Information-Optimal Multi-Spacecraft Positioning for Interstellar Object Exploration

Arna Bhardwaj; Hiroyasu Tsukamoto; Shishir Bhatta

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Information-Optimal Multi-Spacecraft Positioning for Interstellar Object Exploration

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 proposes a multi-spacecraft framework that locally maximizes the visual information gained during an interstellar object flyby, while providing a formal probability bound on the encounter.

desk verdict A promising combination of stochastic contraction and swarm coverage for interstellar object flybys, but the main theorem's Markov step has a D vs D^2 error and the optimal-swarm-size claim conflicts with their own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09110 v1 pith:WYUS66PV submitted 2024-11-14 eess.SY cs.MAcs.ROcs.SYmath.OC

Arna Bhardwaj , Shishir Bhatta , Hiroyasu Tsukamoto This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.MAcs.ROcs.SYmath.OC

keywords interstellarobjectsmulti-spacecraftplanninguncertaintyellipsoidhierarchicalstochasticcontractionprobabilisticencounterguaranteefield-of-viewcoverageinformationcostflybymissiondesign

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

Interstellar objects such as 'Oumuamua barrel through the solar system once and never return, so a flyby has one chance to gather as much visual data as possible. This paper claims that a small swarm of spacecraft, positioned around an uncertainty ellipsoid in which the object is predicted to lie, can locally maximize that data and keep overlap between spacecraft cameras small. The formal backbone is a contraction-theory bound on the probability that the spacecraft misses the object, which is derived under explicitly approximated control and estimation policies so that onboard computation stays feasible. Numerical experiments with a quasi-realistic empirical population of interstellar objects show that multi-spacecraft systems observe more points of interest than a single spacecraft, with a local optimum around five spacecraft in the tested case. If correct, the method lets mission planners precompute terminal positions offline, freeing the spacecraft to respond autonomously during the encounter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hierarchical stochastic contraction bound of Theorem 1: a differential Lyapunov function $V_{\mathrm{ec}} = \int_0^1 (\partial_\mu q_c^\top M_c \partial_\mu q_c + \lambda\, \partial_\mu q_e^\top M_e \partial_\mu q_e)\,d\mu$ over virtual systems that interpolate between target and actual trajectories yields the failure-probability estimate (7), and hence the uncertainty ellipsoid (8) in which the ISO lies with finite probability. The second piece is the information cost $I = \kappa_{\mathrm{total}} - \varepsilon$: $\varepsilon$ counts how many sampled points of interest fall inside a cone-shaped field of view, and $\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$ measures the angular overlap between any two spacecraft's fields of view. Together they convert the probabilistic encounter statement into a well-posed, non-differentiable optimization over spacecraft terminal positions and camera orientations, which the paper solves with Nelder-Mead.

What would settle it

Re-run the encounter simulations with noise realizations that push the relative state outside that compact region, and compare the empirical fraction of trials where the spacecraft fails to view the ISO to the bound in expression (8); if the empirical failure rate exceeds the bound, the probabilistic guarantee does not actually hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the interstellar-object encounter problem splits into two coupled tasks that can be solved with formal guarantees. First, using hierarchical stochastic contraction, the paper turns the large and rapidly changing uncertainty in the object's state into an upper bound on the probability that the chief spacecraft misses its target (Theorem 1); setting the desired relative position to zero makes this an ellipsoid in which the object lies with a known probability. Second, the paper distributes deputy spacecraft around that ellipsoid by minimizing a cost function $I = \kappa_{\mathrm{total}} - \varepsilon$, where the $\varepsilon$ term rewards the number of visible points of interest in each spacecraft's conal field of view and the $\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$ term penalizes overlap between fields of view. The numerical simulations show that the optimized swarm observes more of the ellipsoid than a single spacecraft, that adding spacecraft eventually saturates because overlap rises, and that the entire positioning can be precomputed offline from an upper bound on the uncertainty history.

