Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Covariance steering makes cislunar transfers robust in minutes.

desk verdict Honest, practical extension of covariance steering to cislunar transfers; the acknowledged linearization gap is the main thing to watch. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01907 v2 pith:SNHQQCK7 submitted 2025-02-04 math.OC

Naoya Kumagai , Kenshiro Oguri This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 49M3790C2693E2070F15
keywords cislunartrajectoryoptimizationchance-constrainedcovariancesteeringsequentialconvexprogrammingcorrectionmaneuversCircularRestrictedThree-BodyProblemuncertaintyquantificationlosslessconvexificationlow-thrustpropulsion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that robust cislunar trajectory design can be solved as a single optimization that simultaneously outputs a nominal trajectory and a feedback-based trajectory correction policy, with explicit probabilistic guarantees on safety. It propagates state uncertainty through linearized covariance dynamics and uses sequential convex programming with a lossless convexification step, making each subproblem a semidefinite program. Demonstrated on Earth–Moon transfers, the method keeps Monte Carlo samples within the predicted bounds and is orders of magnitude faster than prior block-Cholesky approaches. The paper also shows that the robust trajectories have better local stability, measured by lower local Lyapunov exponents at key trajectory peaks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the belief-state dynamics: the mean state is propagated through the nonlinear CR3BP dynamics, while the state covariance is propagated through linearized Kalman-filter equations, including orbit determination updates and maneuver execution errors. The lossless convexification step replaces the bilinear product $K_k \hat{P}_k$ with new decision variables $U_k$ and $Y_k$, together with an LMI constraint, making the covariance steering subproblem convex; a small trace penalty $\epsilon_Y \operatorname{tr}(Y_k)$ guarantees the strict monotonicity condition required for losslessness. The chance constraint on the control 2-norm is handled by a chi-squared quantile bound and a difference-of-convex linearization with slack variables, all embedded in the SCvx* sequential convex programming framework.

What would settle it

Run a Monte Carlo simulation for the NRHO-to-Halo transfer with the maximum covariance constraint removed, as the paper reports that the SCP can converge while the samples escape the cislunar region; alternatively, increase the initial position uncertainty from 50 km to several hundred kilometers and check whether the predicted final 3-sigma ellipsoid still contains at least 99 percent of the Monte Carlo samples.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that chance-constrained covariance steering, formulated as a sequential convex program, can simultaneously design an optimal nominal trajectory and a trajectory correction policy that probabilistically guarantees safety constraints in the highly nonlinear cislunar environment. The discovery is that a full-covariance formulation, with an exact lossless convexification of the covariance propagation, yields a convex subproblem whose complexity scales linearly with the number of discretization nodes rather than quadratically. This enables solving a 200-node NRHO-to-Halo transfer in about ten minutes, with the resulting closed-loop policy keeping Monte Carlo sample dispersions within the predicted 3-sigma ellipsoids and satisfying the control chance constraint.

