Conformal Prediction for Distribution-free Optimal Control of Linear Stochastic Systems

Dimos V. Dimarogonas; Eleftherios E. Vlahakis; Lars Lindemann; Pantelis Sopasakis

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Conformal Prediction for Distribution-free Optimal Control of Linear Stochastic Systems

T0 review · 2 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 proves that conformally calibrated prediction regions can replace distribution knowledge in linear stochastic optimal control, converting a chance-constrained problem into a deterministic one with guaranteed coverage.

desk verdict A clean distribution-free method for joint chance constraints in linear control, but the main guarantee is marginal over calibration data, not a certified bound for the deployed calibration set. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19132 v2 pith:D33CR4F3 submitted 2024-11-28 eess.SY cs.SY

Eleftherios E. Vlahakis , Lars Lindemann , Pantelis Sopasakis , Dimos V. Dimarogonas This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93E2093C0562G15

keywords conformalpredictionchance-constrainedoptimalcontrolstochasticsystemsdistribution-freeuncertaintyquantificationregionslinearjointchanceconstraintstube-based

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 addresses optimal control of linear stochastic systems whose noise distribution is unknown, with joint chance constraints on states and inputs. It proves that if one can construct prediction regions for the closed-loop error trajectories with marginal coverage at least $1-\theta$, then solving a tightened deterministic problem yields a controller whose constraint violations occur with probability at most $\theta$. Two constructive methods are given: a direct one that trains a feedback gain on disturbance samples and calibrates error-region radii, and an indirect one that first bounds disturbances by an ellipsoid from conformal prediction and then synthesizes an invariant ellipsoid through the S-procedure. The probabilistic guarantee is distribution-free and independent of the number of calibration samples.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a two-step train-calibrate split together with nonconformity scores defined over error trajectories. In the direct method, the scores are $R_e = \max_t \|e(t)\|$ and $R_u = \max_t \|Ke(t)\|$; a training set selects the feedback gain $K$ by quantile constraints, and a separate calibration set produces the radii $C_e$ and $C_{Ke}$ as empirical quantiles, yielding ball-shaped prediction regions $B(C_e)$ and $B(C_{Ke})$ with marginal coverage. In the indirect method, a minimum-volume ellipsoid enclosing training disturbances is combined with a conformal quantile to obtain an ellipsoidal disturbance prediction region $\mathcal{W}$, and the S-procedure converts the robust-invariance condition into an LMI/BMI that is solved for an ellipsoidal prediction region $\mathcal{E}$ for the error state. In both methods, Lemma 2 ensures the tightened constraint sets are nonempty, which makes Theorem 1 applicable.

What would settle it

Exhibit a linear system and i.i.d. calibration data for which the quantile radii of Lemma 3 satisfy the nonemptiness condition of Lemma 2, but the resulting closed-loop trajectory violates the state or input chance constraint with empirical frequency above $\theta$ over $10^4$ test disturbances; if such a case exists, Theorem 1's guarantee is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the intractable chance-constrained optimal control problem (3) with unknown noise distribution can be replaced by the deterministic problem (7), provided one has prediction regions $E^{1:N}_{1-\theta}(e(t))$ and $E^{0:N-1}_{1-\theta}(Ke(t))$ that cover the error process and the feedback term with marginal probability at least $1-\theta$. The key reduction is Theorem 1: whenever the prediction regions fit strictly inside the constraint ellipsoids in the sense of Lemma 2, any optimal solution of (7) defines a policy $u(t)=Ke(t)+v(t)$ whose trajectory satisfies the joint state and input chance constraints with probability at least $1-\theta$. The paper then shows two ways to build such regions from data without knowing the distribution, both ending in a conformal quantile step that gives the coverage.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the calibration data are i.i.d. draws from the same disturbance distribution that will act on the system, and that the computed prediction regions are small enough to leave the tightened constraint sets nonempty; conformal prediction guarantees the coverage but not the size, so there is no a priori guarantee that a given dataset yields a feasible design.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any feasible solution of the tightened problem (7) is a feasible solution of the original chance-constrained problem (3), so the probabilistic constraints are certified with probability at least $1-\theta$ without knowing the disturbance distribution.
The guarantee holds with any number of calibration samples; unlike scenario optimization, no minimum scenario count that grows with horizon and confidence is required because the calibration step is separate from gain synthesis.
With the feedback gain fixed, the tightened problem is convex and, in the paper's example, solves in under 0.02 seconds, making the approach suitable for online re-planning.
Both the direct and indirect methods produce prediction regions that satisfy Lemma 2 when their radii stay below the smallest semi-axis of the constraint ellipsoids, so the two methods can be combined or used independently.
Constraint tightening based on maximum-over-time nonconformity scores preserves the joint nature of the chance constraints, so simultaneous satisfaction across the whole horizon is what is certified, not just per-step margins.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the coverage proof only needs the calibration error trajectories to be i.i.d., so the train-calibrate scheme could in principle be lifted to nonlinear simulation models, with a different, model-specific method for gain synthesis.
Editorial inference: because the guarantee is marginal, a fixed calibration set can yield a conditional violation probability above $\theta$; applying a PAC-type adjustment would convert the claim into a probably-approximately-correct one at the price of a larger quantile.
Editorial inference: the direct method's training problem is nonconvex in $K$, and the conformal guarantee starts only after $K$ is fixed, so the paper does not certify that the numerically found gain is near-optimal, only that the final policy meets the chance constraints.
Editorial inference: infinity-norm nonconformity scores would produce box-shaped prediction regions that fit polyhedral constraints more tightly than balls; the paper mentions this possibility but does not develop it, and testing it on the double-integrator example would quantify the conservatism gap.

