of dimensionality for certain non-convex Hamilton–Jacobi equations, projections and differential games,”Ann. Math. Sci. Appl., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 369–403, 2018, DOI 10.4310/AMSA.2018.v3.n2.a1

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Linear Hamilton Jacobi Bellman equations in high dimensions,

    M. B. Horowitz, A. Damle, and J. W. Burdick, “Linear Hamilton Jacobi Bellman equations in high dimensions,” inProceedings of the 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2014, pp. 5880–5887, DOI 10.1109/CDC.2014.7040310

    2014

  9. [17]

    Curse-of-dimensionality free method for Bellman PDEs with Hamiltonian written as maximum of quadratic forms,

    W. M. McEneaney, “Curse-of-dimensionality free method for Bellman PDEs with Hamiltonian written as maximum of quadratic forms,” in Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2005, pp. 42–47, DOI 10.1109/CDC.2005.1582128

    2005

  10. [18]

    Mitigation of curse of dimen- sionality in dynamic programming,

    D. Li, Q. Wang, J. Wang, and Y . Yao, “Mitigation of curse of dimen- sionality in dynamic programming,”IF AC Proc. V ol., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 7778–7783, 2008, DOI 10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.01315

    2008

  11. [19]

    Application of dynamic programming to high-dimensional non-linear optimal control problems,

    R. Luus, “Application of dynamic programming to high-dimensional non-linear optimal control problems,”Int. J. Control., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 239–250, 1990, DOI 10.1080/00207179008953533

    1990 doi

  12. [20]

    Numerically efficient approximations to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation,

    J. Lawton and R. W. Beard, “Numerically efficient approximations to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation,” inProceedings of the 1998 American Control Conference, vol. 1. IEEE, 1998, pp. 195–199, DOI 10.1109/ACC.1998.694657

    1998

  13. [21]

    W. B. Powell,Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the Curses of Dimensionality. John Wiley & Sons, 2007, vol. 703

    2007

  14. [22]

    Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey,

    C. E. Garcia, D. M. Prett, and M. Morari, “Model predictive control: Theory and practice—a survey,”Automatica, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 335–348, 1989, DOI 10.1016/0005-1098(89)90002-2

    1989 doi

  15. [23]

    Robust receding horizon control of constrained nonlinear systems,

    H. Michalska and D. Q. Mayne, “Robust receding horizon control of constrained nonlinear systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 1623–1633, 2002, DOI 10.1109/9.262032

    2002 doi

  16. [24]

    Economic optimization using model predictive control with a terminal cost,

    R. Amrit, J. B. Rawlings, and D. Angeli, “Economic optimization using model predictive control with a terminal cost,”Annu. Rev. Control, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 178–186, 2011, DOI 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2011.10.011

    2011 doi

  17. [25]

    Economic model predic- tive control of nonlinear process systems using Lyapunov techniques,

    M. Heidarinejad, J. Liu, and P. D. Christofides, “Economic model predic- tive control of nonlinear process systems using Lyapunov techniques,” AIChE J., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 855–870, 2012, DOI 10.1002/aic.12672

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Stability of stochastic model predictive con- trol for Schr ¨odinger equation with finite approximation,

    T. Hashimoto, “Stability of stochastic model predictive con- trol for Schr ¨odinger equation with finite approximation,”Interna- tional Journal of Mathematical, Computational, Physical, Electri- cal and Computer Engineering, vol. 11, pp. 12–17, 2017, DOI doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1128115

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    Model predictive control for robust quantum state preparation,

    A. J. Goldschmidt, J. L. DuBois, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Model predictive control for robust quantum state preparation,”Quantum, vol. 6, p. 837, 2022, DOI 10.22331/q-2022-10-13-837. 13 (a) (b) Fig. 8:MPC-based quantum algorithm with Pauli Propagation for 8-node Max-Cut...