Load-bearing premise

The method's statistical guarantees rely on the linearized covariance propagation accurately describing the true distribution of the nonlinear stochastic system, meaning the state uncertainty must stay small enough that a first-order Taylor expansion around the mean trajectory is valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, robust cislunar transfers can be designed with explicit probabilistic margins (e.g., $\Delta V_{99}$) without iterating between trajectory design and uncertainty analysis.
  • The linear computational scaling in the number of nodes allows rapid comparison of $\Delta V_{99}$ across different uncertainty models, making it practical to conduct uncertainty-parameter trade studies.
  • The framework naturally extends to other constraints, such as keep-out zones and state chance constraints, as the authors note, enabling future work on collision-safe cislunar operations.
  • The local Lyapunov exponent analysis suggests that uncertainty-aware optimization automatically reshapes the nominal trajectory to improve local stability, independent of the chosen trajectory correction policy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method's reliance on linearized covariance propagation implies that for large initial uncertainties or long flight times, the probabilistic guarantees could degrade; a hybrid approach that switches to Gaussian mixture or unscented transform uncertainty propagation when the covariance grows beyond a threshold would be a natural extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • The authors openly note that the inexact linearization breaks the convergence guarantee of the base SCvx* algorithm; rigorously analyzing convergence under this inexactness, or comparing against a second-order sensitivity (state transition tensor) formulation, would clarify when the method can be trusted in safety-critical scenarios.
  • The $\epsilon_Y \operatorname{tr}(Y_k)$ regularization term, while needed for losslessness, changes the objective from pure $\Delta V_{99}$; a testable question is how the choice of $\epsilon_Y$ affects the gap between the predicted and actual $\Delta V_{99}$ across a range of uncertainty levels.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a chance-constrained stochastic optimal control problem for cislunar low-thrust trajectory design, combining linearized covariance propagation with an affine state-estimate feedback policy (Eq. 20), and solves it via a sequential convex programming (SCvx*) scheme. The main methodological contributions are a full-covariance formulation with a trace-regularized quantile objective (Eq. 45), a lossless-convexification LMI (Eq. 51d) adapted to the quantile cost, a difference-of-convex relaxation of the control chance constraint (Eqs. 47–49), and a scalar scaling strategy (Eq. 58). Numerical demonstrations on DRO-to-DRO and NRHO-to-Halo transfers in the CR3BP include Monte Carlo verification of the covariance prediction, the Delta V99 bound, and the final covariance constraint, as well as a local Lyapunov exponent comparison of robust versus deterministic trajectories.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a practically relevant contribution: a computationally efficient SCP-based framework that simultaneously optimizes a nominal trajectory and an affine TCM policy with explicit probabilistic safety constraints in a strongly nonlinear, locally chaotic regime. The paper is careful in several respects: it explicitly acknowledges the inexact linearization of the covariance propagation (Remark 3) and the loss of the SCvx* convergence guarantee, it validates the Delta V99 predictions against independent Monte Carlo simulations rather than fitting to them, and it makes concrete benchmark claims about runtime versus block-Cholesky formulations. The comparison table of stochastic optimal control approaches and the LLE analysis add useful context. The main caveat is that the probabilistic guarantees are conditional on the validity of linear covariance propagation, a point the authors themselves flag.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.B and Remark 3; Eq. (38c)] The central probabilistic safety claim rests on the fidelity of the linearized covariance propagation Eq. (38c) in the presence of a lunar flyby, where the local Lyapunov exponent is large (Figs. 11–12). The authors correctly concede in Remark 3 that Eq. (38c) is an inexact linearization, and in Section V.B that without the maximum covariance constraint "the state dispersion can grow outside the region where linear covariance propagation is a valid approximation." The Monte Carlo validation uses only 200 samples, which is insufficient to certify the 1% violation probability asserted by the chance constraints (Eq. 14a) or the 99% quantile of the cost (Eq. 18). The paper should therefore either soften the language of "probabilistically guarantee" to "probabilistically guarantee under the linearized model," or provide additional evidence, such as a larger Monte Carlo campaign or a second-order (state transition tensor) check, that the linear covariance prediction remains accurate in the flyby regime.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eq. (56)] The acceptance criterion (Eq. 56) accepts a step whenever rho is in [1-eta_0, 1+eta_0], but the paper provides no analysis of whether this criterion preserves the descent or convergence properties of the original SCvx* algorithm. The authors explicitly state that Algorithm 1 "does not fully inherit the convergence guarantee provided by the SCvx* algorithm" due to inexact linearization. Since the modified acceptance criterion is a key algorithmic departure, and the numerical results rely on it, the paper should either provide an analysis under a bounded-inexactness assumption, or clearly state that the convergence property is empirical. As written, the numerical examples support the effectiveness claim, but the convergence claim is weaker than implied.
