Tube MPC for Bilinear Koopman Models using Robust Control Contraction Metrics

Mircea Lazar; Thomas de Jong

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Tube MPC for Bilinear Koopman Models using Robust Control Contraction Metrics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A learned robust control contraction metric turns a data-driven bilinear Koopman model into a tube MPC controller with recursive feasibility, robust constraint satisfaction, and input-to-state stability guarantees for the true nonlinear sys

desk verdict Promising conditional theory, but the implemented controller does not satisfy the assumptions that carry the advertised guarantees. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29538 v1 pith:YIMIENCM submitted 2026-07-31 math.OC

Thomas de Jong , Mircea Lazar This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 93B4593C1093C5593D25

keywords bilinearKoopmanmodelstubemodelpredictivecontrolrobustcontractionmetricsinput-to-statestabilityrecursivefeasibilityneuralnetworksynthesisChebyshevpseudospectralmethodslinearparameter-varyingsystems

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 tries to establish that a tube MPC scheme built on a data-driven bilinear Koopman model can give the original nonlinear system formal closed-loop guarantees: if the model mismatch is bounded, the true trajectory stays inside the state and input constraints and the closed loop is input-to-state stable with respect to that mismatch (the tracking error is bounded by a function of the mismatch and tends to zero as the mismatch tends to zero). The route is a robust control contraction metric and an associated feedback controller, both parameterized as neural networks and trained on sparse samples of the high-dimensional lifted state space, which certify a bound on how far the true trajectory can drift from the nominal MPC trajectory. Theorems 2–4 state recursive feasibility, robust constraint satisfaction, and ISS of the closed loop. If correct, the practical significance is that approximate learned dynamics can be used for safety-critical predictive control with rigorous guarantees instead of heuristic ones.

What carries the argument

The central object is a discrete-time robust control contraction metric (RCCM): a uniformly bounded, positive-definite matrix-valued function W(z) (equivalently M(z)=W(z)^-1) together with a state-dependent feedback gain L(z). It certifies inequality (14), which contracts the Riemannian energy between two trajectories at rate (1-alpha) and grows only with the squared disturbance difference. Iterating yields the Euclidean error bound (15), whose asymptotic gain defines the tube tightening delta_max in (39). The bilinear model's LPV embedding (35) makes Problem 3 convex for fixed scheduling, and Chebyshev pseudospectral discretization turns the geodesic computation (43) into quadratic programs

What would settle it

Evaluate inequality (28) on a dense grid or random samples covering the operating region of the trained metric from Section VII; if any sample yields a negative eigenvalue of M_{i,j}, the tube bound is invalid there. A direct experiment is to run the closed loop with several disturbance sequences near the boundary of W and check whether the true state ever leaves the tightened tube Z; a single exit would falsify the constraint-satisfaction claim for that certificate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a bilinear Koopman model with bounded approximation error, existence of a metric W(z) and feedback gain L(z) satisfying the robust contraction LMI (28) on the lifted domain implies that the controller (44)—an LPV-convex tube MPC problem plus a geodesic-based contractive correction—makes the true nonlinear system (2) satisfy its constraints at all times and be ISS with respect to the mismatch e_k = w^0_k - w^s_k between the disturbance realizations attached to the optimal and measured trajectories. The proof combines a Lyapunov decrease for the nominal initial-condition trajectory (Theorem 4(i)) with the contraction-based deviation bound (49) to obtain th

