Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Auto-tuned Primal-dual Successive Convexification for Hypersonic Reentry Guidance

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Auto-SCvx, an auto-tuned primal-dual successive convexification algorithm, solves constrained hypersonic reentry guidance across a large mission parameter space with no hand-tuned penalty weights, matching or beating the existing PTR…

desk verdict Useful engineering contribution: auto-tuning SCvx penalty weights works in practice and is backed by serious dispersion studies, but the weight update is a heuristic without proof and the baseline tuning needs full disclosure. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08361 v2 pith:RUI4MONF submitted 2024-11-13 math.OC

Skye Mceowen , Daniel J. Calderone , Aman Tiwary , Jason S. K. Zhou , Taewan Kim , Purnanand Elango , Behcet Acikmese This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 49M3790C2590C55
keywords successiveconvexificationhypersonicreentrytrajectoryoptimizationprimal-dualmethodpenaltyhyperparameterauto-tuningvirtualbuffermultipleshootingsequentialconvexprogramming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces Auto-SCvx, an auto-tuned primal-dual successive convexification algorithm for hypersonic reentry trajectory optimization. The central claim is that Auto-SCvx reliably produces dynamically feasible, locally optimal trajectories for constrained hypersonic reentry problems across a wide range of mission parameters, without any user hand-tuning of the penalty weights that enforce constraint satisfaction. A sympathetic reader should care because existing successive convexification methods require painstaking trial-and-error tuning of these penalty hyperparameters, which is time-consuming and can fail silently. The paper supports the claim with numerical studies on two reentry models, showing 100% convergence in one dispersed set of ten problems and 92.9–93.5% convergence across 1,446 dispersed cases, with equal or better terminal-velocity cost than the penalized trust region (PTR) baseline.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the closed-form primal-dual penalty update. In each iteration, after solving the convex quadratic subproblem, the dual variables for the virtual buffer equality and inequality constraints are updated as $\Delta\lambda^*=\rho_\lambda\nu^*$ and $\Delta\mu^*=\max(-\bar{\mu},\rho_\mu e^*)$ (Eq. 55), and the quadratic penalty weights are updated multiplicatively as $\omega_h\leftarrow \omega_h \nu^*/\epsilon_h$ and $\omega_g\leftarrow \omega_g e^*/\epsilon_g$ (Eqs. 63–64), derived from stationarity of the subproblem Lagrangian. This update targets large penalties exactly at the constraints and time indices where buffers are violated, and lets weights decay where constraints are feasible, improving conditioning. A second load-bearing component is the exact multiple-shooting discretization: the nonconvex dynamics are enforced unbufered through linearized state-transition matrices $A_k,B_k^-,B_k^+,E_k$, so that at convergence the discrete solution matches a single-shooting nonlinear propagation to integration precision even with $N=40$ nodes.

What would settle it

Run Auto-SCvx on a reentry problem with a known feasible solution and an initially infeasible boundary condition, then check whether the virtual buffer residuals $(\nu^*, e^*)$ drop below the prescribed $\epsilon$ before the iteration limit; if the penalty weights saturate or diverge while residuals stay bounded away from zero, the central convergence claim is falsified for that instance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the penalty weights in successive convexification need not be hand-tuned: they can be updated automatically in closed form from the dual variables of the convex subproblem. Writing the nonconvex constraints with virtual buffer variables, Auto-SCvx solves the primal subproblem, then updates the quadratic penalty matrix so that each buffer is driven toward a user-prescribed residual epsilon, using the stationarity conditions of the subproblem Lagrangian. The algorithm also leaves the nonconvex dynamics unbufered, enforcing an exact multiple-shooting discretization through linearized state-transition matrices, and supplies a dynamically feasible initial guess from zero-bank-angle propagation. The result is a quadratic-programming-based solver that converges to dynamically feasible trajectories on sparse time grids, with constraint-violation residuals and terminal-velocity costs at or below those of hand-tuned PTR.