  3. [Section IV.A.2 and Eq. (45)] The lossless convexification guarantee for the quantile-2-norm objective relies on the strict positive definiteness of the gradient of the objective with respect to Y_k, obtained by adding the trace regularization term epsilon_Y tr(Y_k). The authors acknowledge that the trace term modifies the objective, but the manuscript does not provide a quantitative check of how the optimal Delta V99 and the recovered policy change with epsilon_Y, despite the text noting that "Theoretically, epsilon_Y can be an arbitrarily small positive number, but in practice, we should not use a value that is too small." A sensitivity study over epsilon_Y (at least a few values spanning the stated range 1e-4 to 1e-6) would make the claim of negligible impact concrete. As written, the claim rests on a single value.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typographical errors in the equation display of Section IV.C (e.g., "ill-scaled reformulation" should read "well-scaled reformulation" given the surrounding discussion, and "maxmimum covariance constraint" in Section V.B). These should be corrected in a final revision.
  2. [Section V.A] The Monte Carlo verification uses 200 samples for both transfers. While this is adequate to illustrate the qualitative behavior, the paper should state the standard error on the empirical Delta V99 and the empirical violation rate for the 1% chance constraint, or at least report the maximum observed violation rate. This would allow a reader to gauge the statistical precision of the claimed upper bound.
  3. [Section II.B.3] The Gates model is described with a sign error in Eq. (7a): the tilde on the left-hand side is undefined if the right-hand side is the additive error. The notation should be clarified, e.g., by defining u_k = u_bar_k + tilde u_k.
  4. [Section III.B, Eq. (24)] The discretization uses the reference control u*_k in the integration of Eq. (24a), but the linearized dynamics in Eq. (23) use c_k defined via Eq. (25). The consistency of these definitions with the affine term c_k should be stated explicitly, as the reader may otherwise confuse the reference control used for trajectory propagation with the variable u_k in the subproblem.
  5. [Section V.C, Eq. (60)] The finite-time local Lyapunov exponent is defined as Lambda = (1/Delta t) ln ||Phi(t+Delta t, t)||_2, but the text describes it as a local Lyapunov exponent along the trajectory. It would help to state that this is a finite-time quantity and that its interpretation depends on the choice of Delta t, which the authors do mention. A reference for this definition would also be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is a convex reformulation validated against independent Monte Carlo sampling; self-citations are building blocks, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: Problem 1 is reformulated through explicit EKF/linearization assumptions into Problem 2, then convexified into Problem 5, and the resulting Delta V99, covariance, and control-distribution predictions are checked against 200-sample Monte Carlo simulations of the full nonlinear CR3BP dynamics (Figs. 4, 5, 10). No equation in the chain is equivalent to its input by construction; the maximum covariance bound Eq. (15) is a user-specified design constraint, not a fitted parameter. Self-citations are present ([16], [17], [43], [47], [50]) but none is load-bearing in a circular way: the chi-square bound from [17] is stated alongside its triangle-inequality derivation (Eq. (40)), the SCvx* framework from [43] is used with explicit modifications, and the paper itself disclaims inherited convergence guarantees under inexact linearization in Section IV.B and Remark 3. The limitations that do exist, namely inexact linear covariance propagation (Remark 3) and the small 200-sample Monte Carlo for a 1% tail, are validity and correctness concerns, not circularity. Independent Monte Carlo validation is external to the fitted model, so the central claim has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard linearized-Gaussian approximation of the CR3BP with EKF-like filtering, which is common in this literature. The paper introduces no new physical entities. It does introduce two algorithmic free parameters (epsilon_Y, d) and assumes practical convergence of SCvx* despite the lack of a formal guarantee.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon_Y trace regularization weight = 1e-4
    Added to the objective to make the convexification lossless; chosen by the user as a small positive number. Not fitted to data, but it perturbs the original objective.
  • Scaling factor d = 100
    Used in Eq. (58) to rescale covariance variables for numerical conditioning; chosen by hand.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption CR3BP dynamics accurately model cislunar motion for preliminary trajectory design (Section II-A).
    The paper uses the Circular Restricted Three Body Problem as the force model, which is standard for preliminary design but neglects other perturbations.
  • domain assumption All uncertainties (initial state, process noise, maneuver errors, observation noise) are Gaussian; the first two moments suffice to represent the state distribution (Sections II-B, III).
    The EKF-like propagation assumes Gaussianity and linearity, which is valid only when uncertainties remain small.
  • domain assumption Linearization of the nonlinear dynamics around the reference trajectory yields a valid approximation of the covariance propagation (Eq. 21-23, Remark 3).
    This is the central approximation; the authors explicitly note that second-order sensitivities (STTs) are ignored, which can cause divergence in strongly nonlinear regions.
  • domain assumption The Kalman filter provides the minimum-variance state estimate and the innovation process is white Gaussian (Section III-C).
    The covariance update equations rely on the standard Kalman filter assumptions for linear systems with Gaussian noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The SCvx* algorithm converges to a local solution even with the modified acceptance criterion and inexact linearization (Section IV-B.2).
    The authors state that Algorithm 1 does not inherit the convergence guarantee of SCvx* and propose a heuristic acceptance rule; they rely on numerical convergence.
  • ad hoc to paper The added trace regularization term does not materially change the optimal Delta V99 solution (Section IV-A.2).
    They claim epsilon_Y can be arbitrarily small, but in practice it is set to 1e-4, which may slightly bias the solution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SNHQQCK7