Load-bearing premise

The guarantees hinge on the contraction certificate holding everywhere in the lifted state/input/disturbance region and on a valid terminal invariant set, but the implementation only checks the certificate on finite samples (about 90% positive) and substitutes the terminal condition with the whole tightened set, so the premises are not fully met in the numerical demonstration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the contraction certificate holds, the true closed-loop trajectory respects the original state and input constraints for all time despite the Koopman model being only approximate, so the data-driven design is safely deployable.
Recursive feasibility is inherited: once Problem 3 is feasible, it remains feasible at every later step, so the controller does not require ad-hoc feasibility repairs online.
The closed loop is ISS with respect to model mismatch; in particular, if the mismatch tends to zero, the true state converges asymptotically to the reference.
Because linear Koopman models are the special case B_i=0, the same ISS guarantee strengthens existing tube MPC results for linear Koopman realizations.
The online computations are convex (MPC for a fixed scheduling sequence plus QPs for the geodesic), so the method scales to high-dimensional lifted states where sum-of-squares synthesis would be intractable.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported certificate coverage (90.4% positive samples on training, 90.2% on validation) means the global Assumption 1 is not yet verified; combining the neural certificates with formal verification or probabilistic bounds would close the gap and make the theorems genuinely applicable to the implementation.
The simulation replaces the terminal invariant set with the whole tightened constraint set because high-dimensional terminal sets were too complex; a scalable construction of LPV terminal invariants in the lifted space is the missing piece for a complete numerical demonstration of the recursive-feasibility theorem.
As the authors note, embedding proportional error bounds that vanish at the reference would upgrade the ISS guarantee to asymptotic stability of the reference, suggesting a natural integration with certified error bounds for bilinear Koopman surrogates.
The framework is not tied to Koopman-specific structure: any high-dimensional lifted model that admits an exact LPV embedding and a learned robust contraction certificate could inherit the same tube-MPC architecture.

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

What you should know: this paper is worth engaging with, but the guarantees in the title are not actually demonstrated for the controller that was tested. The theory is coherent; the gap is between the assumptions and the numerical verification.

The genuinely new piece is the combination: discrete-time robust contraction metrics for bilinear Koopman models, an LPV embedding that makes the MPC problem convex for a fixed scheduling sequence, and a Chebyshev pseudospectral reformulation of the geodesic computation as QPs. That is a useful architecture for high-dimensional lifted spaces where SOS is intractable. The authors also handle the literature responsibly, including the concurrent work, and they are transparent about the numerical limitations: they report 90.4% positive eigenvalues for the contraction LMI and say this 'remains below the desired level,' and they tell you the terminal set from MPT3 was too large so they set Z_T = Z_bar in the implementation.

The math itself is solid conditional on Assumptions 1 and 2: the ISS derivation in Theorem 4 follows from the contraction bound and the Lyapunov decrease, and it is not circular. But both assumptions are load-bearing and neither is verified in the numerics. Assumption 1 requires the LMI (28) to hold over the entire domain; the trained metric satisfies it on about 90% of the sampled points, which is not a certificate. A single violation inside the operating region invalidates the tube bound, and the paper provides no a posteriori verification (e.g., Lipschitz or branch-and-bound). Assumption 2 is replaced by a trivial terminal set, so recursive feasibility and ISS do not follow for the implemented scheme. The disturbance set W is also taken as a ball from the max training error, which is standard but not a certified uniform bound.

These are not small blemishes. If the paper's value proposition is the guarantee, then the missing certificate is the central weakness. That said, the theoretical framework is a real contribution and the computational pipeline is practical. The paper would benefit from a clear statement that the implementation is a heuristic instantiation, or better, from an actual verification step. I would referee this: the ideas are worth the community's time, but the authors should be pushed to close the gap between the assumptions and the simulations.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a robust tube MPC framework for data-driven bilinear Koopman models. The authors derive a discrete-time robust control contraction metric (RCCM) condition for bilinear lifted dynamics, propose a neural-network-based learning scheme that enforces the associated LMI on a sparse sample set, and use the resulting certificate to construct a tube MPC problem with tightened constraints. The claimed guarantees are recursive feasibility, robust constraint satisfaction, and input-to-state stability (ISS) of the true closed-loop system with respect to the Koopman model mismatch, formalized in Theorems 2–4 under Assumptions 1 and 2. The online computations are reduced to a convex MPC problem for a fixed scheduling sequence and to Chebyshev-pseudospectral geodesic QPs. A nonlinear pendulum example is used for numerical validation.