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    Model-predictive quantum control via Hamiltonian learning,

    M. Clou ˆatre´e, M. J. Khojasteh, and M. Z. Win, “Model-predictive quantum control via Hamiltonian learning,”IEEE Trans. Quantum Eng., vol. 3, pp. 1–23, 2022, DOI 10.1109/TQE.2022.3176870

    2022

  21. [29]

    Robust quantum control via a model predictive control strategy,

    Y . Lee, I. R. Petersen, and D. Dong, “Robust quantum control via a model predictive control strategy,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07396, 2024, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07396

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    Model predictive control of two-level open quantum systems,

    ——, “Model predictive control of two-level open quantum systems,” inProceedings of the 63rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2024, pp. 25–30, DOI 10.1109/CDC56724.2024.10886028

    2024

  23. [31]

    Model predictive control of two-level quantum systems using quantum filtering,

    ——, “Model predictive control of two-level quantum systems using quantum filtering,” inProceedings of the 2025 Euro- pean Control Conference. IEEE, 2025, pp. 1749–1754, DOI 10.23919/ECC65951.2025.11187047

    2025

  24. [32]

    Tractable infinite-horizon stochastic model predictive con- trol for quantum filtering via eigenstate reduction,

    ——, “Tractable infinite-horizon stochastic model predictive con- trol for quantum filtering via eigenstate reduction,” 2025, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2511.05916

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Model predictive quantum control: A modular approach for efficient and robust quantum optimal control,

    E. Guizani and J. Berberich, “Model predictive quantum control: A modular approach for efficient and robust quantum optimal control,” 2025, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2509.05167

    2025 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    From pulses to circuits and back again: A quantum optimal control perspective on variational quantum algorithms,

    A. B. Magann, C. Arenz, M. D. Grace, T.-S. Ho, R. L. Kosut, J. R. McClean, H. A. Rabitz, and M. Sarovar, “From pulses to circuits and back again: A quantum optimal control perspective on variational quantum algorithms,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, p. 010101, Jan 2021, DOI 10.1103/PRXQ...

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    A survey of quantum Lyapunov control methods,

    S. Cong and F. Meng, “A survey of quantum Lyapunov control methods,”Sci. World J., vol. 2013, no. 1, p. 967529, 2013, DOI 10.1155/2013/967529

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Lyapunov-based control of quan- tum systems,

    S. Grivopoulos and B. Bamieh, “Lyapunov-based control of quan- tum systems,” inProceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 1. IEEE, 2003, pp. 434–438, DOI 10.1109/CDC.2003.1272601

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    On the product of semi-groups of operators,

    H. F. Trotter, “On the product of semi-groups of operators,”Proc. Am. Math. Soc., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 545–551, 1959, DOI 10.2307/2033649

    1959 doi

  30. [38]

    An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,

    H. R. Grimsley, S. E. Economou, E. Barnes, and N. J. Mayhall, “An adaptive variational algorithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum computer,”Nat. Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 3007, 2019, DOI 10.1038/s41467-019-10988-2

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans ¨atze on a quantum processor,

    H. L. Tang, V . Shkolnikov, G. S. Barron, H. R. Grimsley, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, “Qubit-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algorithm for constructing hardware-efficient ans ¨atze on a quantum processor,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, p. 020310, Apr 2021, DOI 10.1103/PRXQuantu...

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Adaptive quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm for solving combinatorial problems on a quantum computer,

    L. Zhu, H. L. Tang, G. S. Barron, F. A. Calderon-Vargas, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, “Adaptive quantum approx- imate optimization algorithm for solving combinatorial problems on a quantum computer,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 4, p. 033029, Jul 2022, DOI 10.1103/Phy...

