Risk-aware MPPI for Stochastic Hybrid Systems

Bardh Hoxha; Danil Prokhorov; Dimitra Panagou; Georgios Fainekos; Hardik Parwana; Hideki Okamoto; Mitchell Black

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Risk-aware MPPI for Stochastic Hybrid Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that propagating weighted sigma particles through mode-switching conditions, instead of switching on predicted means, lets MPPI plan risk-aware paths for stochastic hybrid systems in real time.

desk verdict A solid incremental MPPI extension with genuinely new per-sigma-point switching; the safety claims are heuristic and the ECUT compression error is unquantified, but the paper deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09198 v1 pith:OFC2RPU7 submitted 2024-11-14 cs.RO

Hardik Parwana , Mitchell Black , Bardh Hoxha , Hideki Okamoto , Georgios Fainekos , Danil Prokhorov , Dimitra Panagou This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords modelpredictivepathintegralcontrolstochastichybridsystemsunscentedtransformsigma-pointpropagationrisk-awaremotionplanningstate-dependentdisturbancesattention-awarenavigationmulti-agent

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 proposes a variant of Model Predictive Path Integral Control (MPPI) for stochastic hybrid systems, where an agent's dynamics switch depending on whether the robot is inside its sensing zone. The central move is to propagate not just the mean but an entire set of weighted sigma particles through the switching condition, so that at any time the mode itself is uncertain and the planner can hedge against it. The paper also extends MPPI to state-dependent disturbances, which prior MPPI variants could not handle. In simulations of a robot navigating among ten agents and obstacles, the resulting ECUT-MPPI reaches the goal with lower cost and no collisions, while mean-based and dynamics-unaware baselines violate safety. The authors argue this makes risk-aware planning for stochastic hybrid systems practical in real time.

What carries the argument

The central object is the expansion-compression unscented transform (ECUT) operating on a set of weighted $\sigma$ points that represent the non-ego agent's state distribution. At each prediction step, every $\sigma$ point is passed through the stochastic dynamics of the mode selected by its own position relative to the switching surface; the expansion step branches each $\sigma$ point into the distribution generated by its dynamics, and the compression step rematches the mean and covariance so the particle count stays fixed. This per-particle switching is what carries the argument: it converts a deterministic switching event at the mean into a probabilistic one at the distribution level. The risk-aware cost then evaluates, at each time step, the mean minus $\alpha$ times the standard deviation of the robot's distance to agents and obstacles, connecting the objective to a chance constraint.

What would settle it

Run ECUT-MPPI in a scenario where the human's sigma points straddle the sensing-radius boundary so some points switch to avoidance while others do not, and compare the predicted probability of collision or the mean-minus-alpha distance against a high-sample Monte Carlo ground truth; if the ECUT estimate disagrees enough to change the chosen control sequence or to violate the stated 95 percent safety bound, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Planners for stochastic hybrid systems should not decide which dynamics mode is active by comparing only the predicted mean state to the switching surface. Because the state is uncertain, the mode is uncertain too, and the paper maps that state stochasticity into switching stochasticity by propagating each weighted sigma point through the switching condition individually. An expansion-compression unscented transform keeps the particle set small while allowing MPPI to handle state-dependent disturbances rather than only additive noise. The resulting risk-aware controller reaches the goal faster and without collisions when it exploits the hybrid nature of non-ego agents, whereas switching on means or ignoring the switching dynamics leads to constraint violations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that whittling the exploded particle cloud back down to a fixed number by matching only mean and covariance still preserves enough information about which mode each particle is in; once a switch happens the true distribution is a mixture of different dynamics, and dropping mode membership and higher moments could bias the collision-risk estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the ten-agent scenario, dynamics-aware ECUT-MPPI achieves lower cumulative cost and no safety violations up to the 95 percent confidence interval, while mean-based and dynamics-unaware baselines eventually collide or approach obstacles.
A Monte Carlo baseline inspired by risk-aware MPPI needs roughly $K=200$ human samples to approach the safety of the proposed method, whereas $N=2n+1$ sigma points give comparable accuracy at much lower computational cost for similar computation time.
Because switching is decided per sigma point rather than by state means, the planner can be applied to systems with arbitrary state-dependent disturbances, not just additive noise, and can handle general hybrid dynamical systems beyond attention-zone examples.
The simulated hospital experiment shows the planner running at 20 Hz on a laptop GPU with 10,000 samples, indicating that the approach is deployable in a receding-horizon setting.
The risk parameter $\alpha$ in the cost ties the method directly to a probabilistic safety constraint of the form $P(h \geq \epsilon) \geq 1 - \epsilon$, so tuning it changes the guaranteed confidence level of collision avoidance.

