Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 41 references

SURE: Safe Uncertainty-Aware Robot-Environment Interaction using Trajectory Optimization

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A branch-and-rejoin trajectory optimizer explicitly plans for uncertain contact timing, shifting motions from brittle single-path plans to families of safe responses.

desk verdict SURE is a solid incremental advance with real empirical gains; the main weakness is that its robustness claim outruns the discrete-branch formulation, and the abstract overstates the improvement. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.06864 v2 pith:KHVXGNO6 submitted 2026-02-06 cs.RO

Zhuocheng Zhang , Haizhou Zhao , Xudong Sun , Aaron M. Johnson , Majid Khadiv This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords trajectoryoptimizationcontacttiminguncertaintyhybridsystemsbranchingandrejoiningrobustcontrolschedulingcart-polerobotmanipulation
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 SURE, a trajectory optimization formulation for robotic tasks in which the exact time of a contact is not known in advance. Instead of planning one deterministic trajectory or a full tree of possibilities, SURE lets a pre-impact trajectory branch at several candidate contact times, runs a short post-impact branch from each, and forces all branches to rejoin a common final trajectory. In simulation of a cart-pole balancing against a wall of uncertain position, the scheduled branches raise success from 44.8% to 66.4%; in a physical egg-catching experiment, the middle 'robust nominal' branch raises success from 45% to 85%. The rejoining trick costs only about 5% in optimality while cutting computation by more than half compared to a full tree formulation.

What carries the argument

The branching-and-rejoining structure: from each node in the branching phase K, a short branch of Nr+1 nodes evolves under free dynamics and is constrained to end exactly at the first common post-impact node x_{K_e+1}. Guard constraints g(x)=d at K0 and g(x)=-d at Ke define the uncertainty interval. This lets the optimizer plan the entire family of contact responses in one nonlinear program, with the number of decision variables growing only with the number of branches and branch length, not with full paths to the terminal state.

What would settle it

In the cart-pole simulation, deliberately shift the detected contact time by a fraction of the branch's time step so that the scheduler switches to a branch at a node whose nominal time does not match the actual switch time, and check whether the closed-loop success rate drops toward the nominal level. If the state-only rejoin were sufficient, this mismatch should not matter; if tracking fails, the timing alignment assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that robustness to contact-timing uncertainty can be obtained by explicitly optimizing a bundle of trajectories: one common pre-contact trajectory, a branch from each candidate contact state, and a single shared post-contact trajectory that all branches must join at a fixed node. The uncertainty interval is encoded by guard constraints that fix the contact-triggering function g to +d at the earliest contact node and to -d at the latest. This structure yields a trajectory that is safe across the whole interval, and when a contact sensor is available the controller can switch to the branch whose pre-impact state matches the detected contact time. The paper shows that even

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach assumes that enforcing state equality at the rejoin node is sufficient — that a branch arriving at the shared trajectory with the same state but potentially a different time can be followed without defining how the reference time base aligns at the switch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Explicitly modeling contact-timing uncertainty in the optimizer yields safer motions than nominal plans, even when the controller only tracks a single 'robust nominal' trajectory.
  • When a contact sensor exists, scheduling among the precomputed branches provides a further gain in success rate (e.g., 55.3% to 66.4% in the cart-pole study).
  • The rejoining constraint makes the approach computationally scalable: at 7 nodes per branch the added cost over the nominal trajectory is 4.87% while computation drops 55.85% relative to a tree OCP.
  • The same formulation extends to multiple contact transitions by repeating the branching phase for each transition.
  • The optimizer can treat the uncertainty width d as a decision variable, letting the solver find the largest uncertainty region over which the task remains feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the rejoin constraint only matches states, not arrival times, the scheduler's reference-time alignment at the switch is left unspecified; a mismatch between branch time grid and common-trajectory time grid could degrade tracking and deserves a dedicated test.
  • The same branch-and-rejoin structure could be applied to other uncertain parameters — for example, the restitution coefficient or object mass — by treating them as the branching variable instead of contact time.
  • The robust nominal trajectory's benefit comes from globally reshaping the motion (e.g., building a 'buffering distance' before impact), which suggests that learned policies conditioned on the uncertainty range could inherit this robustness without online replanning.
  • One testable extension is to relax the state-equality rejoin to a terminal cost on the mismatch, which would trade a little more optimality for even better conditioning of the optimization.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SURE, a trajectory optimization framework for contact-rich tasks under uncertain contact timing. It augments a nominal multiple-shooting OCP with a branching phase: from each of |K| discrete pre-impact nodes, a short branch is optimized from the corresponding post-impact state, and all branches are constrained to rejoin a common final trajectory at a shared state. Two control uses are proposed: contact-triggered trajectory scheduling and a single 'robust nominal' middle branch. The method is evaluated in simulation on a cart-pole wall-stabilization task and on hardware for egg catching, reporting higher success rates than nominal baselines and lower computation time than a full tree OCP baseline. The central claim is that branching plus rejoining gives robustness to contact-timing uncertainty at modest optimality loss.