Load-bearing premise

The whole probability guarantee collapses if the spacecraft's realized state leaves the compact region in which the approximated control and estimation policies stay within their assumed error bounds and the contraction metrics exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Mission planners can precompute the deputy spacecraft's terminal positions offline using only an upper bound on the ISO's uncertainty history, so the onboard computer is free for other autonomous tasks.
If every deputy is placed around the uncertainty ellipsoid, at least one spacecraft sees the ISO with probability at least the right-hand side of expression (8).
Coverage gains saturate with swarm size: in the paper's simulations the percentage of points of interest viewed grows roughly logarithmically and then flattens, while the information cost rises from overlap, so there is a locally optimal number of spacecraft (five in the tested setup).
The framework extends to stochastic terminal positions by minimizing the expected information cost, so it tolerates additional process noise and state uncertainty without changing the positioning logic.
The information-cost formulation applies equally to other fast flyby targets such as comets or asteroids, since it only needs a sampled uncertainty region and a camera model.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is weighting points of interest by scientific value instead of sampling them uniformly; that would shift the optimal terminal distribution toward the most scientifically informative regions of the ellipsoid.
The 'five spacecraft is optimal' result is an empirical statement tied to the simulated sphere radius and camera model; a likely testable scaling law is that the optimal swarm size grows with the ellipsoid's volume and shrinks with the camera's field-of-view angle.
Because Theorem 1 is local, the practical guarantee is only as good as the size of the compact set over which the approximation bounds hold; checking whether realistic ISO encounter trajectories actually stay inside such a set is an empirical question the paper does not resolve.
The probability bound could be inverted into a sensor-requirement tool: given a required confidence of seeing the ISO, planners could solve for the maximum allowed state uncertainty and thus the needed estimation accuracy.

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

Quick take: this is a real attempt at a real problem, but the central probability bound in Theorem 1 has a flawed final step, and the paper's own data don't support the claimed optimal swarm size.

What's new and good: the combination of stochastic contraction theory with a multi-spacecraft coverage-overlap cost for interstellar object encounters is genuinely new, at least relative to the cited literature. Prior ISO work is single-spacecraft; prior swarm coverage work assumes known orbits. The idea of precomputing deputy terminal positions offline from an uncertainty-history bound is practical and sensible. The paper also acknowledges some simulation limitations honestly, e.g., that initial conditions inside the uncertainty sphere are not accounted for.

The soft spots are not cosmetic. First, Theorem 1: the proof bounds E[Vec(t)] and then claims P[||x - x_d|| >= D] <= E[Vec]/(D m) via Markov. But the available lower bound is Vec >= m_c ||x - x_d||^2, so Markov gives D^2 in the denominator, not D·m. The m here also seems to mix the estimator and controller parts, only the controller part lower-bounds the position error. That is a genuine error in the load-bearing guarantee, and Eq. (8), the ellipsoid probability, inherits it. Second, the cost function I = kappa_total - epsilon subtracts an angular overlap measure from a distance measure with no weights; the units don't make sense as written. Third, the claimed 'optimal' five-spacecraft result doesn't follow from Tables 4-6: Table 5 shows the lowest (most negative) information cost at three spacecraft, and coverage keeps rising through seven. The numbers are noisy and based on three trials, so 'five' looks like a misreading. Fourth, the probability bound is never evaluated against the simulation probabilities, so the 'probabilistic guarantee' is never checked.

Who is this for? Aerospace GNC researchers working on ISO missions or, more broadly, on using contraction theory for uncertainty-aware swarm placement. They'll find the formulation useful, but they'd need to redo the theorem and the cost-function design before relying on it.

Recommendation: send to peer review. The problem is real, the combination is new, and the authors are clearly thinking carefully, but the paper needs major revision - the theorem proof first, then the cost function and the simulation analysis.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-spacecraft positioning framework for interstellar object (ISO) encounters. It first derives a probabilistic bound on the terminal position error of a chief spacecraft using stochastic contraction theory (Theorem 1), constructs from that bound an uncertainty ellipsoid around the ISO's expected terminal position, and then optimizes deputy spacecraft terminal positions to maximize visual coverage of points of interest while minimizing overlap, using the cost function I = κ_total − ε (Eq. 9). Numerical simulations are presented for a single spacecraft's probability of viewing an ISO and for determining an optimal number of spacecraft. The central claims are that Theorem 1 provides formal probabilistic guarantees on the ISO encounter and that the proposed optimization locally maximizes visual information.