Reading between the lines

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

If ECUT's mean-covariance compression preserves enough information, the same sigma-point switching idea could be dropped into other sampling-based MPC schemes to handle stochastic hybrid dynamics without rewriting their cost structure.
A natural stress test, suggested by the paper's own caveat that Monte Carlo represents multimodal distributions better than UT, is a scenario where sigma points straddle a switching boundary so the predicted human distribution becomes strongly bimodal; comparing ECUT's collision-risk estimate against a high-sample Monte Carlo ground truth would reveal how much safety is lost by discarding mode mem
A testable extension would track mixture components with mode labels through the switch instead of compressing them, accepting exponential growth in the particle count, in order to see whether risk estimates improve enough to justify the cost.
The proposed approach could also be paired with a learned or estimated attention model to handle agents whose sensing zones are uncertain, since the sigma-point evaluation of switching only needs the activation function to be evaluated pointwise.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper is a decent incremental contribution: it combines the authors' ECUT uncertainty propagation with MPPI and, more importantly, does the mode switching per sigma point rather than on the mean. That is genuinely new in the MPPI literature, and the experiments show a clear benefit for the aware planner over both the mean-based and unaware baselines. The code and videos are public, and the implementation runs in real time on a laptop CPU, which is credible.

The soft spots are mostly about what the paper claims versus what it shows. Problem 1 states a chance constraint, but the method replaces it with the cost term mu minus alpha sigma and never proves that this bounds the violation probability. That is a heuristic, and the paper should say so more plainly. Second, the ECUT compression step matches only mean and covariance after a mode switch, so the mixture structure is lost; the paper itself concedes Monte Carlo is better for multimodal distributions. The stress-test concern about biased switching probabilities is real, but it is a limitation, not a fatal flaw, because the paper's safety claim is empirical (no violations in 50 runs), not formal. Still, a sensitivity analysis on the compression error would strengthen it considerably. Third, the main simulation uses the same model for ground truth and prediction, so the safety numbers are somewhat self-consistent; the Gazebo experiment with a different human model is good, but no quantitative results are reported there. The RA-MPPI comparison also uses a modified risk metric rather than CVaR, so it is not a head-to-head test of the original algorithm.

The math is straightforward and the algorithm is clearly described. The authors are honest about limitations, and the reliance on their own ECUT paper is legitimate since it is published and used as a tool.

Verdict: send it to review. The contribution is useful for robotics practitioners working on social navigation and MPPI. The main revisions I would want are a sensitivity study on the compression error, a discussion of when the heuristic risk penalty can mislead, and quantitative Gazebo results. None of these are load-bearing enough to reject.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ECUT-MPPI, a sampling-based Model Predictive Path Integral Control variant for stochastic hybrid systems. The method propagates a weighted sigma-point set through state-dependent mode-switching dynamics using the Expansion-Compression Unscented Transform, evaluates a heuristic risk cost based on the mean and standard deviation of minimum distances to agents and obstacles, and optimizes the control sequence with MPPI. The central claims are that weighting particles maps state uncertainty into switching uncertainty, moving beyond mean-based switching, and that this extends MPPI to systems with arbitrary state-dependent disturbances. The paper evaluates the method in a simulated multi-agent navigation scenario and a qualitative Gazebo hospital environment, reporting lower costs and fewer safety violations compared to mean-based switching and a Monte-Carlo-based risk-aware MPPI baseline.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a practical real-time planning method for social navigation under stochastic hybrid agent dynamics, with the appealing idea of switching dynamics per sigma point rather than per state mean. The authors ship code and videos and report CPU/GPU real-time performance, which is a strength. However, the significance is limited by the lack of a formal connection between the risk cost and the stated chance constraints, the unquantified error introduced by the ECUT compression step on multimodal mixture distributions, and the fact that the main evaluation uses the same stochastic model for prediction and ground truth. These issues place the contribution as a promising algorithmic proposal that needs further support rather than a settled safety-aware planning method.