Significance. The branching-and-rejoining idea is a genuinely useful middle ground between a single nominal trajectory and a full tree OCP, and the two case studies are evaluated independently of the optimization constraints through closed-loop stochastic simulation and hardware trials, which is a real strength. The robust nominal trajectory also outperforms the nominal plan without a scheduler, suggesting the improvement is not only an artifact of an oracle switch. However, the finite-branch approximation and the unspecified timing of the scheduler are currently unexamined, so the paper's central robustness claim is not yet fully supported. If the authors close that gap, this could be a practical contribution to contact-rich trajectory optimization.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV-B, Eqs. (2e)-(2f), and Sec. IV-C1] The formulation builds branches only at the finite set of nodes K. In execution, the contact time is continuous within [K0, Ke], and for a contact that occurs between two branching nodes the actual post-impact state is not equal to any R(x_i) used in (2e). The rejoining guarantee (2f) then does not apply to the selected branch. The paper does not define the 'nearest' branch metric, does not quantify the initial-state mismatch, and does not study sensitivity to branch density. Since the abstract claims robustness to contact-timing uncertainty rather than only to the discrete node set, this is a load-bearing approximation. Please add an error bound (e.g., via Lipschitz continuity of the reset map and dynamics) or a systematic sensitivity study (e.g., success rate vs |K| and vs contacts forced at midpoints between nodes).
  2. [Sec. IV-C1, Eq. (2f)] State equality (2f) is the only rejoining condition. The trajectory-scheduling description does not state how time bases are aligned when a branch is activated at an arbitrary detection time and then joins the common trajectory. If the branch has a different duration from the corresponding common-trajectory segment, the reference time at the switch is undefined. Please specify the exact scheduling rule (branch selection metric, time reparameterization, and the switch condition at the merge state), and confirm that the closed-loop evaluator implements that rule.
  3. [Sec. V-B3, Eq. (19c), Fig. 9] The claim that the robust nominal trajectory 'keeps the relative velocity bounded below 2.67 m/s across all tested initial heights' is partly a check of constraints (19c) at the branching nodes, because v_lim is minimized subject to those constraints. For release heights that do not coincide with branch nodes, no bound is guaranteed by the optimization. To support the robustness claim, either evaluate at off-grid heights (e.g., midpoints between branches) or prove an interpolation bound from the finite branch constraints.
  4. [Secs. III-IV, Eqs. (1e), (1g), (2l)] The guard constraints are not stated consistently. In Eq. (1), g(x_i)>0 in (1e) is immediately followed by g(x_i)=0 at i=c in (1g), so the domain of (1e) must exclude the contact node. In Eq. (2), (2l) bounds g only for i<K0; nothing in the general formulation prevents a guard crossing after K_e. The case-specific text in Sec. V-A2 adds constraint (11), but the general SURE problem (2) should include g(x_i)>d for all i not in K. Also, if d is a decision variable in (2), the objective does not contain d, so d is not determined unless fixed as in the case studies. These points need to be cleaned up for the formulation to be well-posed.
  5. [Tabs. I-II and Sec. V] Success rates are reported as point estimates with no confidence intervals, and Table I does not state the number of simulation trials per initial condition. In Table II, the 'Success Rate' column appears to count a 0.5 score as half-success, but this scoring rule is not defined in the text. Because the central evidence is empirical, please report exact n, confidence intervals or a significance test, and the scoring rule explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] The phrases 'improvement of 21.6%' and 'by 40%' mix percentage points and relative improvements; please state which is meant (e.g., 21.6 percentage points versus a 48% relative improvement for the cart-pole total).
  2. [Sec. IV-C2] The justification for choosing the middle branch as 'the most representative trajectory' is informal. Please label this as a heuristic or provide a formal argument for why the midpoint of the branching interval is the best single nominal trajectory.
  3. [Sec. V-B2] In the egg-catching SURE formulation, state continuity at contact is assumed (x_{i,0}=x_i), whereas the general formulation (2e) uses a reset map R(x_i). Since the egg mass is small this is a reasonable approximation, but it should be explicitly flagged as a case-specific simplification.
  4. [Sec. V-A3, Fig. 5] The evaluation ranges for the wall position and restitution coefficient are wider than the d=0.05 design range. This is a strength, but the caption and text should state clearly that the closed-loop evaluation is over a broader uncertainty set than the one used in optimization.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor constraint-check presented as a result; central robustness claims are externally benchmarked and not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V-B3, Eqs. (19c) and (20)]
    "In contrast, the robust nominal trajectory keeps the relative velocity v_lim bounded below 2.67 m/s across all tested initial heights, effectively limiting impact despite uncertainty in contact timing."