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

Here's my take. The useful contribution is the indirect method: conformal prediction on disturbance sequences gives an ellipsoidal prediction region, and the S-procedure turns that into a feedback gain plus an invariant ellipsoid for the error, with a convex LMI for fixed multipliers. That's clean and honestly distribution-free. The direct method is more of a bridge: it reformulates the problem as a quantile-based training step plus calibration, but the training step is nonconvex and solved by a genetic algorithm with no feasibility certificate. So treat the direct method as heuristic with a CP-certified calibration layer; the real intellectual content is the separation of training and calibration.

The soft spot that matters is the probabilistic interpretation. Lemma 3 certifies that the probability of the test trajectory staying in the realized prediction region, averaged over the calibration data, is at least 1−θ. That is a marginal guarantee. Theorem 1 treats the prediction region as a fixed event with Pr{E} ≥ 1−θ and concludes feasibility for (3). That composition is only correct in the joint probability space over calibration and future disturbances. When you deploy the controller after seeing a specific calibration set, the conditional coverage is a random variable that can be substantially below 1−θ. The authors mention this in Remark 1 and point to the PAC option, but they don't use it in the main theorem. If you read the abstract literally—'reliable probabilistic guarantees based on marginal coverage'—it's accurate. But the chance constraints in (3) are usually interpreted as a property of the realized policy. The paper should either state Theorem 1 as a marginal guarantee or add the PAC tightening to get a high-confidence conditional bound. This is not a mathematical error, but it is a precision problem that could mislead a reader.

The numerical study is a single double integrator, which is fine for an L-CSS paper but doesn't stress-test the marginal-versus-conditional gap. The comparison with scenario optimization is fair on sample complexity. The S-procedure derivation is standard and correct, and the citation pattern is appropriate.

Overall, this is a solid, useful paper. I'd send it to peer review with a request to clarify the probabilistic interpretation and to soften the direct method's claims. It deserves a serious referee.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers a finite-horizon linear stochastic optimal control problem with joint chance constraints on state and input and an unknown disturbance distribution. It decomposes the state into a nominal part and an error part, introduces prediction regions for error trajectories via split conformal prediction, and tightens the ellipsoidal constraints using the Pontryagin set difference. Two construction methods are proposed: a direct method that optimizes a feedback gain over training trajectories and then calibrates ball radii, and an indirect method that forms a disturbance ellipsoid by conformal prediction and synthesizes a robustly invariant error ellipsoid via the S-procedure. The main result states that the solution of the tightened deterministic problem is feasible for the original chance-constrained problem with probability at least 1−θ, with the guarantee understood as marginal over the calibration data.