Significance. If the main claims were established for the implemented controller, the contribution would be significant: it would extend contraction-based tube MPC to high-dimensional lifted Koopman spaces, offer stronger ISS-type guarantees than the usual ISpS results, and provide a computationally tractable synthesis pipeline via neural certificates and QP-based geodesics. The theoretical development is coherent conditional on Assumptions 1 and 2, and the LPV reformulation plus pseudospectral geodesic approach are well-motivated and clearly explained. The paper also gives a fair comparison with concurrent work. However, the numerical implementation does not verify the two key assumptions on which all theorems rest, so the advertised closed-loop guarantees are not established for the tested controller.

major comments (3)

[§IV-A, §VII-B, Assumption 1, Eq. (28)] Assumption 1 requires the RCCM LMI (28) to hold for every z∈Z, u∈U, w∈W. Problem 2 enforces the inequality only on 16,875×5 sampled points, and Section VII-B reports positive eigenvalues for only 90.4% of training and 90.2% of validation samples, with the paper itself stating that this 'remains below the desired level.' Since a single violation inside the operating region can invalidate the contraction property (14), Lemma 1, and the tube width δmax in Eq. (39), Theorems 2–4 do not apply to the trained metric/controller. A formal or probabilistic certificate for (28) over the whole domain is missing.
[§VII-C, Assumption 2, Theorems 3–4] The implementation replaces the terminal set by Z_T = Z̄ because the MPT3 terminal sets had more than 400 constraints. Assumption 2, however, requires a control-invariant terminal set with a stabilizing local controller and a terminal cost decrease; these properties are not shown for Z̄. The candidate-sequence argument in Theorem 3 and the Lyapunov decrease in Theorem 4 explicitly invoke Assumption 2, so recursive feasibility and ISS do not follow for the simulated scheme. The numerical results should either be reframed as heuristic, or a tractable terminal design satisfying Assumption 2 must be provided.
[§III-A, §VII-A, Eq. (19)] The disturbance set W is assumed to contain the model mismatch for all time, but in the numerical example W is set to a radius-0.01 ball based solely on the maximum training error. No generalization bound, persistence-of-excitation argument, or validation guarantee is given that ensures w_k∈W for the actual closed-loop trajectory. Consequently, the claim of ISS and constraint satisfaction 'of the true dynamics' is conditional on an empirically unverified premise. This should be stated as an assumption in the theorems, and the numerical validation should not be presented as confirming the guarantees.

minor comments (5)

[§V-A, Theorem 2 proof] The bound on E_{γ_{i|k}} uses the exponent k+i, which mixes the global time index with the prediction-horizon index. This makes the proof hard to follow; the recursive contraction argument should be written with explicit indices for the two trajectories being compared.
[§VII-D, Algorithm 2] The text says the geodesic and contractive feedback computations took place in lines 10–14, but in Algorithm 2 these are lines 16–20; the MPC solve is in lines 12–15, not 15–21. Please correct the line references.
[Theorem 4 proof] The lower bound α(s)=λ_min(Q)s requires Q≻0 to be a class-K function. The paper only assumes Q⪰0. If Q may be singular, additional detectability or a positive definite terminal cost should be assumed, or the Lyapunov argument revised.
[§IV-A, Eq. (33)] The condition-number regularizer Lcond uses β−λ_j(W), but β is described as a softplus offset in Table I. The dual use of β is confusing; a different symbol would improve clarity.
[Various] Minor typos: Eq. (42a) has 'max_{z̄,∈Z}' with an extra comma; Section IV says 'time derivative' where it means derivative with respect to s along the path; reference [30] appears to have a misspelled author name.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the ISS/tube theorems are genuine conditional results; the disclosed verification gaps (sampled LMI certification, Z_T=Z_bar) are assumption violations, not definitional reductions.