Load-bearing premise

The algorithm's convergence to a feasible trajectory rests on the assumption that the closed-form penalty weight update actually drives the virtual buffer residuals to zero for the nonconvex constraints of every problem instance; the paper chooses the target residual by design rather than proving that the update converges for general nonlinear problems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hypersonic reentry guidance can be run in large Monte Carlo sweeps or flight-parameter dispersions without retuning penalty weights; the paper reports 93.5% convergence on 216 coarse cases and 92.9% on 1,230 fine cases.
  • Because the quadratic penalties are only large where constraints are tight, Auto-SCvx tends to return lower terminal-velocity costs than fixed-weight PTR: about 451.88 m/s vs. 469.04 m/s (weight 1000) and 456.22 m/s (hand-tuned) in the bank-angle example.
  • The absence of virtual buffers on the dynamics and the exact multiple-shooting propagation make the converged state feasible for the continuous-time nonlinear system, reducing dynamic defects and intersample constraint violation; in Example B the Auto-SCvx angle-of-attack stays tight at the upper bound while PTR chatters, and PTR shows a no-fly-zone intersample violation.
  • Each subproblem remains a quadratic program solvable by first-order QP solvers, so the approach is compatible with real-time guidance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same closed-form penalty update could be applied to other nonconvex optimal control problems where PTR is currently used with hand-tuned weights, such as rocket landing or aerial drone path planning; nothing in the mechanism is reentry-specific.
  • The 6–7% of dispersion cases that hit the 20-iteration limit are a natural test bed: extending the iteration cap or warm-starting from a different feasible initial guess might raise the convergence rate, an experiment the paper leaves open.
  • The paper supplies a dynamically feasible initial guess (zero bank angle), which becomes harder to construct as constraints tighten; a testable extension is to add a feasibility-restoration phase that first finds any feasible trajectory before optimizing.
  • Because the weight update prescribes the target residual epsilon by choice, the practical convergence certificate is numerical; a formal convergence analysis of the adaptive weight rule would be needed to guarantee feasibility for arbitrary nonconvex problems.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Auto-SCvx, an auto-tuned primal-dual successive convexification algorithm for nonconvex optimal control, and applies it to 3-DOF hypersonic reentry trajectory optimization. The method introduces closed-form updates for dual variables and quadratic penalty weights, uses an inverse-free exact multiple-shooting discretization, and avoids hand-tuning penalty weights. The authors compare Auto-SCvx against the constant-weight PTR algorithm on two reentry examples and report Monte Carlo results over 1446 dispersed cases, with convergence rates of 92.9%–93.5% and generally better or comparable cost than PTR.