@misc{pith2026250201907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Cislunar Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization under Uncertainties via Sequential Covariance Steering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SNHQQCK7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01907}
}
abstract

Spacecraft operations are influenced by uncertainties such as dynamics modeling, navigation, and maneuver execution errors. Although mission design has traditionally incorporated heuristic safety margins to mitigate the effect of uncertainties, particularly before/after crucial events, it is yet unclear whether this practice will scale in the cislunar region, which features locally chaotic nonlinear dynamics and involves frequent lunar flybys. This paper applies chance-constrained covariance steering and sequential convex programming to simultaneously design an optimal trajectory and trajectory correction policy that can probabilistically guarantee safety constraints under the assumed physical/navigational error models. The results show that the proposed method can effectively control the state uncertainty in a highly nonlinear environment. The framework allows faster computation and lossless convexification of linear covariance propagation compared to existing methods, enabling a rapid and accurate comparison of $\Delta V_{99}$ costs for different uncertainty parameters. We demonstrate the algorithm on several transfers in the Earth-Moon Circular Restricted Three Body Problem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Successive Convexification for Passively-Safe Spacecraft Rendezvous on Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit

    math.OC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A successive convex programming method plans a passively-safe, uncertainty-aware rendezvous to the Gateway NRHO while enforcing path constraints in continuous time.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Analysis of Autonomous Orbit Determination in Various Near-Moon Periodic Orbits,

    Qi, D. C., and Oguri, K., “Analysis of Autonomous Orbit Determination in Various Near-Moon Periodic Orbits,”The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 70, No. 6, 2023, p. 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-023-00415-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s40295-023-00415-6 2023

  2. [2]

    Accurate Uncertainty Characterization of Impulsive Thrust Maneuvers in the Restricted Three Body Problem,

    Sharan, S., Eapen, R., Singla, P., and Melton, R., “Accurate Uncertainty Characterization of Impulsive Thrust Maneuvers in the Restricted Three Body Problem,”The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 70, No. 5, 2023, p. 35. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40295-023-00394-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s40295-023-00394-8 2023

  3. [3]

    H., “Stochastic Differential Dynamic Programming with Unscented 35 Table 7 Comparison of Stochastic Optimal Control Approaches for Space Trajectory Optimization Ref

    Ozaki, N., Campagnola, S., Funase, R., and Yam, C. H., “Stochastic Differential Dynamic Programming with Unscented 35 Table 7 Comparison of Stochastic Optimal Control Approaches for Space Trajectory Optimization Ref. Method UQ (Fidelity) Control Policy Optimization Considers Navigation Uncertainty Gradient Information Main Computational Effort (Time)

    work page

  4. [4]

    𝜎point propagation (unclear)

    DDP UT (Med.) yes (fitting at 𝜎points) no STM, STT, and𝜎points requires nonlin. 𝜎point propagation (unclear)

    work page

  5. [5]