Significance. If the results were correct, the framework would offer a principled, precomputable way to position a spacecraft swarm under large state uncertainty, a genuinely useful capability for ISO flyby missions. The paper builds on established stochastic contraction machinery and attempts to connect a formal probabilistic bound to a concrete coverage optimization. However, the proof of the main theorem contains a fundamental error that invalidates the probability bound, and the simulation results do not support the claimed optimality conclusions. Because these issues affect the paper's central contributions, the significance of the work as it stands is not established.

major comments (4)

[§3, Theorem 1 and Eq. (7)] The proof of Theorem 1 incorrectly applies Markov's inequality. From the definitions in the proof, Vec(t) is a quadratic incremental Lyapunov function, and the lower bound on Vec(t) in terms of the state error is Vec(t) ≥ m_c ‖x(t) − x_d(t)‖², not a bound linear in the error. Consequently Markov's inequality gives P[‖x(t) − x_d(t)‖ ≥ D] ≤ E[Vec(t)] / (m_c D²), not the claimed E[V(0)]e^(−2αs t) + cs + e^(−2αs t) ζ̄I(t) over D m. The denominator D m is dimensionally inconsistent if the state carries units, and the paper provides no alternative derivation. A scalar example makes the failure concrete: for a random variable with P(|e|=0.5)=0.9, E[e²]=0.225, m=1, D=0.5, the claimed bound gives 0.45, which is less than the true probability 0.9. Since Eq. (8) and the entire uncertainty ellipsoid construction rely on (7), the main probabilistic guarantee of the paper is unproven as stated.
[§4, Eq. (9) and cost function formulation] The information cost I = κ_total − ε mixes quantities with incompatible units: κ_total is an angular measure of field-of-view overlap (in radians or degrees), while ε is a distance from a point to the FOV cone axis (in length units). Without normalization or dimensionless weighting, the cost is not invariant under changes of units, and the trade-off between overlap minimization and coverage maximization is undefined. This makes the claim that minimizing I 'locally maximizes visual information' not well-posed. The paper should either define a normalized, physically motivated cost or justify the implicit weighting.
[§5, Tables 4–6 and the 'optimal number of spacecraft' claim] The text states that five spacecraft is the optimal number, 'producing the lowest information cost in the simulations'. This is contradicted by the reported data: Table 5 shows the average negative information cost is 96.6 for three spacecraft and 96.1 for five, so five does not give the lowest cost; Table 6 shows the mean fraction of POIs viewed is 98.6% for seven spacecraft and 96.7% for six, both higher than the 92.7% for five. Additionally, Trial 2 of Table 4 reports 100% coverage with four spacecraft. The empirical basis for the claimed optimality is therefore not supported by the paper's own tables.
[§3 and §5, connection between the theoretical bound and simulations] The uncertainty sphere radii used in the simulations (50, 500, 1000, and 100 units) are treated as free inputs rather than being derived from the bound (7) or (8). The empirical success probabilities in Tables 2 and 3 are not compared with the right-hand side of (8), so the paper never validates the formal guarantee it derives. For the claimed 'formal probabilistic guarantees' to be credible, the simulation should show that the empirical encounter probability is at least the lower bound from (8) for the same D, or should otherwise explain why the bound is not applied.

minor comments (4)

[§4, Remark 2] The remark states that when two spacecraft have the same orientation θ, the formula gives κ = 0, and then adds a small perturbation to θ. In fact, substituting θ_i = θ_j into the definition κ = max(0, κ_end − κ_start) yields κ = 2ν, which is nonzero. The remark's premise is incorrect, and the proposed perturbation is unnecessary as a remedy for the described problem.
[§5, Table 3 and surrounding text] The text says the probability of viewing the ISO decreases as the uncertainty sphere size increases, but Table 3 shows nonmonotonic behavior: the probability is 25.0% for radius 50, 16.7% for radius 500, and 25.0% for radius 1000. The discussion acknowledges nonlinearity and initial-condition dependence, but the original general claim should be qualified more carefully.
[§3, proof of Theorem 1] The virtual system (5b) is not clearly tied to the actual estimation dynamics: setting μ = 0 is claimed to give (1a), but (5b) with μ = 0 still contains the ℓ_d(h(q_e1,q_e2,t)−h(œ,x,t)) term and no noise, which does not match (1a) as written. The relationship between q_e and the true/estimated states should be clarified.
[Throughout] There are several typographical and notational issues, including the repeated 'It ˆo' (Ito) rendering, the garbled '∥ℓa( ˆœ, ˆx,t)∥2 F' in the assumptions of Theorem 1, and the inconsistent use of x_d and p_d. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the probabilistic bound is a conditional contraction-theory argument and the placement cost is an explicit optimization objective, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain has two load-bearing pieces. First, Theorem 1/Eq. (7) derives an encounter-failure bound from the stochastic contraction conditions (6), the approximation-error bounds (4), and a Lyapunov/Dynkin argument; the proof does not assume the conclusion, and the bound is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the data it later 'predicts.' Second, the multi-spacecraft placement uses an explicitly proposed cost I = kappa_total - epsilon (Eq. 9); the claim that minimizing I locally maximizes visual coverage is true by construction of the objective, so no hidden prediction is being relabeled as a derivation. The paper does lean on prior work by the same authors ([6], [7], [26]) for the SN-DNN approximation bound and empirical uncertainty histories, but those are cited as external inputs and assumptions rather than as the source of the paper's own conclusions, and the theorem itself is proved in the text. Moreover, the cost function is transparently an ansatz rather than a theorem derived from first principles, so the 'information-optimal' language is a design objective, not a circularly obtained result. Any concern about the exact form of Eq. (7), such as Markov's inequality naturally suggesting a D^2 m_c denominator rather than D m, is a mathematical correctness issue rather than a circularity issue, so it does not affect this circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, but its central claim depends on several unverified assumptions about approximation error bounds, contraction metrics, and the validity of the FOV-based cost function. The main free parameters are simulation choices rather than fitted physical constants.