full rationale

The paper's theoretical core is a chain of conditionals, not a tautology. Assumption 1 (LMI (28)) is a sufficient condition for the robust contraction inequality (14); Theorem 1 proves this via Schur complement. Lemma 1 then converts (14) into the Euclidean bound (15) with the disturbance diameter \bar{delta}; delta_max in (39) is exactly the geometric-series worst case. Theorem 2 uses delta_max and the Lipschitz-tightened constraints to certify constraint satisfaction; Theorems 3-4 use Assumption 2 and a Lyapunov decrease for recursive feasibility and ISS. Nothing in this chain defines the conclusion into the premise: the learned metric/controller are candidate certificates, and the theorems hold for any W,L satisfying the LMIs. The fact that Problem 2 trains W,L by penalizing negative eigenvalues on samples is a heuristic synthesis step; the paper does not claim the sample check is a proof of Assumption 1. It states the opposite: Section VII-B reports 90.4% and 90.2% positive eigenvalues and says 'they remain below the desired level, as the contraction inequality is enforced over the entire constraint set.' Similarly, the replacement of the terminal set with Z_T = \bar{Z} in Section VII-C ('Therefore, we choose Z_T = \bar{Z}') is an explicit admission that Assumption 2's invariance/cost-decrease conditions are not verified in the implementation. These are correctness gaps in the numerical validation, not circular reductions. The only self-citation, [7], is contextual background for linear Koopman robust MPC and is not load-bearing. No equation is defined in terms of its target claim, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness/ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities beyond standard ones (bilinear Koopman model, RCCM, tube MPC). The load-bearing free parameters are the design hyperparameters for the learned certificate and the data-estimated disturbance bound, neither of which is independently validated. The key axioms are the global contraction LMI and the existence of terminal ingredients; both are stated as assumptions and only partially checked in the numerical section.

free parameters (8)

contraction rate alpha = 0.1
Design hyperparameter in Table I; enters the contraction inequality (28), the tube radius delta_max, and the ISS gain.
disturbance gain nu = 0.5
Design hyperparameter in Table I; scales the disturbance term in the robust contraction inequality.
metric regularization beta = 5
Hyperparameter in the conditioning regularizer L_cond in Problem 2.
softplus offset epsilon = 10
Threshold in the softplus cost used to promote positive definiteness in Problem 2.
positivity margin gamma = 1
Additive term in W = L L^T + gamma I used to enforce positive definiteness of the metric.
disturbance bound w_bar = 0.01
Maximum training error of the Koopman model; defines W and hence delta_bar = 0.02 and delta_max = 0.2756.
Koopman model matrices and lifting network = not reported
A*, B*_i, and the lifting network theta* are learned by solving Problem 1; no parameter values are shipped.
MPC regularizer gamma_0 = 1000
Added in Remark 4 and used in simulation to penalize the deviation of the optimized initial state from the measured lifted state.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 1: robust contraction LMI (16)/(28) holds for all z in Z, u in U, w in W with some W(x), L(z), alpha, nu, alpha1, alpha2.
Theorems 2-4 depend on this global LMI. The paper only enforces it on finite samples and reports 90.4% positive eigenvalues, so the global premise is unverified.
domain assumption Assumption 2: terminal controller, terminal cost P, and terminal set Z_T exist and satisfy the invariance/containment conditions.
Needed for recursive feasibility and ISS. Section VII-C replaces Z_T with Z-bar because MPT3 terminal sets were too large, so the assumption is not verified in the implementation.
domain assumption The true dynamics are exactly represented by the bilinear Koopman model plus a disturbance w in W with 0 in W.
Equation (19) defines the residual; W is chosen as a norm ball estimated from the maximum training error, not independently validated.
standard math Standard tools from contraction theory, ISS theory, Schur complement, and Proposition 5 from [18] are valid in the discrete-time lifted setting.
The proofs rely on these standard results; the adaptation of Proposition 5 from a continuous-time/adaptive setting to the discrete-time Koopman setting is not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tube MPC for Bilinear Koopman Models using Robust Control Contraction Metrics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIMIENCM

@misc{pith2026260729538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tube MPC for Bilinear Koopman Models using Robust Control Contraction Metrics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIMIENCM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29538}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a robust tube model predictive control (MPC) framework for nonlinear systems represented by bilinear Koopman models identified from data. We derive discrete-time robust control contraction metrics (RCCMs) for bilinear Koopman models, which certify a contraction property that explicitly accounts for the mismatch between the Koopman model and the true dynamics. To synthesize such certificates for the typically high-dimensional lifted state, we propose a scalable learning approach that trains neural network parameterizations of the metric and of an associated feedback controller over a sparsely sampled subset of the lifted state space. The resulting certificates are used to construct a robust tube MPC scheme with tightened constraints, for which we establish recursive feasibility, robust constraint satisfaction and input-to-state stability (ISS) of the closed-loop system with respect to the mismatch between the Koopman model and the true dynamics. By exploiting the linear parameter-varying structure of bilinear Koopman models, the MPC problem becomes convex for a fixed scheduling sequence, while the geodesic computation underlying the contractive feedback is reformulated, via a Chebyshev pseudospectral discretization, as a sequence of quadratic programs. The complete framework is validated on a nonlinear pendulum benchmark with a state-dependent input gain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29538 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the lifting map ϕ¯ from the state space to the lifted state space. The image of the lifting map typically occupies only a sparse subset of the lifted space Rnz . state set is defined as the image of the state constraint set under the trained lifting function: Z := z ∈ R nz : z = ϕ¯ θ ∗ (x), x ∈ X [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Architecture of the proposed robust MPC scheme with geodesic-based contractive feedback implementation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Training and validation loss for over epochs for solving Problem 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: State data used for model identification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Closed-loop state trajectory xk and optimized initial-state trajectory x¯ ∗ 0|k , together with the corresponding tube. The input plot shows the optimal MPC input u ∗ 0|k and the applied control input uk. computed using OSQP, on a 13th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-1370P CPU at …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[1]

Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P. Scokaert, “Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,”Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

2000
[2]

Robust model predic- tive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,

D. Q. Mayne, M. M. Seron, and S. V . Rakovi ´c, “Robust model predic- tive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,” Automatica, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219–224, 2005

2005
[3]

Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,

B. O. Koopman, “Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 315–318, 1931

1931
[4]

Advantages of bilinear koopman realizations for the modeling and control of systems with unknown dynamics,

D. Bruder, X. Fu, and R. Vasudevan, “Advantages of bilinear koopman realizations for the modeling and control of systems with unknown dynamics,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4369–4376, 2021

2021
[5]

SafEDMD: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design framework for nonlinear dynamical systems,

R. Str ¨asser, M. Schaller, K. Worthmann, J. Berberich, and F. Allg ¨ower, “SafEDMD: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design framework for nonlinear dynamical systems,”Automatica, vol. 185, p. 112732, 2026

2026
[6]

Robust tube-based model predictive control with koopman operators,

X. Zhang, W. Pan, R. Scattolini, S. Yu, and X. Xu, “Robust tube-based model predictive control with koopman operators,”Automatica, vol. 137, p. 110114, 2022

2022
[7]

Koopman data- driven predictive control with robust stability and recursive feasibility guarantees,

T. de Jong, V . Breschi, M. Schoukens, and M. Lazar, “Koopman data- driven predictive control with robust stability and recursive feasibility guarantees,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 140–145, IEEE, 2024

2024
[8]

Data-driven MPC with terminal conditions in the Koopman frame- work,

K. Worthmann, R. Str ¨asser, M. Schaller, J. Berberich, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Data-driven MPC with terminal conditions in the Koopman frame- work,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 146–151, 2024