    DDP UT (Med.) yes (linear feedback on state deviation) yes STM, STT, and𝜎points requires nonlin. 𝜎point propagation (hours [5]) [14, 16] SCP (block Chol.) LinCov (Low) yes (linear feedback on state deviation) no [14] yes [16] linearization & discretization; leverages convex solver solves large LMI (hours)

    work page

  6. [6]

    uses finite diff.; availability of analytical derivative unclear unclear

    NLP (finite diff.) GMM (High) no (B-plane targeter in-the-loop) yes Ref. uses finite diff.; availability of analytical derivative unclear unclear

    work page

  7. [7]

    Robust Trajectory Design for Rendezvous and Proximity Operations with Uncertainties,

    Jin, K., Geller, D. K., and Luo, J., “Robust Trajectory Design for Rendezvous and Proximity Operations with Uncertainties,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2020, pp. 741–753. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004121

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g004121 2020

  8. [8]

    Angles-Only Robust Trajectory Optimization for NRHO Rendezvous,

    Cavesmith, T., Woffinden, D., and Collins, N., “Angles-Only Robust Trajectory Optimization for NRHO Rendezvous,”46th Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control (GN&C), Breckenridge, CO, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Robust Trajectory Optimization Techniques Using a Sweeping Gradient Method and Linear Covariance Analysis,

    Margolis, B. W. L., and Woffinden, D., “Robust Trajectory Optimization Techniques Using a Sweeping Gradient Method and Linear Covariance Analysis,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Broomfield, CO, USA, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    TubeStochasticOptimalControlforNonlinearConstrainedTrajectoryOptimization Problems,

    Ozaki,N.,Campagnola,S.,andFunase,R.,“TubeStochasticOptimalControlforNonlinearConstrainedTrajectoryOptimization Problems,”JournalofGuidance,Control,andDynamics,Vol.43,No.4,2020,pp.645–655. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G004363

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    NLP (auto diff.) LinCov (Low) yes (parameterization of linear feedback) no STM, STT; calculated via automatic differentiation tens of minutes

  4. [12]

    uses finite diff

    Indirect LinCov (Low) no (open-loop) no Ref. uses finite diff. solves 2PBVP for mean and covariance (minutes) Transform for Low-Thrust Trajectory Design,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2018, pp. 377–387. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002367

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Uncertainty-resilient constrained rendezvous trajectory optimization via stochastic feedback control and unscented transformation,

    Yuan, H., Li, D., He, G., and Wang, J., “Uncertainty-resilient constrained rendezvous trajectory optimization via stochastic feedback control and unscented transformation,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 219, 2024, pp. 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. actaastro.2024.03.017

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Robust Space Trajectory Design Using Belief Optimal Control,

    Greco, C., Campagnola, S., and Vasile, M., “Robust Space Trajectory Design Using Belief Optimal Control,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 6, 2022, pp. 1060–1077. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G005704. 36

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    no linearization & discretization; leverages convex solver solves multiple small LMIs (seconds to minutes)

    SCP (full cov) LinCov (Low) yes (linear feedback on state history deviation /stochastic process) See Remark 5. no linearization & discretization; leverages convex solver solves multiple small LMIs (seconds to minutes)

  8. [16]

    A Sweeping Gradient Method for Ordinary Differential Equations with Events,

    Margolis, B. W. L., “A Sweeping Gradient Method for Ordinary Differential Equations with Events,”Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Vol. 199, No. 2, 2023, pp. 600–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-023-02303-3

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Nonlinear Programming Approach to Trajectory Optimization under Uncertainty: Direct Forward-Backward Shooting Formulation,

    Varghese, J., Oguri, K., Wittick, P., and Doogan, T., “Nonlinear Programming Approach to Trajectory Optimization under Uncertainty: Direct Forward-Backward Shooting Formulation,”AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting, Kaua’i, HI, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Stochastic Primer Vector for Robust Low-Thrust Trajectory Design Under Uncertainty,

    Oguri, K., and McMahon, J. W., “Stochastic Primer Vector for Robust Low-Thrust Trajectory Design Under Uncertainty,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2022, pp. 84–102. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G005970

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Robust Low-Thrust Trajectory Correction Planning Under Uncertainty: Primer Vector Theory Approach,