free parameters (5)

Uncertainty sphere radius D = 50, 500, 1000 (units unspecified)
Chosen by hand for simulations; not derived from the constants in Theorem 1, so the ellipsoid does not use the formal bound.
Initial spacecraft distance range = 100-600 units from origin
Randomly generated initial positions for the single-spacecraft probability simulation; affects results (as the paper admits).
FOV aperture and half-angle = Not reported
Camera field-of-view parameters in the cone approximation are not given numeric values, so the simulated coverage depends on unspecified constants.
POI count = 5000
Number of randomly sampled points of interest; coverage percentage depends on this count.
Small perturbation added to theta (Remark 2) = unspecified
Ad hoc fix to avoid the overlap metric returning zero for identical orientations; value not reported.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The approximation errors ua - ud and ℓa - ℓd are uniformly bounded by εu and εe on a compact set S (Eq. 4).
Load-bearing for Theorem 1; ensures the virtual system construction is valid.
domain assumption There exist positive definite metrics Mc(t), Me(t) satisfying the hierarchical contraction conditions (6).
Standard contraction theory assumption; the paper cites prior work for finding them via convex optimization but does not provide them.
domain assumption The process and measurement noises other than G dW are negligible.
Stated in Section 2; simplifies the SDE model.
domain assumption POIs are uniformly randomly distributed in the uncertainty ellipsoid, and viewing more POIs increases the chance of viewing the ISO.
Stated in Section 4; the cost function depends on this heuristic.
standard math Dynkin's formula, Markov inequality, and Itô calculus are applied without error.
Standard stochastic calculus results used in the proof of Theorem 1.
domain assumption The target controller and estimator ud, ℓd guarantee contraction of the nominal system.
Assumed from prior work [7,22]; not proven in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information-Optimal Multi-Spacecraft Positioning for Interstellar Object Exploration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYUS66PV

@misc{pith2026241109110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information-Optimal Multi-Spacecraft Positioning for Interstellar Object Exploration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYUS66PV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09110}
}

read the original abstract

Interstellar objects (ISOs), astronomical objects not gravitationally bound to the sun, could present valuable opportunities to advance our understanding of the universe's formation and composition. In response to the unpredictable nature of their discoveries that inherently come with large and rapidly changing uncertainty in their state, this paper proposes a novel multi-spacecraft framework for locally maximizing information to be gained through ISO encounters with formal probabilistic guarantees. Given some approximated control and estimation policies for fully autonomous spacecraft operations, we first construct an ellipsoid around its terminal position, where the ISO would be located with a finite probability. The large state uncertainty of the ISO is formally handled here through the hierarchical property in stochastically contracting nonlinear systems. We then propose a method to find the terminal positions of the multiple spacecraft optimally distributed around the ellipsoid, which locally maximizes the information we can get from all the points of interest (POIs). This utilizes a probabilistic information cost function that accounts for spacecraft positions, camera specifications, and ISO position uncertainty, where the information is defined as visual data collected by cameras. Numerical simulations demonstrate the efficacy of this approach using synthetic ISO candidates generated from quasi-realistic empirical populations. Our method allows each spacecraft to optimally select its terminal state and determine the ideal number of POIs to investigate, potentially enhancing the ability to study these rare and fleeting interstellar visitors while minimizing resource utilization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