    The reported 2.67 m/s is the optimized value of the decision variable v_lim itself, which SURE minimizes in (20) while (19c) enforces ||v_ee,i - v_ball,i||^2 <= v_lim^2 at every branching node. Thus the observation that the planned trajectory satisfies this bound is a consistency check of the constraints used to generate it, not an independent prediction from the framework. The external evidence for robustness is the hardware success rate (85% vs 45%) and the cart-pole stochastic simulations; the relative-velocity plot adds no evidential weight beyond the optimization that imposed the bound.

full rationale

The main claims are supported by external benchmarks, not by the SURE constraints themselves. Cart-pole success rates come from a PGS-based simulator with randomly sampled wall positions and restitution coefficients, including a wider uncertainty range (x_wall in [-0.7, -0.3]) than the optimized d=0.05. Egg-catching success comes from physical trials with independently calibrated release delays and explicit timing jitter. These outcomes are not determined by the optimization (2); they are stochastic/hardware rollouts of the planned trajectories. The branch-and-rejoin equations (2e)-(2f) define the structure of the optimization and are not used as evidence of success. Self-citations, including the predecessor [39], serve as motivation/comparison rather than load-bearing theorems, so there is no self-citation chain forcing the result. The unmodeled timing mismatch at the rejoin node and the unspecified nearest-branch metric are correctness/completeness limitations, not circularity: no claim is reduced to its own input by definition. The single near-circular element is the relative-velocity report in Fig. 9, which is merely a pass/fail check of the optimized v_lim constraint; because it is not load-bearing for the central success-rate claims, the overall circularity score remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central robustness claim depends on several hand-chosen design quantities: the uncertainty half-width d, branch count |K|, nodes per branch N_r, and the experimental delay t_wait. The method itself introduces no new physical entities. The axioms above are the modeling premises needed for the formulation to deliver its stated robustness.