    Sidhoum, Y., and Oguri, K., “Robust Low-Thrust Trajectory Correction Planning Under Uncertainty: Primer Vector Theory Approach,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Broomfield, CO, USA, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Chance-Constrained Covariance Control for Low-Thrust Minimum-Fuel Trajectory Optimization,

    Ridderhof, J., Pilipovsky, J., and Tsiotras, P., “Chance-Constrained Covariance Control for Low-Thrust Minimum-Fuel Trajectory Optimization,”AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialists Conference, South Lake Tahoe, CA, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization,

    Benedikter, B., Zavoli, A., Wang, Z., Pizzurro, S., and Cavallini, E., “Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 11, 2022, pp. 2061–2075. https://doi.org/10...

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Stochastic Sequential Convex Programming for Robust Low-thrust Trajectory Design Under Uncertainty,

    Oguri, K., and Lantoine, G., “Stochastic Sequential Convex Programming for Robust Low-thrust Trajectory Design Under Uncertainty,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, AAS, Charlotte, NC, 2022

    2022

  15. [24]

    Comment on “Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization

    Rapakoulias, G., and Tsiotras, P., “Comment on “Convex Approach to Covariance Control with Application to Stochastic Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization”,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 46, No. 5, 2023, pp. 1023–1024. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G007420

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    Optimal Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear Stochastic Systems,

    Liu, F., Rapakoulias, G., and Tsiotras, P., “Optimal Covariance Steering for Discrete-Time Linear Stochastic Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 70, No. 4, 2025, pp. 2289–2304. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2024.3472788

    2025

  17. [26]

    Computationally Efficient Chance Constrained Covariance Control with Output Feedback,

    Pilipovsky, J., and Tsiotras, P., “Computationally Efficient Chance Constrained Covariance Control with Output Feedback,” , Oct. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.02485. 37

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [27]

    Stochastic Trajectory Optimization for 6-DOF Spacecraft Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking with Nonlinear Chance Constraints,

    Zhang, Y., Cheng, M., Nan, B., and Li, S., “Stochastic Trajectory Optimization for 6-DOF Spacecraft Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking with Nonlinear Chance Constraints,”Acta Astronautica, Vol. 208, 2023, pp. 62–73. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.04.004

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Multiplicative Approach to Constrained Stochastic Attitude Control with Application to Rendezvous and Proximity Operations,

    Takubo, Y., and D’Amico, S., “Multiplicative Approach to Constrained Stochastic Attitude Control with Application to Rendezvous and Proximity Operations,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Broomfield, CO, USA, 2024

    2024

  20. [29]

    Chance-Constrained Sensing-Optimal Path Planning for Safe Angles-Only Autonomous Navigation,

    Ra, M. A. P., and Oguri, K., “Chance-Constrained Sensing-Optimal Path Planning for Safe Angles-Only Autonomous Navigation,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Broomfield, CO, USA, 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Gaussian Process-Based Covariance Control for Autonomous On-Orbit Servicing,

    Garzelli, A., Benedikter, B., Zavoli, A., Fernandez-Miranda, A. S., and Ollero Baturone, A., “Gaussian Process-Based Covariance Control for Autonomous On-Orbit Servicing,”AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Orlando, FL, 2025. https://do...

    2025 doi

  22. [31]

    OptimalCovarianceSteeringforContinuous-TimeLinearStochasticSystemsWithMultiplicativeNoise,

    Liu,F.,andTsiotras,P.,“OptimalCovarianceSteeringforContinuous-TimeLinearStochasticSystemsWithMultiplicativeNoise,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 69, No. 10, 2024, pp. 7247–7254. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2024.3402059

    2024

  23. [32]

    Covariance Control of an Earth-to-Mars Transfer with Control Actuation Errors,

    Benedikter, B., and Zavoli, A., “Covariance Control of an Earth-to-Mars Transfer with Control Actuation Errors,”Optimization, LearningAlgorithmsandApplications,editedbyA.I.Pereira,F.P.Fernandes,J.P.Coelho,J.P.Teixeira,J.Lima,M.F.Pacheco, R. P. Lopes, and S. T. Álvarez, Springe...