major comments (4)

[Section II (Problem 1) and Section IV, Eq. (14)] The formal chance constraint P(∩ hp ≥ ε) ≥ 1−ϵ stated in (6e)–(6f) is replaced by the heuristic stage cost Qh = γ2(µh,p − ασh,p) without a proof or even a formal argument that minimizing (15a) enforces the probabilistic constraint. The statement that α 'can be related to' ϵ is not a derivation, and the paper does not provide a bound on the violation probability under the optimized policy. Since the safety claim is central to the paper, this gap is load-bearing.
[Algorithm 1 (lines 5–7) and Algorithm 2 (lines 9–18)] After a mode switch, the expanded sigma-point set is a mixture of different mode dynamics; compressing to N points by matching only mean and covariance discards mode membership and higher-order moments. Subsequent switching decisions and the risk cost (14) are computed from the compressed points, so the compression error can bias both switching probabilities and collision-risk estimates, especially when the modes produce widely separated states. The paper itself concedes in Section V-A that Monte Carlo is better for multimodal distributions, and it provides no error bound or sensitivity analysis for this compression. Without such support, the central claim that weighted sigma points map state stochasticity to switching stochasticity is only demonstrated for the specific simulation setting.
[Section V-A] The main evaluation simulates ground-truth non-ego agents with exactly the stochastic model in (17) that is used for prediction ('We move the humans according to (17)'), so the planner is tested under zero model mismatch. The AWS Hospital experiment uses a social force model for simulation but is qualitative and still predicts with (17). To support the broader claim of improved performance in realistic social navigation, the paper needs at least one evaluation under model mismatch, or a clear statement that the advantage relies on exact knowledge of the true agent dynamics.
[Section V-A, Figs. 2–4] The text states that the proposed method observes 'no constraint violation up to a 95% confidence interval of MC simulations.' With 50 Monte Carlo runs and zero observed violations, the one-sided 95% upper confidence bound on the violation probability is approximately 0.06, which does not establish the desired ϵ = 0.05 level. The figures show distance trajectories over time, not a confidence interval for the violation probability itself. The safety conclusion should be rephrased as an empirical observation, or supported with a proper statistical test that quantifies the violation probability.

minor comments (5)