free parameters (4)
  • d (uncertainty half-width) = cart-pole: 0.05 m; egg: 0.20 m
    Set by hand; defines the branching phase and the tested uncertainty range. The cart-pole evaluation uses a much wider range (±0.2 m) than d, so the method is tested beyond its design point.
  • |K| (number of branches) = 5 (cart-pole), 10 (egg)
    Chosen manually as a robustness/computation trade-off; no automatic selection criterion is given.
  • N_r (nodes per branch) = 7 (cart-pole; egg unspecified)
    Selected from the trade-off in Fig. 7; increasing N_r reduces cost little while raising computation time.
  • t_wait (egg experiment delay) = 0.118 s (nominal), 0.125 s (SURE)
    Calibrated separately for each trajectory so early/late contacts are balanced; this tuning could bias the comparison, though both trajectories are tested at both delays.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The impact model (7) with restitution coefficient e and fixed impact duration Δt_impact=0.001 s adequately represents physical contact for both planning and simulation.
    Used in all trajectory optimizations and in the custom PGS simulation (Appendix B); if unrealistic, both methods inherit the same modeling bias, but hardware egg trials provide partial external support.
  • ad hoc to paper State-only rejoining, Eq. (2f), is sufficient for feasible execution; branch timing need not match common-trajectory timing.
    No time equality is imposed between branch endpoints and x_{K_e+1}; the scheduling controller's reference-time handling at the switch is not discussed.
  • domain assumption For the egg task, the ball's motion is independent of the robot and contact does not change the robot state (x_{i,0}=x_i at contact).
    Stated in Section V-B.1; valid when ball mass is small, but it removes impact dynamics from the optimization.
  • domain assumption Contact-timing uncertainty is one-dimensional and monotonic: a scalar guard half-width d maps to earliest/latest contact nodes K_0/K_e.
    Cart-pole wall position and egg release height are both single-parameter uncertainties; multi-parameter or non-monotonic uncertainty is not handled.
  • ad hoc to paper The middle branch is the most representative robust nominal trajectory when no contact sensor is available.
    Section IV-C2 asserts this without proof; the worst-case branch may not be the middle one.
  • standard math IPOPT returns a local solution accurate enough for the subsequent tracking controller.
    Standard assumption for NLP-based trajectory optimization; no global optimality certificate is claimed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SURE: Safe Uncertainty-Aware Robot-Environment Interaction using Trajectory Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHVXGNO6

@misc{pith2026260206864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SURE: Safe Uncertainty-Aware Robot-Environment Interaction using Trajectory Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHVXGNO6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.06864}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic tasks involving contact interactions pose significant challenges for trajectory optimization due to discontinuous dynamics. Conventional formulations typically assume deterministic contact events, which limit robustness and adaptability in real-world settings. In this work, we propose SURE, a robust trajectory optimization framework that explicitly accounts for contact timing uncertainty. By allowing multiple trajectories to branch from possible pre-impact states and later rejoin a shared trajectory, SURE achieves both robustness and computational efficiency within a unified optimization framework. We evaluate SURE on two representative tasks with unknown impact times. In a cart-pole balancing task involving uncertain wall location, SURE achieves an average improvement of 21.6% in success rate when branch switching is enabled during control. In an egg-catching experiment using a robotic manipulator, SURE improves the success rate by 40%. These results demonstrate that SURE substantially enhances robustness compared to conventional nominal formulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the egg-catching task. The Unitree Z1 robot arm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The nominal trajectory optimization problem. The contact occurs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrations of (a) trajectory scheduling, and (b) the robust nominal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the cart-pole system with wall contact. The cart-pole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Robustness comparison under Initial Condition 4 for three reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison between the nominal and robust nominal tra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Nominal trajectory: The end effector moves upward only slightly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Relative velocity between the ball and the end effector under varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cart Pole System with External Force According to the force equilibrium equation of the cart in the x-direction, XF cart x = τ − N sin θ = mcx¨ (21) From the moment equilibrium equation of the pole about the cart center, XMpole = − mplx¨ cos θ − mpglsin θ + fxl cos θ …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [39]

    Trajectory optimization under contact timing uncertainties

    Haizhou Zhao and Majid Khadiv. Trajectory optimization under contact timing uncertainties. InIEEE-RAS Inter- national Conference on Humanoid Robots, pages 1064– 1071, 2024

    2024

  2. [11]

    HPIPM: a high- performance quadratic programming framework for model predictive control.IF AC-PapersOnLine, 53(2): 6563–6569, 2020

    Gianluca Frison and Moritz Diehl. HPIPM: a high- performance quadratic programming framework for model predictive control.IF AC-PapersOnLine, 53(2): 6563–6569, 2020