Significance. If the adaptive weight rule is reliable, the paper makes a practically valuable contribution: it removes the hand-tuning burden for penalty weights in SCP-based reentry guidance and demonstrates competitive performance on a substantial numerical test suite. The exact multiple-shooting LTV discretization and the closed-form dual updates are concrete and useful ingredients. The numerical evidence is the main strength: 100% convergence on 10 dispersed Example B instances, 92.9%–93.5% on 1446 Monte Carlo cases, and explicit comparisons with PTR for multiple weights. However, the central property that the adaptive weights drive the virtual buffers to zero is not established by the derivation, and the derivation contains a sign inconsistency. The contribution is therefore currently heuristic rather than theoretically supported, which limits the strength of the reliability claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.B, Eqs. (52c)–(52e)] The step labeled '≡' between Eq. (52c) and Eq. (52e) is not an equivalence. In Eq. (52c), the term +bar_D^T Δλ appears inside a maximization over Δλ, and with the positive proximal term (1/2ρλ)‖Δλ‖², the inner maximization is unbounded above whenever bar_D ≠ 0. In Eq. (52e), the sign is flipped to −bar_D^T Δλ and the outer 'max' is silently replaced by a minimization over Δλ. Because the closed-form dual updates in Eqs. (55) and the weight updates in Eqs. (63)–(64) depend directly on this derivation, the sign flip without justification weakens the theoretical basis of the algorithm. The authors should either provide a correct saddle-point or proximal derivation, or explicitly present the update rule as a heuristic.
  2. [§IV.B, Eqs. (61)–(64) and Algorithm 1, Step 5] The penalty weight update is self-referential. Substituting the stationarity relation W D* = λhat − λbar into the prescribed target D* = ε_h gives W ← W D*/ε_h, which is exactly the multiplicative update implemented in Algorithm 1, Step 5. This rule merely scales each weight up when the current buffer exceeds the target and down when it is below the target. The multipliers λhat and νhat introduced in Eq. (56) are never computed in Algorithm 1; only bar_λ and bar_ν are updated via Δλ* = ρλ D*. Thus the connection between the stationarity conditions and the implemented rule is not established. No monotonicity, Lyapunov, or other convergence argument is given to show that D* and E* converge to zero, so the central feasibility mechanism of Auto-SCvx remains an unproven heuristic.
  3. [§V.C, Table 8 and Fig. 27] The reliability claim is qualified by the reported failures: 6.5% of the 216 coarse-dispersion cases and 7.1% of the 1230 fine-dispersion cases terminated at the 20-iteration limit without satisfying the convergence criteria, and the authors state that no general infeasibility certificate exists. This is acceptable for a heuristic algorithm, but it directly bears on the abstract's wording that Auto-SCvx 'reliably achieves' dynamically feasible solutions. The paper should either supply a convergence or complexity result that excludes or explains these failures, or soften the claim to reflect that reliability is demonstrated only in the tested numerical regime. A discussion of whether the failed runs exhibit weight oscillation, stalled buffers, or genuine infeasibility would make the empirical claim more informative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 8] The solve time entry '131.0.5' appears to be a typo; it should likely be '131.05'.
  2. [§V.A.2 and §VI] There are minor language issues, including a duplicated 'and' before a cost value in §V.A.2 and the phrase 'an more optimal cost' in §VI.
  3. [Fig. 27 caption] The caption states that only 490 of 1230 fine-dispersion cases are displayed; the selection criterion for the displayed subset should be stated.
  4. [Eq. (56)] The multipliers λhat and νhat are introduced without a definition or a clear relation to the other dual variables bar_λ, bar_ν, Δλ, and Δν; the notation should be clarified.
  5. [§IV.D.2] The method relies on a dynamically feasible initial guess obtained by propagating zero bank angle from the initial boundary condition; this is problem-specific and should be listed explicitly as an assumption or requirement of the algorithm.
  6. [Problem 4, Eq. (69g)] The control rate constraint uses the reference timestep bar_τ in the denominator rather than the updated value bar_τ + Δτ, so the rate limit is only approximately enforced during iterations; the text should clarify whether exact satisfaction is intended only at convergence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adaptive weight rule is a stated heuristic, not a disguised fit, and the numerical claims are benchmarked externally against PTR.

full rationale

Auto-SCvx's central claim is that its closed-form penalty update removes the need for hand-tuning the virtual-buffer weights. The update in Eqs. (63)-(64) and Algorithm 1 Step 5 is w ← w·D*/ε, where D* is the current buffer value and ε is a user-prescribed feasibility tolerance. This is a multiplicative adaptive heuristic derived from the stationarity identity A_h D* = λ̂ - λ̄; it is not a 'prediction' of an external quantity and it is not fitted to any pre-specified solution trajectory. The target tolerance ε is an algorithm parameter, not a hidden version of the output, and the algorithm's reliability is evaluated by external numerical comparisons against the fixed-weight PTR algorithm (Tables 5-6, Figures 12-26). The paper explicitly acknowledges that no infeasibility certificate exists for the 6.5%-7.1% of dispersed cases that hit the iteration cap (Section V.C); this is a stated limitation and a convergence-analysis gap, not a circularity. Self-citations, notably [49] and [53], supply the vehicle model and discretization framework, but the novel adaptive update and its numerical evaluation do not reduce to those prior results. A sign inconsistency between Eqs. (52c) and (52e) is a correctness issue in the min-max derivation, but it does not make the algorithm's output equivalent to its input. No load-bearing step in the paper reduces, by definition or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