[Algorithm 1, line 3] The covariance summation in line 3 runs to N, but the expanded set has N·N_F points; the summation should run to N·N_F to match the expanded set.
[Algorithm 2, line 11] The mode test uses g(xm_r, S_t,j) while the loop variable over sigma points is i; this should be g(xm_r, S_t,i) or an equivalent per-point update.
[Section IV, Eq. (14)] The notation Qc(xτ) = E[γ1||xr − xr,d||2] places an expectation around a deterministic function of the robot state; the expectation operator is unnecessary unless the robot state is also stochastic.
[Section V-A] The real-time claim would be easier to evaluate with wall-clock timings per MPPI iteration for the CPU and GPU settings; the text mentions M = 500 and M = 20000 but does not report actual computation times.
[Section V-B] The AWS Hospital experiment is described without quantitative cost or safety metrics, so it cannot currently be used as evidence for the performance claims; the paragraph also contains a typo ('insp[tired').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ECUT is used as an external tool and the risk-aware objective is a stated heuristic.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The central contribution—switching based on sigma particles rather than the mean—is implemented in Algorithm 2 (lines 9–18) as a direct evaluation of the mode-activation function on each sigma point; the resulting switching probability is an approximation, not a fitted quantity disguised as a prediction. The risk-aware cost (14) with µ−ασ is explicitly introduced as a user-chosen heuristic penalty, not derived from the safety constraint (6e), so no output is equivalent to an input by construction. The ECUT method [17] is the authors' own prior work, but it is fully restated in Algorithm 1 and used as a numerical tool for moment-matched propagation; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or ansatz from that citation to force its conclusions, and it explicitly acknowledges UT's limitations for multimodal distributions (Section V-A). The comparison against mean-based, dynamics-unaware, and RA-MPPI baselines is an external empirical evaluation, not a tautology. The only self-citations ([17], [35]) are to a propagation routine and a simulator environment, neither of which is used to define away the target result. The paper is therefore self-contained in its claimed derivation, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The only invented items are the hand-chosen parameters and the ECUT compression assumption, which are listed above.

free parameters (5)

Risk parameter alpha in cost (14) = not specified
Controls the confidence-interval width in Qh; user-chosen, not reported in experiments.
Cost weights gamma1, gamma2, gamma3 = not specified
Weight convergence vs safety; values are not reported, affecting the quantitative results.
Control noise covariance Sigma_epsilon = 4.0
MPPI sampling covariance, chosen by hand in Section V-A.
Agent noise scale alpha_agent and beta_agent in (17) = alpha=4.0/dt, beta=1.0
Chosen to mimic slower direction changes at low speed; not fit to data.
Sensing radius ds = not specified
Defines the switching region in Example 1 and the simulation; not reported in the paper.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Mode regions A_j partition the joint state space
Required for the hybrid model (3)-(4); stated in Section II.
domain assumption The sets {hp < epsilon} and {ho < epsilon} contain no disconnected sets of measure zero
Stated in Section II-A to make the safety problem well-defined.
ad hoc to paper Mean and covariance matching by ECUT compression preserves sufficient information for risk evaluation
Algorithm 1 lines 5-7 compress N*N_F points to N points by matching moments; risk cost (14) only uses mean and std, so multimodal and mode-correlation information is dropped.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Risk-aware MPPI for Stochastic Hybrid Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OFC2RPU7

@misc{pith2026241109198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Risk-aware MPPI for Stochastic Hybrid Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OFC2RPU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09198}
}

read the original abstract

Path Planning for stochastic hybrid systems presents a unique challenge of predicting distributions of future states subject to a state-dependent dynamics switching function. In this work, we propose a variant of Model Predictive Path Integral Control (MPPI) to plan kinodynamic paths for such systems. Monte Carlo may be inaccurate when few samples are chosen to predict future states under state-dependent disturbances. We employ recently proposed Unscented Transform-based methods to capture stochasticity in the states as well as the state-dependent switching surfaces. This is in contrast to previous works that perform switching based only on the mean of predicted states. We focus our motion planning application on the navigation of a mobile robot in the presence of dynamically moving agents whose responses are based on sensor-constrained attention zones. We evaluate our framework on a simulated mobile robot and show faster convergence to a goal without collisions when the robot exploits the hybrid human dynamics versus when it does not.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09198 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The robot’s sampled trajectory (green) induces different responses from each of the human’s (the non-ego agent in this example) sigma points. The ellipses represent the distribution of predicted human states and the dots inside them represent the sigma points. At t = 6, the human perceives the robot for the first time in its field-of-view for 2 out of 3 sigma points. The red and blue points get influenced by robot p… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Simulation results for RA-MPPI inspired method in Section V-A. Note from the increasing stability cost that the robot didn’t converge to the goal location in the given time. the uncertainty in switching. We are also able to implement our framework in real-time on both CPU and GPU subject to limits on the number of samples. Future work includes experimentation on real robots and evaluation of different types of hybri… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Simulation results for proposed method in Section V-A. (a) The robot performs collision avoidance with humans (red) and obstacles (black). Robot trajectory is similarly shown in green. (b) Cost (15a) and stability cost (Qc only) accumulated with time. (c), (d) Robot’s minimum distance to any (c) human and (d) obstacle with time. The solid/dotted lines and shaded areas represent the mean and the 95% confidence interv… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Simulation results for RA-MPPI with 100 samples per human in Section V-A. [3] N. J. Kong, C. Li, G. Council, and A. M. Johnson, “Hybrid ilqr model predictive control for contact implicit stabilization on legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023. [4] N. J. Ko…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Dynamical properties of hybrid automata,