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    TETRIS-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans ¨atze,

    P. G. Anastasiou, Y . Chen, N. J. Mayhall, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, “TETRIS-ADAPT-VQE: An adaptive algorithm that yields shallower, denser circuit ans ¨atze,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 6, p. 013254, Mar 2024, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013254

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Nonvariational ADAPT algorithm for quantum simula- tions,

    H. L. Tang, Y . Chen, P. Biswas, A. B. Magann, C. Arenz, and S. E. Economou, “Nonvariational ADAPT algorithm for quantum simula- tions,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 7, p. 023275, Jun 2025, DOI 10.1103/x8g1- 7h1k

    2025 doi

  35. [43]

    TEPID-ADAPT: Adaptive variational method for simultaneous preparation of low-temperature Gibbs and low- lying eigenstates,

    B. Sambasivam, K. Sherbert, K. Shirali, N. J. Mayhall, A. W. Harrow, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, “TEPID-ADAPT: Adaptive variational method for simultaneous preparation of low-temperature Gibbs and low- lying eigenstates,” 2025, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14490

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution,

    M. Motta, C. Sun, A. T. Tan, M. J. O’Rourke, E. Ye, A. J. Minnich, F. G. Brandao, and G. K.-L. Chan, “Determining eigenstates and thermal states on a quantum computer using quantum imaginary time evolution,” Nat. Phys., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 205–210, 2020, DOI 10.1038/s41567-019- 0704-4

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Double-bracket quantum algorithms for quantum imaginary-time evolution,

    M. Gluza, J. Son, B. H. Tiang, R. Zander, R. Seidel, Y . Suzuki, Z. Holmes, and N. H. Y . Ng, “Double-bracket quantum algorithms for quantum imaginary-time evolution,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 136, p. 020601, Jan 2026, DOI 10.1103/rw81-k8vk

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    Optimizing quantum circuits with Riemannian gradient flow,

    R. Wiersema and N. Killoran, “Optimizing quantum circuits with Riemannian gradient flow,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 107, p. 062421, Jun 2023, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062421

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Randomized adaptive quantum state preparation,

    A. B. Magann, S. E. Economou, and C. Arenz, “Randomized adaptive quantum state preparation,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 5, p. 033227, Sep 2023, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.033227

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Equating quantum imag- inary time evolution, Riemannian gradient flows, and stochastic im- plementations,

    N. A. McMahon, M. Pervez, and C. Arenz, “Equating quantum imag- inary time evolution, Riemannian gradient flows, and stochastic im- plementations,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 8, p. 023024, Apr 2026, DOI 10.1103/ht2m-1j91

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    Layerwise learning for quantum neural networks,

    A. Skolik, J. R. McClean, M. Mohseni, P. Van Der Smagt, and M. Leib, 14 Fig. 9:Transverse field Ising model with Pauli propagation. We compare the performance of the terminal cost MPC using Pauli propagation with various weight-based and frequency- based truncations used to ob...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Training sat- uration in layerwise quantum approximate optimization,

    E. Campos, D. Rabinovich, V . Akshay, and J. Biamonte, “Training sat- uration in layerwise quantum approximate optimization,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 104, p. L030401, Sep 2021, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.L030401

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Feedback-based quantum algorithms for ground state preparation,

    J. B. Larsen, M. D. Grace, A. D. Baczewski, and A. B. Magann, “Feedback-based quantum algorithms for ground state preparation,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 6, p. 033336, Sep 2024, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.6.033336

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Measurement-based control for minimizing energy functions in quan- tum systems,

    H. G. Clausen, S. A. Rahman, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, “Measurement-based control for minimizing energy functions in quan- tum systems,”IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 5171–5178, 2023, DOI 10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.111

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    Feedback-based quantum algorithm inspired by coun- terdiabatic driving,

    R. K. Malla, H. Sukeno, H. Yu, T.-C. Wei, A. Weichselbaum, and R. M. Konik, “Feedback-based quantum algorithm inspired by coun- terdiabatic driving,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 6, p. 043068, Oct 2024, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043068

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Abdul Rahman, H

    S. Abdul Rahman, H. G. Clausen, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, Adaptive sampling noise mitigation technique for feedback-based quan- tum algorithms, L. Franco, C. de Mulatier, M. Paszynski, V . V . Krzhizhanovskaya, J. J. Dongarra, and P. M. A. Sloot, Eds. Cham: Springer Na...