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

The paper's contribution is an adaptive penalty update scheme, but it still requires hand selection of trust region step sizes, tolerances, and a minimum weight. The dynamics and aerodynamic models are inherited from prior work. The convergence of the new weight update is unproven, forming the main assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Trust region step sizes (rho_x, rho_u, rho_lambda, rho_nu) = 0.5, 10, 0.1, 1 (Table 4)
    User-selected hyperparameters controlling the update rate of primal and dual variables. The auto-tuning claim does not cover these; the algorithm behavior depends on their values.
  • Desired constraint residuals (epsilon_h, epsilon_g) = Values in Table 3
    Prescribed feasibility tolerances used in the weight update Equations (61)-(64). They set the target buffer magnitudes and directly affect the penalty update.
  • Minimum quadratic weight threshold (w_min) = 1e-3
    Lower bound on penalty weights to maintain positive definiteness; chosen by hand and not automatically tuned.
  • Maximum SCP iterations = 20
    Used in the dispersion study; runs that hit this limit are counted as failures, affecting the reported convergence rates.
  • Number of temporal nodes N = 40
    Sparse grid size for discretization; the paper argues the exact multiple-shooting approach permits this, but the choice influences accuracy and intersample behavior.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The nonlinear 3-DoF reentry dynamics (Equation 2), atmosphere model (Equation 5), and aerodynamic coefficients from [42] accurately represent the vehicle.
    The numerical results are only as valid as the inherited models; no independent validation of these models is performed in this paper.
  • standard math The linearized convex subproblem is a sufficiently accurate local approximation of the nonconvex problem within the trust region defined by the proximal terms.
    Standard SCP assumption invoked without problem-specific proof; the convergence of SCP for this reentry problem is taken from prior literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The closed-form penalty weight update (Equations 63-64) converges to a feasible point of the nonconvex problem over iterations.
    No convergence proof is given for the adaptive weight rule; the claim rests on the stationarity-inspired derivation and the empirical numerical evidence in Section V.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Auto-tuned Primal-dual Successive Convexification for Hypersonic Reentry Guidance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RUI4MONF

@misc{pith2026241108361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Auto-tuned Primal-dual Successive Convexification for Hypersonic Reentry Guidance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RUI4MONF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08361}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents auto-tuned primal-dual successive convexification (Auto-SCvx), an algorithm designed to reliably achieve dynamically-feasible trajectory solutions for constrained hypersonic reentry optimal control problems across a large mission parameter space. In Auto-SCvx, we solve a sequence of convex subproblems until convergence to a solution of the original nonconvex problem. This method iteratively optimizes dual variables in closed-form in order to update the penalty hyperparameters used in the primal variable updates. A benefit of this method is that it is auto-tuning, and requires no hand-tuning by the user with respect to the constraint penalty weights. Several example hypersonic reentry problems are posed and solved using this method, and comparative studies are conducted against current methods. In these numerical studies, our algorithm demonstrates equal and often improved performance while not requiring hand-tuning of penalty hyperparameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08361 by the authors.

Figure 12
Figure 12. Three PTR solutions use a constant weight of increasing magnitude across a log scale, each normalized by the number of temporal nodes = 40 to reduce solution sensitivity to the number of variables. The fourth PTR solution uses hand-tuned weights with different relative magnitudes for different constraint penalties, again normalized by the 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shuttle Entry Guidance,

    Harpold, J., and Graves, C. A., “Shuttle Entry Guidance, ” Mission Planning and Analysis Division , NASA, Houston, Texas, 1979

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Re-entry control to a dra g-vs-energy profile,

    Roenneke, A. J., and Markl, A., “Re-entry control to a dra g-vs-energy profile,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 17, No. 5, 1994, pp. 916–920. https://doi.org/10.2514 /3.21290

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    Shuttle entry guidance revisited using nonlinear geometric methods,

    Mease, K. D., and Kremer, J.-P., “Shuttle entry guidance revisited using nonlinear geometric methods,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1994, pp. 1350–1356. https://doi.org/10.2 514/3.21355

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Entry guidance and trajectory control for reusa ble launch vehicle,

    Lu, P., “Entry guidance and trajectory control for reusa ble launch vehicle,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 20, No. 1, 1997, pp. 143–149. https://doi.org/10.2514 /2.4008

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Feasible Trajectory Ge neration for Atmospheric Entry Guidance,

    Leavitt, J. A., and Mease, K. D., “Feasible Trajectory Ge neration for Atmospheric Entry Guidance,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2007, pp. 473–481. https://doi.org/10.251 4/1.23034

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    A Comparison of T wo Orion Skip En try Guidance Algorithms,