    2020

  3. [1]

    Simultaneous contact, gait, and motion planning for robust multilegged locomotion via mixed-integer convex optimization.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(3):2531–2538, 2017

    Bernardo Aceituno-Cabezas, Carlos Mastalli, Hongkai Dai, Michele Focchi, Andreea Radulescu, Darwin G Caldwell, Jos ´e Cappelletto, Juan C Grieco, Gerardo Fern´andez-L´opez, and Claudio Semini. Simultaneous contact, gait, and motion planning for robust multilegged locomotion via mixed-integer convex optimization.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(3):2...

    2017

  4. [2]

    Casadi: a software frame- work for nonlinear optimization and optimal control

    Joel AE Andersson, Joris Gillis, Greg Horn, James B Rawlings, and Moritz Diehl. Casadi: a software frame- work for nonlinear optimization and optimal control. Mathematical Programming Computation, 11(1):1–36, 2019

    2019

  5. [3]

    Consensus complementarity control for multi-contact MPC.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    Alp Aydinoglu, Adam Wei, Wei-Cheng Huang, and Michael Posa. Consensus complementarity control for multi-contact MPC.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  6. [4]

    Learning variable impedance control for contact sensitive tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(4):6129–6136, 2020

    Miroslav Bogdanovic, Majid Khadiv, and Ludovic Righetti. Learning variable impedance control for contact sensitive tasks.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(4):6129–6136, 2020

    2020

  7. [5]

    Model-free reinforcement learning for robust locomotion using demonstrations from trajectory opti- mization.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9:854212, 2022

    Miroslav Bogdanovic, Majid Khadiv, and Ludovic Righetti. Model-free reinforcement learning for robust locomotion using demonstrations from trajectory opti- mization.Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9:854212, 2022

    2022

  8. [6]

    The dynamics of runge–kutta methods.International Journal of Bifurca- tion and Chaos, 2(03):427–449, 1992

    Julyan HE Cartwright and Oreste Piro. The dynamics of runge–kutta methods.International Journal of Bifurca- tion and Chaos, 2(03):427–449, 1992

    1992

Show all 41 references
  1. [7]

    Task and motion planning for humanoid loco- manipulation

    Michal Ciebielski, Victor Dh ´edin, and Majid Khadiv. Task and motion planning for humanoid loco- manipulation. InIEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pages 1179–1186, 2025

    2025

  2. [8]

    Footstep planning on uneven terrain with mixed-integer convex optimization

    Robin Deits and Russ Tedrake. Footstep planning on uneven terrain with mixed-integer convex optimization. InIEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pages 279–286, 2014

    2014

  3. [9]

    Simul- taneous contact sequence and patch planning for dynamic locomotion

    Victor Dh ´edin, Haizhou Zhao, and Majid Khadiv. Simul- taneous contact sequence and patch planning for dynamic locomotion. InIEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, pages 245–252, 2025

    2025

  4. [10]

    Robust trajectory optimiza- tion over uncertain terrain with stochastic complementar- ity.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2):1168– 1175, 2021

    Luke Drnach and Ye Zhao. Robust trajectory optimiza- tion over uncertain terrain with stochastic complementar- ity.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2):1168– 1175, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Nonlinear stochastic trajectory optimization for centroidal momentum motion generation of legged robots

    Ahmad Gazar, Majid Khadiv, S ´ebastien Kleff, Andrea Del Prete, and Ludovic Righetti. Nonlinear stochastic trajectory optimization for centroidal momentum motion generation of legged robots. InThe International Sym- posium of Robotics Research, pages 420–435. Springer, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Multi-contact stochastic predictive control for legged robots with contact locations uncer- tainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04469, 2023

    Ahmad Gazar, Majid Khadiv, Andrea Del Prete, and Ludovic Righetti. Multi-contact stochastic predictive control for legged robots with contact locations uncer- tainty.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04469, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control.IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics, 39(5):3402–3421, 2023