    2024

  47. [55]

    FOCQS: Feedback optimally controlled quantum states,

    L. T. Brady and S. Hadfield, “FOCQS: Feedback optimally controlled quantum states,” 2024, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2409.15426

    2024 doi arXiv

  48. [56]

    Shadow measurements for feedback-based quantum optimization,

    L. Bertuzzi, J. a. P. Engster, E. C. R. da Rosa, and E. I. Duzzioni, “Shadow measurements for feedback-based quantum optimization,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 112, p. 022419, Aug 2025, DOI 10.1103/snht-7jsf

    2025 doi

  49. [57]

    Scalable circuit depth reduction in feedback-based quantum optimization with a quadratic approximation,

    D. Arai, K. N. Okada, Y . Nakano, K. Mitarai, and K. Fujii, “Scalable circuit depth reduction in feedback-based quantum optimization with a quadratic approximation,”Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 7, p. 013035, Jan 2025, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.7.013035

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Accelerating feedback-based quantum algorithms through time rescal- ing,

    L. A. M. Rattighieri, G. E. L. Pexe, B. L. Bernardo, and F. F. Fanchini, “Accelerating feedback-based quantum algorithms through time rescal- ing,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 112, p. 042607, Oct 2025, DOI 10.1103/qc91- 5mj2

    2025 doi

  51. [59]

    Imaginary-time-enhanced feedback-based quantum algorithms for universal ground-state prepara- tion,

    T. N. V . Long, L. N. Tran, and L. B. Ho, “Imaginary-time-enhanced feedback-based quantum algorithms for universal ground-state prepara- tion,” 2025, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2512.13044

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    A Lyapunov framework for quantum algorithm design in combinato- rial optimization with approximation ratio guarantees,

    S. Chen, Z. Li, H. Zhou, J. Zhang, W. Yang, and X. Sun, “A Lyapunov framework for quantum algorithm design in combinato- rial optimization with approximation ratio guarantees,” 2025, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2512.21716

    2025 doi

  53. [61]

    Accelerating feedback-based algo- rithms for quantum optimization using gradient descent,

    M. Mozakka and M. Heidari, “Accelerating feedback-based algo- rithms for quantum optimization using gradient descent,” 2026, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2602.12387

    2026 doi

  54. [62]

    Learning parameter curves in feedback-based quantum optimization algorithms,

    V . P. P ´erez, M. D. Grace, C. Arenz, and A. B. Magann, “Learning parameter curves in feedback-based quantum optimization algorithms,” 2026, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2601.08085

    2026 doi

  55. [63]

    Feedback-based quantum strategies for constrained combinatorial optimization prob- lems,

    S. A. Rahman, ¨O. Karabacak, and R. Wisniewski, “Feedback-based quantum strategies for constrained combinatorial optimization prob- lems,”Future Gener . Comput. Syst., vol. 174, p. 107979, 2026, DOI 10.1016/j.future.2025.107979

    2026

  56. [64]

    Measurement-guided state refinement for shallow feedback-based quan- tum optimization algorithm,

    L. A. M. Rattighieri, P. M. Prado, M. C. de Oliveira, and F. F. Fanchini, “Measurement-guided state refinement for shallow feedback-based quan- tum optimization algorithm,” 2026, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2602.20407

    2026 doi

  57. [65]

    Lyapunov controlled counterdiabatic quantum optimization,

    P. Chandarana, K. Paul, K. R. Swain, X. Chen, and A. del Campo, “Lyapunov controlled counterdiabatic quantum optimization,”Quantum Sci. Technol., 2026, DOI 10.1088/2058-9565/ae7d4e

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    Optimal FALQON for quantum ap- proximate optimization via layer-wise parameter tuning,

    M. Mancini and S. Sodagari, “Optimal FALQON for quantum ap- proximate optimization via layer-wise parameter tuning,” 2026, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2605.08332

    2026 doi arXiv

  59. [67]

    Real-time control of a mobile robot using linearized model predictive control,

    W. F. Lages and J. A. V . Alves, “Real-time control of a mobile robot using linearized model predictive control,”IF AC Proc. V ol., vol. 39, no. 16, pp. 968–973, 2006, DOI 10.3182/20060912-3-DE-2911.00166