    Rea, J., and Putnam, Z., “A Comparison of T wo Orion Skip En try Guidance Algorithms,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit , Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Co-located Confere nces, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2007. https://doi.org/10. 2514/6.2007-6424

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Predictor-corrector entry guidance for low-li fting vehicles,

    Lu, P., “Predictor-corrector entry guidance for low-li fting vehicles,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 31, No. 4, 2008, pp. 1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.32 055

    work page doi:10.2514/1.32 2008

  8. [8]

    Onboard generation of three-dimen sional constrained entry trajectories,

    Shen, Z., and Lu, P., “Onboard generation of three-dimen sional constrained entry trajectories,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2003, pp. 111–121. https://doi.org/10.251 4/2.5021

    work page 2003

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Constrained predictor-corrector e ntry guidance,

    Xue, S., and Lu, P., “Constrained predictor-corrector e ntry guidance,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 33, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.49 557

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    Entry guidance: a unified method,

    Lu, P., “Entry guidance: a unified method,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 37, No. 3, 2014, pp. 713–728. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.62605

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Stochastic Predictor-Corrector Guidance,

    McMahon, J. W., Amato, D., Kuettel, D., and Grace, M. J., “Stochastic Predictor-Corrector Guidance,” AIAA Science and Technology 2022 Forum, AIAA Science and Technology Forum, American Institute of A eronautics and Astronautics, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-1771

    2022 doi

  4. [13]

    Adaptive distur bance-based high-order sliding-mode control for hyperson ic-entry vehicles,

    Sagliano, M., Mooij, E., and Theil, S., “Adaptive distur bance-based high-order sliding-mode control for hyperson ic-entry vehicles,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , 2017. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000675

    2017 doi

  5. [14]

    Onboard traject ory generation for entry vehicles via adaptive multivariate pseudospec- tral interpolation,

    Sagliano, M., Mooij, E., and Theil, S., “Onboard traject ory generation for entry vehicles via adaptive multivariate pseudospec- tral interpolation,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , 2016. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G001817

    2016 doi

  6. [15]

    A review of pseudospectr al optimal control: From theory to flight,

    Ross, I. M., and Karpenko, M., “A review of pseudospectr al optimal control: From theory to flight,” Annual Reviews in Control, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2012, pp. 182–197. https://doi.org/10.101 6/j.arcontrol.2012.09.002

    2012

  7. [17]

    SPARTAN: A Novel Pseudospectral Algorithm for Entry, Descent, and Landing Analysis,

    Sagliano, M., Theil, S., D’Onofrio, V ., and Bergsma, M. , “SPARTAN: A Novel Pseudospectral Algorithm for Entry, Descent, and Landing Analysis,” Advances in Aerospace Guidance, Navigation and Control , Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 669–688. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2018 doi

  8. [18]

    Three-Dimensional Traj ectory Optimization Satisfying Waypoint and No-Fly Zone Constraints,

    Jorris, T. R., and Cobb, R. G., “Three-Dimensional Traj ectory Optimization Satisfying Waypoint and No-Fly Zone Constraints,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 32, No. 2, 2009, pp. 551–572. https://doi.org/10.251 4/1.37030, URL https://doi.org/10.2514/1.37030

    2009 doi

  9. [19]

    Advances in Pseudospectra l Methods for Optimal Control,

    Fahroo, F., and Ross, I. M., “Advances in Pseudospectra l Methods for Optimal Control,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit , Guidance, Navigation, and Control and Co-located Confere nces, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2008. https...

    2008

  10. [20]

    A survey of numerical methods for optimal co ntrol,

    Rao, A. V ., “A survey of numerical methods for optimal co ntrol,” Advances in the Astronautical Sciences , Vol. 135, No. 1, 2009, pp. 497–528. 35

    2009

  11. [21]

    GPOPS-II,

    Patterson, M. A., and Rao, A. V ., “GPOPS-II,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2014, pp. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/2558904

    2014 doi

  12. [22]

    Survey of Convex Optimizat ion for Aerospace Applications,

    Liu, X., Lu, P., and Pan, B., “Survey of Convex Optimizat ion for Aerospace Applications,” Astrodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-017-0003-8

    2017 doi

  13. [23]

    Customized Real-Ti me First-Order Methods for Onboard Dual Quaternion-based 6-D oF Powered-Descent Guidance,

    Kamath, A. G., Elango, P., Yu, Y ., Mceowen, S., Carson II I, J. M., Mesbahi, M., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Customized Real-Ti me First-Order Methods for Onboard Dual Quaternion-based 6-D oF Powered-Descent Guidance,” AIAA Science and Technology 2023 Forum, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2...