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    Convex Approach to Covariance Control for Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization with Mass Uncertainty,

    Benedikter, B., Zavoli, A., Wang, Z., Pizzurro, S., and Cavallini, E., “Convex Approach to Covariance Control for Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization with Mass Uncertainty,”AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Harbor, MD & Online...

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Convex Approach to Stochastic Control for Autonomous Rocket Pinpoint Landing,

    Benedikter, B., Zavoli, A., Wang, Z., Pizzurro, S., and Cavallini, E., “Convex Approach to Stochastic Control for Autonomous Rocket Pinpoint Landing,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Charlotte, NC, 2022

    2022

  26. [35]

    Minimum-Fuel Closed-Loop Powered Descent Guidance with Stochastically Derived Throttle Margins,

    Ridderhof, J., and Tsiotras, P., “Minimum-Fuel Closed-Loop Powered Descent Guidance with Stochastically Derived Throttle Margins,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2021, pp. 537–547. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G005400

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    DensitySteeringofGaussianMixtureModelsforDiscrete-TimeLinearSystems,

    Balci,I.M.,andBakolas,E.,“DensitySteeringofGaussianMixtureModelsforDiscrete-TimeLinearSystems,”2024American Control Conference (ACC), Toronto, ON, Canada, 2024, pp. 3935–3940. https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC60939.2024.10644253

    2024

  28. [37]

    Chance-Constrained Gaussian Mixture Steering to a Terminal Gaussian Distribution,

    Kumagai, N., and Oguri, K., “Chance-Constrained Gaussian Mixture Steering to a Terminal Gaussian Distribution,”2024 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Milan, Italy, 2024, pp. 2207–2212. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC56724.2024. 10886105

    2024

  29. [39]

    Stationkeeping of Earth-Moon L2 Libration Point Orbits Via Optimal Covariance Control,

    Gettatelli, F., Zavoli, A., Benedikter, B., and Furfaro, R., “Stationkeeping of Earth-Moon L2 Libration Point Orbits Via Optimal Covariance Control,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Big Sky, MT, 2023

    2023

  30. [40]

    Trajectory Design and Orbit Maintenance Strategies in Multi-Body Dynamical Regimes,

    Pavlak, T., “Trajectory Design and Orbit Maintenance Strategies in Multi-Body Dynamical Regimes,” Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, 2013. URL https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/kathleen.howell.1/Publications/Dissertations/2013_Pavlak.pdf

    2013

  31. [41]

    ASimplifiedModelofMidcourseManeuverExecutionErrors,

    Gates,C.R.,“ASimplifiedModelofMidcourseManeuverExecutionErrors,”ContractorReportJPL-TR-32-504,JetPropulsion Lab, Pasadena, CA, 1963. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19640003365

    1963

  32. [42]

    Low-thrust trajectory design with successive convex optimization for libration point orbits,

    Kayama, Y., Howell, K. C., Bando, M., and Hokamoto, S., “Low-thrust trajectory design with successive convex optimization for libration point orbits,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2022, pp. 623–637. https: //doi.org/10.2514/1.G005916

    2022 doi

  33. [43]

    D., Schutz, B

    Tapley, B. D., Schutz, B. E., and Born, G. H.,Statistical Orbit Determination, Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam ; Boston,

  34. [44]

    Lossless Control-Convex Formulation for Solar-Sail Trajectory Optimization via Sequential Convex Programming,

    Oguri, K., and Lantoine, G., “Lossless Control-Convex Formulation for Solar-Sail Trajectory Optimization via Sequential Convex Programming,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2025, pp. 311–326. https://doi.org/10. 2514/1.G008361

    2025

  35. [45]

    The Matrix Cookbook,

    Petersen, K. B., and Pedersen, M. S., “The Matrix Cookbook,” , Dec. 2012

    2012

  36. [46]

    P., and Vandenberghe, L.,Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2004

    Boyd, S. P., and Vandenberghe, L.,Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK ; New York, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804441

    2004 doi

  37. [48]