2024

Show all 30 references

[9]

Data-driven MPC with stability guarantees using extended dynamic mode decomposition,

L. Bold, L. Gr ¨une, M. Schaller, and K. Worthmann, “Data-driven MPC with stability guarantees using extended dynamic mode decomposition,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 534–541, 2025

2025
[10]

Data-driven model predictive control: Asymptotic stability despite approximation errors exemplified in the Koopman framework,

I. Schimperna, K. Worthmann, M. Schaller, L. Bold, and L. Magni, “Data-driven model predictive control: Asymptotic stability despite approximation errors exemplified in the Koopman framework,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.05951, 2025

2025
[11]

Stability of data-driven Koopman MPC with terminal conditions,

I. Schimperna, L. Bold, J. K ¨ohler, K. Worthmann, and L. Magni, “Stability of data-driven Koopman MPC with terminal conditions,” in 2026 European Control Conference (ECC), 2026. To appear. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21248

2026 arXiv
[12]

Kernel-based error bounds of bilinear Koopman surrogate models for nonlinear data-driven control,

R. Str ¨asser, M. Schaller, J. Berberich, K. Worthmann, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Kernel-based error bounds of bilinear Koopman surrogate models for nonlinear data-driven control,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 9, pp. 1892–1897, 2025

2025
[13]

An overview of Koopman-based control: From error bounds to closed-loop guarantees,

R. Str ¨asser, K. Worthmann, I. Mezi ´c, J. Berberich, M. Schaller, and F. Allg ¨ower, “An overview of Koopman-based control: From error bounds to closed-loop guarantees,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 61, p. 101035, 2026

2026
[14]

On contraction analysis for non-linear systems,

W. LOHMILLER and J.-J. E. SLOTINE, “On contraction analysis for non-linear systems,”Automatica, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 683–696, 1998

1998
[15]

Control contraction metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback design,

I. R. Manchester and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Control contraction metrics: Convex and intrinsic criteria for nonlinear feedback design,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3046–3053, 2017

2017
[16]

Robust control contraction metrics: A convex approach to nonlinear state-feedbackH ∞ control,

I. R. Manchester and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Robust control contraction metrics: A convex approach to nonlinear state-feedbackH ∞ control,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 333–338, 2018

2018
[17]

Tube-certified trajectory tracking for nonlinear systems with robust control contraction metrics,

P. Zhao, A. Lakshmanan, K. Ackerman, A. Gahlawat, M. Pavone, and N. Hovakimyan, “Tube-certified trajectory tracking for nonlinear systems with robust control contraction metrics,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5528–5535, 2022

2022
[18]

Robust adaptive mpc using control contraction metrics,

A. Sasfi, M. N. Zeilinger, and J. K ¨ohler, “Robust adaptive mpc using control contraction metrics,”Automatica, vol. 155, p. 111169, 2023

2023
[19]

Tube-based mpc for two-timescale discrete-time nonlinear processes with robust control contraction met- rics*,

Y . Guo, P. Sauerteig, and S. Streif, “Tube-based mpc for two-timescale discrete-time nonlinear processes with robust control contraction met- rics*,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 5527–5532, 2024

2024
[20]

Control contraction metric synthesis for discrete-time nonlinear systems,

L. Wei, R. Mccloy, and J. Bao, “Control contraction metric synthesis for discrete-time nonlinear systems,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 661–666, 2021

2021
[21]

Neural contraction metrics with formal guarantees for discrete-time nonlinear dynamical systems,

H. Li, X. Zhong, B. Hu, and H. Zhang, “Neural contraction metrics with formal guarantees for discrete-time nonlinear dynamical systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17102, 2025

2025 arXiv
[22]

A chebyshev pseudospectral method for nonlinear constrained optimal control problems,

Q. Gong, I. M. Ross, and F. Fahroo, “A chebyshev pseudospectral method for nonlinear constrained optimal control problems,” inPro- ceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference, pp. 5057–5062, IEEE, 2009