    2023 doi

  14. [24]

    Convex Programming App roach to Powered Descent Guidance for Mars Landing,

    Açıkmeşe, B., and Ploen, S. R., “Convex Programming App roach to Powered Descent Guidance for Mars Landing,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 30, No. 5, 2007, pp. 1353–1366. https://doi.org/10.2 514/1.27553

    2007

  15. [25]

    Minimu m-Landing-Error Powered-Descent Guidance for Mars Land- ing Using Convex Optimization,

    Blackmore, L., Acikmese, B., and Scharf, D. P., “Minimu m-Landing-Error Powered-Descent Guidance for Mars Land- ing Using Convex Optimization,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 33, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1161–1171. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.47202, URL https://doi.or...

    2010 doi

  16. [26]

    Autonomous precision landing of space rockets,

    Blackmore, L., “Autonomous precision landing of space rockets,” in Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2016 Symposium , Vol. 46, 2016, pp. 15–20

    2016

  17. [27]

    Successive Conve xification of Non-Convex Optimal Control Problems and its Convergence Properties,

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

    2016

  18. [28]

    Successive Con vexification: A Superlinearly Convergent Algorithm for Non - convex Optimal Control Problems,

    Mao, Y ., Szmuk, M., and Açıkmeşe, B. A., “Successive Con vexification: A Superlinearly Convergent Algorithm for Non - convex Optimal Control Problems,” ArXiv e-prints, 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.06539, arX iv:1804.06539

    2018 doi arXiv

  19. [29]

    Successiv e Convexification for Fuel-Optimal Powered Landing with Aerodynamic Drag and Non-convex Constraints,

    Szmuk, M., Açıkmeşe, B., and Berning, A. W., “Successiv e Convexification for Fuel-Optimal Powered Landing with Aerodynamic Drag and Non-convex Constraints,” AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference , Autonomous Controls Laboratory, Dept. of Aeronautics & Astronautics,...

    2016 doi

  20. [30]

    Convex Optimization fo r Trajectory Generation,

    Malyuta, D., Reynolds, T. P., Szmuk, M., Lew, T., Bonall i, R., Pavone, M., and Acikmese, B., “Convex Optimization fo r Trajectory Generation,” , 2021. https://doi.org/10.4855 0/arXiv.2106.09125

    2021 doi arXiv

  21. [31]

    Successive convexificati on for 6-dof mars rocket powered landing with free-final-tim e,

    Szmuk, M., and Acikmese, B., “Successive convexificati on for 6-dof mars rocket powered landing with free-final-tim e,” 2018 AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2018, p. 0617. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-0617

    2018 doi

  22. [32]

    Successi ve Convexification for Real-Time 6-DoF Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,

    Szmuk, M., Reynolds, T. P., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Successi ve Convexification for Real-Time 6-DoF Powered Descent Guidance with State-Triggered Constraints,” arXiv e-prints, 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1811.10803, arX iv:1811.10803

    2018 doi arXiv

  23. [33]

    A State-Triggered Line of Sight Constraint for 6-DoF Powered Descent Guidance Problems,

    Reynolds, T. P., Szmuk, M., Malyuta, D., Mesbahi, M., Ac ikmese, B., and Carson III, J. M., “A State-Triggered Line of Sight Constraint for 6-DoF Powered Descent Guidance Problems,” AIAA Science and Technology Forum , San Diego, CA, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-0924

    2019 doi

  24. [34]

    Real-Time Quad-Rotor Path Planning Usin g Convex Optimization and Compound State-Triggered Constraints,

    Szmuk, M., Malyuta, D., Reynolds, T. P., Mceowen, M. S., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Real-Time Quad-Rotor Path Planning Usin g Convex Optimization and Compound State-Triggered Constraints,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Autonomous Controls Laborat...