J. Lygeros, K. H. Johansson, S. N. Simic, J. Zhang, and S. S. Sastry, “Dynamical properties of hybrid automata,” IEEE Transactions on automatic control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 2–17, 2003

work page 2003
[2]

Hybrid dynamical systems,

R. Goebel, R. G. Sanfelice, and A. R. Teel, “Hybrid dynamical systems,” IEEE control systems magazine, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 28–93, 2009. Fig. 4: Simulation results for RA-MPPI with 100 samples per human in Section V-A

work page 2009
[3]

Hybrid ilqr model predictive control for contact implicit stabilization on legged robots,

N. J. Kong, C. Li, G. Council, and A. M. Johnson, “Hybrid ilqr model predictive control for contact implicit stabilization on legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

2023
[4]

ilqr for piecewise- smooth hybrid dynamical systems,

N. J. Kong, G. Council, and A. M. Johnson, “ilqr for piecewise- smooth hybrid dynamical systems,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5374–5381

work page 2021
[5]

Stochastic hybrid model predictive control using gaussian processes for systems with piecewise residual dynamics,

L. D’Souza and Y . V . Pant, “Stochastic hybrid model predictive control using gaussian processes for systems with piecewise residual dynamics,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2670–2677

work page 2023
[6]

Recent results on stochastic hybrid dynamical systems,

M. S. Alwan and X. Liu, “Recent results on stochastic hybrid dynamical systems,” Journal of Control and Decision, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 68–103, 2016

work page 2016
[7]

Nonlinear hybrid dynamical systems: modeling, optimal control, and applications,

M. Buss, M. Glocker, M. Hardt, O. V on Stryk, R. Bulirsch, and G. Schmidt, “Nonlinear hybrid dynamical systems: modeling, optimal control, and applications,” in Modelling, Analysis, and Design of Hybrid Systems. Springer, 2002, pp. 311–335

work page 2002
[8]

Hybrid systems differential dynamic programming for whole-body motion planning of legged robots,

H. Li and P. M. Wensing, “Hybrid systems differential dynamic programming for whole-body motion planning of legged robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5448–5455, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 35 references

[9]

The trajectron: Probabilistic multi- agent trajectory modeling with dynamic spatiotemporal graphs,

B. Ivanovic and M. Pavone, “The trajectron: Probabilistic multi- agent trajectory modeling with dynamic spatiotemporal graphs,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 2375–2384

2019
[10]

Social attention: Modeling attention in human crowds,

A. Vemula, K. Muelling, and J. Oh, “Social attention: Modeling attention in human crowds,” in 2018 IEEE international Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 4601–4607

2018
[11]

Adaptive human trajectory prediction via latent corridors,

N. Thakkar, K. Mangalam, A. Bajcsy, and J. Malik, “Adaptive human trajectory prediction via latent corridors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06653, 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

The emotionally intelligent robot: Im- proving social navigation in crowded environments,

A. Bera, T. Randhavane, R. Prinja, K. Kapsaskis, A. Wang, K. Gray, and D. Manocha, “The emotionally intelligent robot: Im- proving social navigation in crowded environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03217, 2019

1903 arXiv
[13]