2009
[23]

Nonlinear stabilization via control con- traction metrics: A pseudospectral approach for computing geodesics,

K. Leung and I. R. Manchester, “Nonlinear stabilization via control con- traction metrics: A pseudospectral approach for computing geodesics,” in2017 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 1284–1289, IEEE, 2017

2017
[24]

Input-to-state stability for discrete-time nonlinear systems,

Z.-P. Jiang and Y . Wang, “Input-to-state stability for discrete-time nonlinear systems,”Automatica, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 857–869, 2001

2001
[25]

Bilinear koopman-based robust model pre- dictive control for unknown nonlinear systems via contraction metrics,

Y . Higuchi and K. Sato, “Bilinear koopman-based robust model pre- dictive control for unknown nonlinear systems via contraction metrics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.25658, 2026

2026 arXiv
[26]

A Lyapunov approach to incremental stability properties,

D. Angeli, “A Lyapunov approach to incremental stability properties,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 410–421, 2002

2002
[27]

Nonlinear MPC design for incrementally ISS systems with application to GRU networks,

F. Bonassi, A. La Bella, M. Farina, and R. Scattolini, “Nonlinear MPC design for incrementally ISS systems with application to GRU networks,”Automatica, vol. 159, p. 111381, 2024

2024
[28]

Robust offset-free constrained model predictive control with long short-term memory networks,

I. Schimperna and L. Magni, “Robust offset-free constrained model predictive control with long short-term memory networks,”IEEE Trans- actions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 12, 2024

2024
[29]

Koopman-based feedback design with stability guarantees,

R. Str ¨asser, M. Schaller, K. Worthmann, J. Berberich, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Koopman-based feedback design with stability guarantees,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 355–370, 2025

2025
[30]

Comparison of clenshaw-curtis and gauss quadrature,

M. Novelinkova, “Comparison of clenshaw-curtis and gauss quadrature,” inWDS, vol. 11, pp. 67–71, 2011

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P. Scokaert, “Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,”Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

2000

[2] [2]

Robust model predic- tive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,

D. Q. Mayne, M. M. Seron, and S. V . Rakovi ´c, “Robust model predic- tive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,” Automatica, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219–224, 2005

2005

[3] [3]

Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,

B. O. Koopman, “Hamiltonian systems and transformation in hilbert space,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 315–318, 1931

1931

[4] [4]

Advantages of bilinear koopman realizations for the modeling and control of systems with unknown dynamics,

D. Bruder, X. Fu, and R. Vasudevan, “Advantages of bilinear koopman realizations for the modeling and control of systems with unknown dynamics,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4369–4376, 2021

2021

[5] [5]

SafEDMD: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design framework for nonlinear dynamical systems,

R. Str ¨asser, M. Schaller, K. Worthmann, J. Berberich, and F. Allg ¨ower, “SafEDMD: A Koopman-based data-driven controller design framework for nonlinear dynamical systems,”Automatica, vol. 185, p. 112732, 2026

2026

[6] [6]

Robust tube-based model predictive control with koopman operators,

X. Zhang, W. Pan, R. Scattolini, S. Yu, and X. Xu, “Robust tube-based model predictive control with koopman operators,”Automatica, vol. 137, p. 110114, 2022

2022

[7] [7]

Koopman data- driven predictive control with robust stability and recursive feasibility guarantees,

T. de Jong, V . Breschi, M. Schoukens, and M. Lazar, “Koopman data- driven predictive control with robust stability and recursive feasibility guarantees,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 140–145, IEEE, 2024

2024

[8] [8]

Data-driven MPC with terminal conditions in the Koopman frame- work,

K. Worthmann, R. Str ¨asser, M. Schaller, J. Berberich, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Data-driven MPC with terminal conditions in the Koopman frame- work,” in2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 146–151, 2024

2024