    2019 doi

  25. [35]

    Visual ModelingSystem for Optimization-Based Real-Time Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Aerial Drones,

    Mceowen, S., Sullivan, D., Calderone, D., Szmuk, M., Sh eridan, O., Açıkmeşe, B., and Chasnov, B., “Visual ModelingSystem for Optimization-Based Real-Time Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Aerial Drones,” 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO), 2022, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/1...

    2022

  26. [36]

    Constrained Trajectory Opt imization for Planetary Entry via Sequential Convex Progra mming,

    Wang, Z., and Grant, M. J., “Constrained Trajectory Opt imization for Planetary Entry via Sequential Convex Progra mming,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , 2017. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002150

    2017 doi

  27. [38]

    Optimal On-bo ard Abort Guidance based on Successive Convexification for Atmospheric Re-Entry,

    Dominguez Calabuig, G. J., and Mooij, E., “Optimal On-bo ard Abort Guidance based on Successive Convexification for Atmospheric Re-Entry,” 2021. https://doi.org/10.2514/6 .2021-0860. 36

    2021 doi

  28. [39]

    Rapid trajectory optimi zation for hypersonic entry using a pseudospectral-convex algorithm,

    Wang, J., Cui, N., and Wei, C., “Rapid trajectory optimi zation for hypersonic entry using a pseudospectral-convex algorithm,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Pa rt G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering , Vol. 233, No. 14, 2019, pp. 5227–5238. https://doi...

    2019 doi

  29. [40]

    Efficient Convex Optimization of Reentry Trajectory via the Chebyshev Pseudospectral Method,

    Yu, C.-M., Zhao, D.-J., and Yang, Y ., “Efficient Convex Optimization of Reentry Trajectory via the Chebyshev Pseudospectral Method,” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering , Vol. 2019, 2019, pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/ 1414279

    2019 doi

  30. [41]

    https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-1171

    Sagliano, M., Lu, P., Johnson, B., Seelbinder, D., and T heil, S., Six-Degrees-of-Freedom Aero-Propulsive Entry Trajec- tory Optimization , AIAA Science and Technology Forum, American Institute of A eronautics and Astronautics, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-1171

    2024 doi

  31. [42]

    Autonomous entry guidance f or hypersonic vehicles by convex optimization,

    Wang, Z., and Grant, M. J., “Autonomous entry guidance f or hypersonic vehicles by convex optimization,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2018, pp. 993–1006. https://doi.org/10.25 14/1.A34102

    2018

  32. [43]

    Improved sequential convex progr amming algorithms for entry trajectory optimization,

    Wang, Z., and Lu, Y ., “Improved sequential convex progr amming algorithms for entry trajectory optimization,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 57, No. 6, 2020, pp. 1373–1386. https://doi.org/10.2 514/6.2019-0667

    2020

  33. [44]

    Rapid planning f or aerocapture trajectory via convex optimization,

    Han, H., Qiao, D., Chen, H., and Li, X., “Rapid planning f or aerocapture trajectory via convex optimization,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 84, 2019, pp. 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.a st.2018.11.009

    2019 doi

  34. [45]

    Reentry trajectory opti mization with waypoint and no-fly zone constraints using mul tiphase convex programming,

    Zhao, D.-J., and Song, Z.- Y ., “Reentry trajectory opti mization with waypoint and no-fly zone constraints using mul tiphase convex programming,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 137, 2017, pp. 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ac taastro.2017.04.013

    2017 doi

  35. [46]

    Convex Optimization-based Entry Guidance for Spaceplane,

    Bae, J., Lee, S.-D., Kim, Y .-W., Lee, C.-H., and Kim, S.- Y ., “Convex Optimization-based Entry Guidance for Spaceplane,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems , Vol. 20, No. 5, 2022, pp. 1652–1670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-021-0580-4

    2022 doi

  36. [47]

    P., Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods , Academic press, 2014

    Bertsekas, D. P., Constrained optimization and Lagrange multiplier methods , Academic press, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-10366-2

    2014 doi

  37. [48]