Development of the pedestrian awareness model for mobile robots,

K. Minami, K. Hayashi, and J. Miura, “Development of the pedestrian awareness model for mobile robots,” in 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1295–1301

2023
[14]

Safety assurances for human-robot interaction via confidence-aware game-theoretic human models,

R. Tian, L. Sun, A. Bajcsy, M. Tomizuka, and A. D. Dragan, “Safety assurances for human-robot interaction via confidence-aware game-theoretic human models,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 11 229–11 235

2022
[15]

Model-based policy search using monte carlo gradient estimation with real systems application,

F. Amadio, A. Dalla Libera, R. Antonello, D. Nikovski, R. Carli, and D. Romeres, “Model-based policy search using monte carlo gradient estimation with real systems application,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3879–3898, 2022

2022
[16]

Pilco: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search,

M. Deisenroth and C. E. Rasmussen, “Pilco: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on machine learning (ICML-11), 2011, pp. 465–472

2011
[17]

Foresee: Prediction with expansion- compression unscented transform for online policy optimization,

H. Parwana and D. Panagou, “Foresee: Prediction with expansion- compression unscented transform for online policy optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12644, 2022

2022 arXiv
[18]

Model-predictive control of discrete hybrid stochastic automata,

A. Bemporad and S. Di Cairano, “Model-predictive control of discrete hybrid stochastic automata,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1307–1321, 2010

2010
[19]

Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applica- tions to autonomous driving,

G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information-theoretic model predictive control: Theory and applica- tions to autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1603–1622, 2018

2018
[20]

Towards efficient mppi trajectory generation with unscented guidance: U-mppi control strategy,

I. S. Mohamed, J. Xu, G. Sukhatme, and L. Liu, “Towards efficient mppi trajectory generation with unscented guidance: U-mppi control strategy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12369, 2023

2023 arXiv
[21]

Robust sampling based model predictive control with sparse objective information

G. Williams, B. Goldfain, P. Drews, K. Saigol, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Robust sampling based model predictive control with sparse objective information.” in Robotics: Science and Systems, vol. 14, 2018, p. 2018

2018
[22]

Robust model predictive path integral control: Analysis and performance guarantees,

M. S. Gandhi, B. Vlahov, J. Gibson, G. Williams, and E. A. Theodorou, “Robust model predictive path integral control: Analysis and performance guarantees,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1423–1430, 2021

2021
[23]

Rapidly-exploring random belief trees for motion planning under uncertainty,

A. Bry and N. Roy, “Rapidly-exploring random belief trees for motion planning under uncertainty,” in 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2011, pp. 723–730

2011
[24]

Safe robot navigation in a crowd combining nmpc and control barrier functions,

V . Vulcano, S. G. Tarantos, P. Ferrari, and G. Oriolo, “Safe robot navigation in a crowd combining nmpc and control barrier functions,” in 61st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 3321–3328

2022
[25]

Future-focused control barrier functions for autonomous vehicle control,

M. Black, M. Jankovic, A. Sharma, and D. Panagou, “Future-focused control barrier functions for autonomous vehicle control,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 3324–3331

2023
[26]

Prob- abilistic traversability model for risk-aware motion planning in off- road environments,

X. Cai, M. Everett, L. Sharma, P. R. Osteen, and J. P. How, “Prob- abilistic traversability model for risk-aware motion planning in off- road environments,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 297– 11 304

2023
[27]

Adaptive risk sensitive model predictive control with stochastic search,

Z. Wang, O. So, K. Lee, and E. A. Theodorou, “Adaptive risk sensitive model predictive control with stochastic search,” in Learning for Dynamics and Control. PMLR, 2021, pp. 510–522

2021
[28]

Bayesian policy gradient algorithms,

M. Ghavamzadeh and Y . Engel, “Bayesian policy gradient algorithms,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 19, 2006

2006
[29]