    2006

  60. [68]

    Linear tracking for a fixed-wing UA V using nonlinear model predictive control,

    Y . Kang and J. K. Hedrick, “Linear tracking for a fixed-wing UA V using nonlinear model predictive control,”IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1202–1210, 2009, DOI 10.1109/TCST.2008.2004878

    2009

  61. [69]

    Advances in sensitivity- based nonlinear model predictive control and dynamic real-time op- timization,

    L. Biegler, X. Yang, and G. Fischer, “Advances in sensitivity- based nonlinear model predictive control and dynamic real-time op- timization,”J. Process Control, vol. 30, pp. 104–116, 2015, DOI 10.1016/j.jprocont.2015.02.001

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    A tutorial review of economic model predictive control methods,

    M. Ellis, H. Durand, and P. D. Christofides, “A tutorial review of economic model predictive control methods,”J. Process Control, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1156–1178, 2014, DOI 10.1016/j.jprocont.2014.03.010

    2014 doi

  63. [71]

    Economic model predictive control designs for input rate-of-change constraint handling and guaran- teed economic performance,

    H. Durand, M. Ellis, and P. D. Christofides, “Economic model predictive control designs for input rate-of-change constraint handling and guaran- teed economic performance,”Comput. Chem. Eng., vol. 92, pp. 18–36, 2016, DOI 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2016.04.026

    2016 doi

  64. [72]

    Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems,

    M. S. Rudolph, T. Jones, Y . Teng, A. Angrisani, and Z. Holmes, “Pauli propagation: A computational framework for simulating quantum systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21606, 2025, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.2505.21606

    2025 doi arXiv

  65. [73]

    Real-time operator evolution in two and three dimensions via sparse Pauli dynamics,

    T. Begu ˇsi´c and G. K.-L. Chan, “Real-time operator evolution in two and three dimensions via sparse Pauli dynamics,”PRX Quantum, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 020302, 2025, DOI 10.1103/PRXQuantum.6.020302

    2025 doi

  66. [74]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements,

    H.-Y . Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, “Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements,”Nat. Phys., vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 1050–1057, 2020, DOI 10.1038/s41567-020-0932-7

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    Efficient estimation of Pauli observables by derandomization,

    ——, “Efficient estimation of Pauli observables by derandomization,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 127, p. 030503, Jul 2021, DOI 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.127.030503

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    Improved approximation algo- rithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming,

    M. X. Goemans and D. P. Williamson, “Improved approximation algo- rithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming,”J. ACM, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 1115–1145, 1995, DOI 10.1145/227683.227684

    1995

  69. [77]

    Entanglement at a two-dimensional quantum critical point: A numerical linked-cluster expansion study,

    A. B. Kallin, K. Hyatt, R. R. P. Singh, and R. G. Melko, “Entanglement at a two-dimensional quantum critical point: A numerical linked-cluster expansion study,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 110, p. 135702, Mar 2013, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.135702

    2013 doi

  70. [78]

    A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization,

    R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal, and C. Zhu, “A limited memory algorithm for bound constrained optimization,”SIAM J. Sci. Comput., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1190–1208, 1995, DOI 10.1137/0916069

    1995 doi

  71. [79]

    Paulipropagation.jl,

    M. S. Rudolph, Y . Teng, T. Jones, S. Y . Chang, and Z. Holmes, “Paulipropagation.jl,” https://github.com/MSRudolph/PauliPropagation. jl

  72. [80]

    A simplex method for function min- imization,

    J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, “A simplex method for function min- imization,”Comput. J., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 308–313, 1965, DOI 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308. 15

    1965 doi

  73. [81]

    On closed-loop economic performance under Lyapunov-based economic model predictive control,

    M. Ellis and P. D. Christofides, “On closed-loop economic performance under Lyapunov-based economic model predictive control,” inProceed- ings of the 2016 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1778– 1783, DOI 10.1109/ACC.2016.7525176. APPENDIX These appendices expand on...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.