    Ruben Grandia, Fabian Jenelten, Shaohui Yang, Farbod Farshidian, and Marco Hutter. Perceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control.IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics, 39(5):3402–3421, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Plan- ning for the unexpected: Explicitly optimizing motions for ground uncertainty in running

    Kevin Green, Ross L Hatton, and Jonathan Hurst. Plan- ning for the unexpected: Explicitly optimizing motions for ground uncertainty in running. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 1445– 1451, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Impedance optimization for uncertain contact interactions through risk sensitive optimal control.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(3):4766–4773, 2021

    Bilal Hammoud, Majid Khadiv, and Ludovic Righetti. Impedance optimization for uncertain contact interactions through risk sensitive optimal control.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(3):4766–4773, 2021

    2021

  10. [17]

    On the similarities and differences among contact models in robot simulation

    Peter C Horak and Jeff C Trinkle. On the similarities and differences among contact models in robot simulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(2):493–499, 2019

    2019

  11. [18]

    A hybrid systems model for simple manip- ulation and self-manipulation systems.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(11):1354–1392, 2016

    Aaron M Johnson, Samuel A Burden, and Daniel E Koditschek. A hybrid systems model for simple manip- ulation and self-manipulation systems.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(11):1354–1392, 2016

    2016

  12. [19]

    Convergent planning.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 1(2):1044–1051, 2016

    Aaron M Johnson, Jennifer E King, and Siddhartha Srinivasa. Convergent planning.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 1(2):1044–1051, 2016

    2016

  13. [20]

    Gijeong Kim, Dongyun Kang, Joon-Ha Kim, Seungwoo Hong, and Hae-Won Park. Contact-implicit model pre- dictive control: Controlling diverse quadruped motions without pre-planned contact modes or trajectories.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 44(3):486– 510, 2025

    2025

  14. [21]

    Saltation matrices: The essential tool for linearizing hybrid dynamical systems.Proceedings of the IEEE, 2024

    Nathan J Kong, J Joe Payne, James Zhu, and Aaron M Johnson. Saltation matrices: The essential tool for linearizing hybrid dynamical systems.Proceedings of the IEEE, 2024

    2024

  15. [22]

    Con- tact models in robotics: a comparative analysis.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    Quentin Le Lidec, Wilson Jallet, Louis Montaut, Ivan Laptev, Cordelia Schmid, and Justin Carpentier. Con- tact models in robotics: a comparative analysis.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Learning quadrupedal locomotion over challenging terrain.Science robotics, 5 (47):eabc5986, 2020

    Joonho Lee, Jemin Hwangbo, Lorenz Wellhausen, Vladlen Koltun, and Marco Hutter. Learning quadrupedal locomotion over challenging terrain.Science robotics, 5 (47):eabc5986, 2020

    2020

  17. [24]

    Robust trajectory opti- mization under frictional contact with iterative learning

    Jingru Luo and Kris Hauser. Robust trajectory opti- mization under frictional contact with iterative learning. Autonomous Robots, 41(6):1447–1461, 2017

    2017

  18. [25]

    Agile maneuvers in legged robots: a predic- tive control approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07554, 2022

    Carlos Mastalli, Wolfgang Merkt, Guiyang Xin, Jaehyun Shim, Michael Mistry, Ioannis Havoutis, and Sethu Vi- jayakumar. Agile maneuvers in legged robots: a predic- tive control approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07554, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Bi- ConMP: A nonlinear model predictive control framework for whole body motion planning.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(2):905–922, 2023

    Avadesh Meduri, Paarth Shah, Julian Viereck, Majid Khadiv, Ioannis Havoutis, and Ludovic Righetti. Bi- ConMP: A nonlinear model predictive control framework for whole body motion planning.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(2):905–922, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Multiple shooting method for two-point boundary value problems.Communications of the ACM, 5(12): 613–614, 1962

    David D Morrison, James D Riley, and John F Zanca- naro. Multiple shooting method for two-point boundary value problems.Communications of the ACM, 5(12): 613–614, 1962

    1962

  21. [28]

    Contact-implicit tra- jectory optimization using orthogonal collocation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(2):2242–2249, 2019