The natural history of ‘Oumuamua,

M. T. Bannister, A. Bhandare, P. A. Dybczy ´nski, A. Fitzsimmons, A. Guilbert-Lepoutre, R. Jedicke, M. M. Knight, K. J. Meech, A. McNeill, S. Pfalzner, S. N. Raymond, C. Snodgrass, D. E. Trilling, Q. Ye, and The ‘Oumuamua ISSI Team, “The natural history of ‘Oumuamua,” Nature Astron., vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 594– 602, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid,

K. J. Meech, R. Weryk, M. Micheli, J. T. Kleyna, O. R. Hainaut, R. Jedicke, R. J. Wainscoat, K. C. Cham- bers, J. V . Keane, A. Petric, L. Denneau, E. Magnier, T. Berger, M. E. Huber, H. Flewelling, C. Waters, E. Schunova-Lilly, and S. Chastel, “A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid,” Nature, vol. 552, no. 7685, pp. 378–38...

work page 2017
[3]

Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/Borisov,

P. Guzik, M. Drahus, K. Rusek, W. Waniak, G. Canniz- zaro, and I. Pastor-Marazuela, “Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/Borisov,”Nature Astron., vol. 4, 2020

work page 2020
[4]

On the spin dynamics of elongated minor bodies with applications to a possible solar system analogue composition for ‘Oumuamua,

D. Z. Seligman, W. G. Levine, S. H. C. Cabot, G. Laughlin, and K. Meech, “On the spin dynamics of elongated minor bodies with applications to a possible solar system analogue composition for ‘Oumuamua,” Astrophys. J., vol. 920, no. 1, p. 28, Oct. 2021

work page 2021
[5]

Investigating the dynamical history of the interstellar object ‘Oumua- mua,

P. A. Dybczy ´nski and M. Kr ´olikowska, “Investigating the dynamical history of the interstellar object ‘Oumua- mua,” Astron. Astrophys., vol. 610, p. L11, 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Interstellar object accessibility and mission design,

B. P. S. Donitz, D. Mages, H. Tsukamoto, P. Dixon, D. Landau, S.-J. Chung, E. Bufanda, M. Ingham, and J. Castillo-Rogez, “Interstellar object accessibility and mission design,” in IEEE Aerosp. Conf., 2023, pp. 1–9

work page 2023
[7]

Neural-Rendezvous: Provably-based robust guidance and control to en- counter interstellar objects,

H. Tsukamoto, S.-J. Chung, Y . K. Nakka, B. Donitz, D. Mages, and M. Ingham, “Neural-Rendezvous: Provably-based robust guidance and control to en- counter interstellar objects,” accepted, AIAA J. Guid. Control Dyn., Aug. 2024

work page 2024
[8]

J. L. Junkins and H. Schaub, Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems, 2nd ed. AIAA, Apr. 2018

work page 2018

Show all 34 references

[9]

Navigation evaluation for fast interstellar object fly- bys,

D. Mages, D. Landau, B. Donitz, and S. Bhaskaran, “Navigation evaluation for fast interstellar object fly- bys,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 191, pp. 359–373, 2022

2022
[10]

Autonomous optical navigation (Au- 9 Bhardwaj et al.: Information-Optimal Multi-Spacecraft Positioning for Interstellar Object Exploration toNav) DS1 technology validation report,

J. Riedel et al., “Autonomous optical navigation (Au- 9 Bhardwaj et al.: Information-Optimal Multi-Spacecraft Positioning for Interstellar Object Exploration toNav) DS1 technology validation report,” in NASA JPL, Caltech, 2000

2000
[11]

An observa- tional upper limit on the interstellar number density of asteroids and comets,

T. Engelhardt, R. Jedicke, P. Vere ˇs, A. Fitzsimmons, L. Denneau, E. Beshore, and B. Meinke, “An observa- tional upper limit on the interstellar number density of asteroids and comets,”Astron. J., vol. 153, no. 3, p. 133, feb 2017

2017
[12]

Attitude control of spacecraft swarms for visual mapping of planetary bodies,

R. T. Nallapu and J. Thangavelautham, “Attitude control of spacecraft swarms for visual mapping of planetary bodies,” IEEE Aerosp. Conf., 2019

2019
[13]