    The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 10.2

    MOSEK ApS, “The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 10.2.” , 2023. URL https://docs.mosek.com/ latest/toolbox/index.html

    2023

  38. [49]

    YALMIP : a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB,

    Lofberg, J., “YALMIP : a toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB,”2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004, pp. 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1109/CACSD.2004.1393890

    2004 arXiv

  39. [50]

    SuccessiveConvexificationwithFeasibilityGuaranteeviaAugmentedLagrangianforNon-ConvexOptimalControl Problems,

    Oguri, K., “SuccessiveConvexificationwithFeasibilityGuaranteeviaAugmentedLagrangianforNon-ConvexOptimalControl Problems,”2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, Singapore, Singapore, 2023, pp. 3296–3302. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC49753.2023.10383462

    2023

  40. [51]

    Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits and Nearby Higher-Period Dynamical Structures: Orbital Stability and Resonance Properties,

    Zimovan-Spreen, E. M., Howell, K. C., and Davis, D. C., “Near Rectilinear Halo Orbits and Nearby Higher-Period Dynamical Structures: Orbital Stability and Resonance Properties,”Celest Mech Dyn Astr, Vol. 132, No. 5, 2020, p. 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-020-09968-2

    2020 doi

  41. [52]

    Successive Convexification of Non-Convex Optimal Control Problems and Its Convergence Properties,

    Mao, Y., Szmuk, M., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Successive Convexification of Non-Convex Optimal Control Problems and Its Convergence Properties,”2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, 2016, pp. 3636–3641. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2016.7798816. 39

    2016

  42. [53]

    A Hybrid Differential Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Constrained Optimal Control Problems. Part 1: Theory,

    Lantoine, G., and Russell, R. P., “A Hybrid Differential Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Constrained Optimal Control Problems. Part 1: Theory,”J Optim Theory Appl, Vol. 154, No. 2, 2012, pp. 382–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-012- 0039-0

    2012 doi

  43. [54]

    SequentialChance-ConstrainedCovarianceSteeringforRobustCislunarTrajectoryDesignUnder Uncertainties,

    Kumagai, N., andOguri, K., “SequentialChance-ConstrainedCovarianceSteeringforRobustCislunarTrajectoryDesignUnder Uncertainties,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Broomfield, CO, USA, 2024

    2024

  44. [55]

    Optimal Stochastic Vehicle Path Planning Using Covariance Steering,

    Okamoto, K., and Tsiotras, P., “Optimal Stochastic Vehicle Path Planning Using Covariance Steering,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2019, pp. 2276–2281. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2019.2901546

    2019

  45. [56]

    Hyperbolic-Tangent-Based Smoothing with State Transition Matrix Implementation for Generating Fuel-Optimal Trajectories,

    Arya, V., Taheri, E., and Junkins, J., “Hyperbolic-Tangent-Based Smoothing with State Transition Matrix Implementation for Generating Fuel-Optimal Trajectories,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, AAS, Maui, HI, 2019

    2019

  46. [57]

    Regularization of the Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem for Trajectory Optimization,

    Oguri, K., “Regularization of the Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem for Trajectory Optimization,”AAS/AIAA Astrody- namics Specialist Conference, Broomfield, CO, USA, 2024

    2024

  47. [59]

    ARTEMIS Mission Design,

    Sweetser, T. H., Broschart, S. B., Angelopoulos, V., Whiffen, G. J., Folta, D. C., Chung, M.-K., Hatch, S. J., and Woodard, M. A., “ARTEMIS Mission Design,”The ARTEMIS Mission, edited by C. Russell and V. Angelopoulos, Springer, New York, NY, 2014, pp. 61–91. https://doi.org/1...

    2014 doi

  48. [60]

    Application of Local Lyapunov Exponents to Maneuver Design and Navigation in the Three-Body Problem,

    Anderson, R., Lo, M., and Born, G., “Application of Local Lyapunov Exponents to Maneuver Design and Navigation in the Three-Body Problem,”AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Big Sky, MT, 2003. 40

    2003

  49. [2004]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-683630-1.X5019-X

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.