    Amir Patel, Stacey Leigh Shield, Saif Kazi, Aaron M Johnson, and Lorenz T Biegler. Contact-implicit tra- jectory optimization using orthogonal collocation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(2):2242–2249, 2019

    2019

  22. [29]

    Efficient multicontact pattern gen- eration with sequential convex approximations of the centroidal dynamics.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 37(5):1661–1679, 2021

    Brahayam Ponton, Majid Khadiv, Avadesh Meduri, and Ludovic Righetti. Efficient multicontact pattern gen- eration with sequential convex approximations of the centroidal dynamics.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 37(5):1661–1679, 2021

    2021

  23. [30]

    Mathematical pro- grams with complementarity constraints: Stationarity, optimality, and sensitivity.Mathematics of Operations Research, 25(1):1–22, 2000

    Holger Scheel and Stefan Scholtes. Mathematical pro- grams with complementarity constraints: Stationarity, optimality, and sensitivity.Mathematics of Operations Research, 25(1):1–22, 2000

    2000

  24. [31]

    Chance-constrained optimization for contact-rich systems using mixed integer programming

    Yuki Shirai, Devesh K Jha, Arvind U Raghunathan, and Diego Romeres. Chance-constrained optimization for contact-rich systems using mixed integer programming. Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 52:101466, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Sequence-of-constraints MPC: Reactive timing-optimal control of sequential manipula- tion

    Marc Toussaint, Jason Harris, Jung-Su Ha, Danny Driess, and Wolfgang H ¨onig. Sequence-of-constraints MPC: Reactive timing-optimal control of sequential manipula- tion. InIEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 13753–13760, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Differentiable physics and stable modes for tool-use and manipulation planning

    Marc A Toussaint, Kelsey Rebecca Allen, Kevin A Smith, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Differentiable physics and stable modes for tool-use and manipulation planning. InRobotics: Science and Systems, 2018

    2018

  27. [34]

    Quadratic programming-based reference spreading control for dual- arm robotic manipulation with planned simultaneous impacts.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40:3341–3355, 2024

    Jari Van Steen, Gijs Van Den Brandt, Nathan van de Wouw, Jens Kober, and Alessandro Saccon. Quadratic programming-based reference spreading control for dual- arm robotic manipulation with planned simultaneous impacts.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40:3341–3355, 2024

    2024

  28. [35]

    On the imple- mentation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming.Mathematical programming, 106(1):25–57, 2006

    Andreas W ¨achter and Lorenz T Biegler. On the imple- mentation of an interior-point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming.Mathematical programming, 106(1):25–57, 2006

    2006

  29. [36]

    Impact-aware task-space quadratic- programming control.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 42(14):1265–1282, 2023

    Yuquan Wang, Niels Dehio, Arnaud Tanguy, and Abder- rahmane Kheddar. Impact-aware task-space quadratic- programming control.The International Journal of Robotics Research, 42(14):1265–1282, 2023

    2023

  30. [37]

    Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots

    Patrick M Wensing, Michael Posa, Yue Hu, Adrien Escande, Nicolas Mansard, and Andrea Del Prete. Optimization-based control for dynamic legged robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40:43–63, 2023

    2023

  31. [38]

    Impact-aware bimanual catching of large-momentum objects.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40:2543–2563, 2024

    Lei Yan, Theodoros Stouraitis, Joao Moura, Wenfu Xu, Michael Gienger, and Sethu Vijayakumar. Impact-aware bimanual catching of large-momentum objects.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 40:2543–2563, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Hybrid event shaping to stabilize periodic hybrid orbits

    James Zhu, Nathan J Kong, George Council, and Aaron M Johnson. Hybrid event shaping to stabilize periodic hybrid orbits. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 01–07, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Con- vergent iLQR for safe trajectory planning and control of legged robots

    James Zhu, J Joe Payne, and Aaron M Johnson. Con- vergent iLQR for safe trajectory planning and control of legged robots. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 8051–8057, 2024. APPENDIX A. Derivation of Dynamics Models of Cart Pole System As illustr...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.