    Successive Convexification with Feasibili ty Guarantee via Augmented Lagrangian for Non-Convex Opti- mal Control Problems,

    Oguri, K., “Successive Convexification with Feasibili ty Guarantee via Augmented Lagrangian for Non-Convex Opti- mal Control Problems,” 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , IEEE, 2023, pp. 3296–3302. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC49753.2023.10383462

    2023

  38. [49]

    Dynamically Consistent 3-DoF Polar Hyper- sonic Reentry via Sequential Convex Programming,

    Mceowen, S., Kamath, A. G., Elango, P., Kim, T., and Acik mese, B., “Dynamically Consistent 3-DoF Polar Hyper- sonic Reentry via Sequential Convex Programming,” AIAA Science and Technology Forum , San Diego, CA, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-0300

    2023 doi

  39. [50]

    Hypersonic a nd planetary entry flight mechanics,

    Vinh, N. X., Busemann, A., and Culp, R. D., “Hypersonic a nd planetary entry flight mechanics,” NASA Sti/Recon Technical Report A, Vol. 81, 1980, p. 16245

    1980

  40. [51]

    Entry Trajectory Optimiz ation by Second-Order Cone Programming,

    Liu, X., Shen, Z., and Lu, P., “Entry Trajectory Optimiz ation by Second-Order Cone Programming,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G001210

    2016 doi

  41. [52]

    Optima l Trajectory Analysis of Hypersonic Boost-Glide Waverider with Heat Load Constraint,

    ul Islam Rizvi, S. T., Linshu, H., and Dajun, X., “Optima l Trajectory Analysis of Hypersonic Boost-Glide Waverider with Heat Load Constraint,” Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology , Vol. 87, No. 1, 2015, pp. 67, 78. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-04-2013-0079

    2015 doi

  42. [53]

    Successive Convexification for Trajectory Optimization with Continuous-Time Constraint Satisfacti on,

    Elango, P., Luo, D., Kamath, A. G., Uzun, S., Kim, T., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Successive Convexification for Trajectory Optimization with Continuous-Time Constraint Satisfacti on,” , 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.16826 , URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.16826

    2024 doi arXiv

  43. [54]

    Successi ve convexification for real-time six-degree-of-freedom po wered descent guidance with state-triggered constraints,

    Szmuk, M., Reynolds, T. P., and Açıkmeşe, B., “Successi ve convexification for real-time six-degree-of-freedom po wered descent guidance with state-triggered constraints,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , Vol. 43, No. 8, 2020, pp. 1399–1413. https://doi.org/10.2514/...

    2020 doi

  44. [55]

    Fuel-optimal guidance for end-to-end human-mars entry, powered-descent, and land- ing mission,

    Wan, C., Jing, G., Dai, R., and Rea, J. R., “Fuel-optimal guidance for end-to-end human-mars entry, powered-descent, and land- ing mission,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., Vol. 58, No. 4, 2022, pp. 2837–2854. https://doi.org/10.2 514/6.2020-1472

    2022

  45. [56]

    J., Numerical Optimization, Springer New Y ork, 1999

    Nocedal, J., and Wright, S. J., Numerical Optimization, Springer New Y ork, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-40065-5

    1999 doi

  46. [57]

    A multiple shooting algo rithm for direct solution of optimal control problems,

    Bock, H. G., and Plitt, K.-J., “A multiple shooting algo rithm for direct solution of optimal control problems,”IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1984, pp. 1603–1608. https://doi.org/10.1 016/S1474-6670(17)61205-9. 37

    1984

  47. [58]

    The control parame terization method for nonlinear optimal control: A survey,

    Lin, Q., Loxton, R., and Lay Teo, K., “The control parame terization method for nonlinear optimal control: A survey, ” J. Ind. Manag. Optim., Vol. 10, No. 1, 2014, pp. 275–309. https://doi.org/10.393 4/jimo.2014.10.275

    2014

  48. [59]

    OSQP: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,

    Stellato, B., Banjac, G., Goulart, P., Bemporad, A., an d Boyd, S., “OSQP: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,” Mathematical Programming Computation, , No. 4, 2020, pp. 637–672. https://doi.org/10.1109/CONT ROL.2018.8516834. 38

    2020

Pith tools

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