Distributed fast motion planning for spacecraft swarms in cluttered environments using spherical expansions and sequence of convex optimization problems,

S. Bandyopadhyay, F. Baldini, R. Foust, S.-J. Chung, A. Rahmani, J.-P. de la Croix, and F. Y . Hadaegh, “Distributed fast motion planning for spacecraft swarms in cluttered environments using spherical expansions and sequence of convex optimization problems,” in IWSCFF, 2017

2017
[14]

Information-based guidance and control architecture for multi-spacecraft on-orbit inspection,

Y . K. Nakka, W. H ¨onig, C. Choi, A. Harvard, A. Rah- mani, and S.-J. Chung, “Information-based guidance and control architecture for multi-spacecraft on-orbit inspection,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. , vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 1184–1201, 2022

2022
[15]

Coordinated motion planning for on-orbit satellite inspection using a swarm of small-spacecraft,

B. Bernhard, C. Choi, A. Rahmani, S.-J. Chung, and F. Hadaegh, “Coordinated motion planning for on-orbit satellite inspection using a swarm of small-spacecraft,” IEEE Aerosp. Conf., pp. 1–13, 2020

2020
[16]

Attitude control of spacecraft swarms for visual mapping of planetary bodies,

J. T. Ravi teja Nallapu, “Attitude control of spacecraft swarms for visual mapping of planetary bodies,” IEEE Aerosp. Conf., 2020

2020
[17]

Multiple spacecraft coordination and motion planning for full- coverage inspection of large complex space structures,

S. Faghihi, S. Tavana, and A. H. de Ruiter, “Multiple spacecraft coordination and motion planning for full- coverage inspection of large complex space structures,” Acta Astronautica, 2023

2023
[18]

Model predictive control of swarms of spacecraft using se- quential convex programming,

D. Morgan, S.-J. Chung, and F. Y . Hadaegh, “Model predictive control of swarms of spacecraft using se- quential convex programming,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1725–1740, 2014

2014
[19]

Swarm-keeping strate- gies for spacecraft under J2 and atmospheric drag per- turbations,

D. Morgan, S.-J. Chung, L. Blackmore, B. Acikmese, D. Bayard, and F. Y . Hadaegh, “Swarm-keeping strate- gies for spacecraft under J2 and atmospheric drag per- turbations,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. , vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1492–1506, 2012

2012
[20]

Applica- tion of synchronization to formation flying spacecraft: Lagrangian approach,

S.-J. Chung, U. Ahsun, and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Applica- tion of synchronization to formation flying spacecraft: Lagrangian approach,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. , vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 512–526, 2009

2009
[21]

Arnold, Stochastic Differential Equations: Theory and Applications

L. Arnold, Stochastic Differential Equations: Theory and Applications. Wiley, 1974

1974
[22]

On contraction anal- ysis for nonlinear systems,

W. Lohmiller and J.-J. E. Slotine, “On contraction anal- ysis for nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 683 – 696, 1998

1998
[23]

A contrac- tion theory approach to stochastic incremental stability,

Q. Pham, N. Tabareau, and J.-J. E. Slotine, “A contrac- tion theory approach to stochastic incremental stability,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 816– 820, Apr. 2009

2009
[24]

Spectral normalization for generative adversarial net- works,

T. Miyato, T. Kataoka, M. Koyama, and Y . Yoshida, “Spectral normalization for generative adversarial net- works,” in Int. Conf. Learn. Representations, 2018

2018
[25]

On partial contraction analysis for coupled nonlinear oscillators,

W. Wang and J.-J. E. Slotine, “On partial contraction analysis for coupled nonlinear oscillators,” Biol. Cy- bern., vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 38–53, Jan. 2005

2005
[26]

Con- traction theory for nonlinear stability analysis and learning-based control: A tutorial overview,

H. Tsukamoto, S.-J. Chung, and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Con- traction theory for nonlinear stability analysis and learning-based control: A tutorial overview,”Annu. Rev. Control, vol. 52, pp. 135–169, 2021

2021
[27]

H. J. Kushner, Stochastic Stability and Control. Aca- demic Press New York, 1967

1967
[28]

D. S. Geoffrey R. Grimmett, Probability and Random Processes, 3rd ed. United Kingdom: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2001

2001
[29]

Observer design for stochastic nonlinear systems via contraction- based incremental stability,