A generalized unscented transformation for probability distributions,

D. Ebeigbe, T. Berry, M. M. Norton, A. J. Whalen, D. Simon, T. Sauer, and S. J. Schiff, “A generalized unscented transformation for probability distributions,” ArXiv, 2021

2021
[30]

The unscented transform: a powerful tool for measurement uncertainty evaluation,

L. Angrisani, M. D’Apuzzo, and R. S. L. Moriello, “The unscented transform: a powerful tool for measurement uncertainty evaluation,” in Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Workshop onAdvanced Methods for Uncertainty Estimation in Measurement, 2005. IEEE, 2005, pp. 27–32

2005
[31]

Mitra, Verifying Cyber-Physical Systems: A Path to Safe Autonomy

S. Mitra, Verifying Cyber-Physical Systems: A Path to Safe Autonomy. The MIT Press, 2021

2021
[32]

New extension of the kalman filter to nonlinear systems,

S. J. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “New extension of the kalman filter to nonlinear systems,” in Signal processing, sensor fusion, and target recognition VI, vol. 3068. Spie, 1997, pp. 182–193

1997
[33]

Risk-aware model predictive path integral control using conditional value-at-risk,

J. Yin, Z. Zhang, and P. Tsiotras, “Risk-aware model predictive path integral control using conditional value-at-risk,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 7937–7943

2023
[34]

Distributionally robust optimization with unscented transform for learning-based motion control in dynamic environments,

A. Hakobyan and I. Yang, “Distributionally robust optimization with unscented transform for learning-based motion control in dynamic environments,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 3225–3232

2023
[35]

Feasible space monitoring for mul- tiple control barrier functions with application to large scale indoor navigation,

H. Parwana, M. Black, B. Hoxha, H. Okamoto, G. Fainekos, D. Prokhorov, and D. Panagou, “Feasible space monitoring for mul- tiple control barrier functions with application to large scale indoor navigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07803, 2023

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Dynamical properties of hybrid automata,

J. Lygeros, K. H. Johansson, S. N. Simic, J. Zhang, and S. S. Sastry, “Dynamical properties of hybrid automata,” IEEE Transactions on automatic control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 2–17, 2003

work page 2003

[2] [2]

Hybrid dynamical systems,

R. Goebel, R. G. Sanfelice, and A. R. Teel, “Hybrid dynamical systems,” IEEE control systems magazine, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 28–93, 2009. Fig. 4: Simulation results for RA-MPPI with 100 samples per human in Section V-A

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Hybrid ilqr model predictive control for contact implicit stabilization on legged robots,

N. J. Kong, C. Li, G. Council, and A. M. Johnson, “Hybrid ilqr model predictive control for contact implicit stabilization on legged robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

2023

[4] [4]

ilqr for piecewise- smooth hybrid dynamical systems,

N. J. Kong, G. Council, and A. M. Johnson, “ilqr for piecewise- smooth hybrid dynamical systems,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5374–5381

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Stochastic hybrid model predictive control using gaussian processes for systems with piecewise residual dynamics,

L. D’Souza and Y . V . Pant, “Stochastic hybrid model predictive control using gaussian processes for systems with piecewise residual dynamics,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2670–2677

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Recent results on stochastic hybrid dynamical systems,

M. S. Alwan and X. Liu, “Recent results on stochastic hybrid dynamical systems,” Journal of Control and Decision, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 68–103, 2016

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Nonlinear hybrid dynamical systems: modeling, optimal control, and applications,

M. Buss, M. Glocker, M. Hardt, O. V on Stryk, R. Bulirsch, and G. Schmidt, “Nonlinear hybrid dynamical systems: modeling, optimal control, and applications,” in Modelling, Analysis, and Design of Hybrid Systems. Springer, 2002, pp. 311–335

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Hybrid systems differential dynamic programming for whole-body motion planning of legged robots,

H. Li and P. M. Wensing, “Hybrid systems differential dynamic programming for whole-body motion planning of legged robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5448–5455, 2020

work page 2020