A. P. Dani, S.-J. Chung, and S. Hutchinson, “Observer design for stochastic nonlinear systems via contraction- based incremental stability,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Con- trol, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 700–714, Mar. 2015

2015
[30]

Phase synchronization control of complex networks of Lagrangian systems on adaptive digraphs,

S.-J. Chung, S. Bandyopadhyay, I. Chang, and F. Y . Hadaegh, “Phase synchronization control of complex networks of Lagrangian systems on adaptive digraphs,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1148–1161, 2013

2013
[31]

Periph- eral vision and pattern recognition: A review,

H. Strasburger, I. Rentschler, and M. J ¨uttner, “Periph- eral vision and pattern recognition: A review,”J. Vision, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 13–13, 12 2011

2011
[32]

Chapter 3 – Optical Imaging Systems,

W. Emery and A. Camps, “Chapter 3 – Optical Imaging Systems,” in Introduction to Satellite Remote Sensing , W. Emery and A. Camps, Eds. Elsevier, 2017, pp. 85– 130

2017
[33]

Numerical optimization strate- gies for springback compensation in sheet metal form- ing,

A. Maia, F. E., M. Oliveira, L. Menezes, and A. Andrade-Campos, “Numerical optimization strate- gies for springback compensation in sheet metal form- ing,” in Computat. Methods. Prod. Eng., 2017. BIOGRAPHY [ Arna Bhardwaj will receive her B.S. in Aerospace Engineering with a M...

2017
[2025]

She is interested in both percep- tion and estimation for stochastic sys- tems. Throughout her four years at Illi- nois, Arna has been a part of four differ- ent research labs and spent two summers as a NASA Space Grant Consortium re- searcher under their Undergraduate Researc...

2025

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

The natural history of ‘Oumuamua,

M. T. Bannister, A. Bhandare, P. A. Dybczy ´nski, A. Fitzsimmons, A. Guilbert-Lepoutre, R. Jedicke, M. M. Knight, K. J. Meech, A. McNeill, S. Pfalzner, S. N. Raymond, C. Snodgrass, D. E. Trilling, Q. Ye, and The ‘Oumuamua ISSI Team, “The natural history of ‘Oumuamua,” Nature Astron., vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 594– 602, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid,

K. J. Meech, R. Weryk, M. Micheli, J. T. Kleyna, O. R. Hainaut, R. Jedicke, R. J. Wainscoat, K. C. Cham- bers, J. V . Keane, A. Petric, L. Denneau, E. Magnier, T. Berger, M. E. Huber, H. Flewelling, C. Waters, E. Schunova-Lilly, and S. Chastel, “A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid,” Nature, vol. 552, no. 7685, pp. 378–38...

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/Borisov,

P. Guzik, M. Drahus, K. Rusek, W. Waniak, G. Canniz- zaro, and I. Pastor-Marazuela, “Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/Borisov,”Nature Astron., vol. 4, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [4]

On the spin dynamics of elongated minor bodies with applications to a possible solar system analogue composition for ‘Oumuamua,

D. Z. Seligman, W. G. Levine, S. H. C. Cabot, G. Laughlin, and K. Meech, “On the spin dynamics of elongated minor bodies with applications to a possible solar system analogue composition for ‘Oumuamua,” Astrophys. J., vol. 920, no. 1, p. 28, Oct. 2021

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Investigating the dynamical history of the interstellar object ‘Oumua- mua,

P. A. Dybczy ´nski and M. Kr ´olikowska, “Investigating the dynamical history of the interstellar object ‘Oumua- mua,” Astron. Astrophys., vol. 610, p. L11, 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Interstellar object accessibility and mission design,

B. P. S. Donitz, D. Mages, H. Tsukamoto, P. Dixon, D. Landau, S.-J. Chung, E. Bufanda, M. Ingham, and J. Castillo-Rogez, “Interstellar object accessibility and mission design,” in IEEE Aerosp. Conf., 2023, pp. 1–9

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Neural-Rendezvous: Provably-based robust guidance and control to en- counter interstellar objects,

H. Tsukamoto, S.-J. Chung, Y . K. Nakka, B. Donitz, D. Mages, and M. Ingham, “Neural-Rendezvous: Provably-based robust guidance and control to en- counter interstellar objects,” accepted, AIAA J. Guid. Control Dyn., Aug. 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

J. L. Junkins and H. Schaub, Analytical Mechanics of Space Systems, 2nd ed. AIAA, Apr. 2018

work page 2018