Significance. The contribution is timely and relevant: it is distribution-free, handles joint chance constraints through nonconformity scores defined over whole trajectories, and provides a clean S-procedure derivation for the indirect robust-invariance step. The paper also releases code and includes a numerical comparison with scenario-based MPC. The central probabilistic argument is standard split-conformal prediction and is, apart from the interpretation issue below, formally sound. However, the exact status of the guarantee—marginal over calibration rather than conditional for the deployed controller—and the absence of an end-to-end feasibility certificate must be clarified before the claims as stated are acceptable.

major comments (2)

[Section III-A, Theorem 1 and Lemma 3] The proof of Theorem 1 uses Pr{E} ≥ 1−θ, where E is the event that the calibrated random set B(C_e) contains e(t) for all t; this probability is over both the calibration data and the future disturbance. The theorem statement, however, concludes that (u(0:N−1), x(1:N)) is a feasible solution to (3), whose probability is over disturbances only. For a realized calibration set, Pr{e(t) ∈ B(C_e) ∀t | D_cal} has no certified lower bound and can be below 1−θ. The paper should either state Theorem 1 explicitly as a marginal guarantee over calibration and disturbances, consistent with Remark 1 and the abstract, or use a PAC-style calibration (e.g., the bound in Remark 1) if the intended claim is about the deployed controller. As written, the central claim overreaches the proof.
[Section III-B, direct method (Eq. (11))] The design problem (11) only enforces training-quantile constraints η_e < η_max_e and η_u < η_max_u. The actual tightening radii used in (7) are the calibration quantiles C_e and C_Ke from Lemma 3. There is no certificate that these calibrated radii satisfy C_e < min_t 1/√λ_max(P_t) and C_Ke < 1/√λ_max(Q), which Lemma 2 and Theorem 1 require. The numerical example checks this after calibration, but the method can fail to produce any feasible instance of (7). This limitation should be stated explicitly, and the paper should discuss possible remedies such as increasing the calibration set, choosing a more conservative calibration level, or adding a feasibility verification step before solving (7).

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] The name "Vovk" is typeset as "V ovk" in the Introduction and in References [12], [13], [22]; please correct the spacing.
[Lemma 2] The symbol C_u is used in the statement of Lemma 2 while condition (6) uses C_Ke; unify the notation.
[Section III-B, Eq. (11)] The finite-sample correction \theta = (1 + 1/(k−k1−1))(1−θ) is introduced with a citation but without derivation; a one-sentence justification would improve self-containedness.
[Fig. 1 and Section IV] The caption's "E0.95(w(t))" should be typeset as E^{0:N−1}_{0.95}(w(t)), and the comparison with scenario optimization should state explicitly that condition (6) may still require a sufficiently large calibration set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the probabilistic guarantee is supplied by external split-conformal prediction on held-out calibration data, not by fitting the target constraint-satisfaction event.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the load-bearing sense. Lemma 1 is cited to the external split-conformal result [21] and gives a marginal coverage guarantee for i.i.d. nonconformity scores. Lemma 3 constructs nonconformity scores from a held-out calibration dataset D_cal and applies Lemma 1 to obtain the radii C_e and C_Ke; these radii are not fitted to the event whose satisfaction they certify. The gain K is trained on D_train, while coverage is evaluated on D_cal, so the prediction is genuinely out-of-sample. Lemma 2 and Theorem 1 then translate a PR with coverage at least 1-θ into tightened deterministic constraints by the standard set-difference relation Z_t = X_t ⊖ E, which is a valid implication rather than an assumption of the conclusion. The self-citations from overlapping authors ([6], [15], [17], [18], [19]) are not load-bearing: [19] is cited only for a finite-sample quantile correction in (11), and the final guarantee in Lemma 3 uses the external Lemma 1 with infinity-augmented quantiles. The marginal-versus-conditional gap between Lemma 3 and Theorem 1 is real and is explicitly acknowledged in Remark 1 as an inherent limitation of conformal prediction. This is a correctness/interpretation caveat about the probability space, not a circular reduction, because E is not defined in terms of the constraint-satisfaction event X nor fitted to it. Similarly, the fact that calibrated radii may fail condition (6) is a feasibility caveat, not circularity. Thus the paper is self-contained against an external statistical benchmark, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only user-chosen free parameter is the trade-off weight γ. The method relies on standard CP and S-procedure results, plus the i.i.d. disturbance assumption. The key ad hoc assumption is the existence of a gain with sufficiently small prediction regions.

free parameters (1)

γ = η_max^e / η_max^u in the example
Trade-off weight between error-region size and input-region size in the objective (11a); chosen a priori, does not affect the probabilistic guarantee.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Disturbances w(t) are i.i.d. across time indices and across trajectory samples, with an unknown common distribution D.
Used throughout Section III to establish that error trajectories form i.i.d. samples for conformal prediction (Lemma 3) and that the disturbance prediction region W covers the trajectory with probability 1-θ.
domain assumption The system (A,B) is stabilizable and the constraints are ellipsoidal as in (4).
Defines the problem class; the tightening via Pontryagin set difference and the S-procedure rely on ellipsoidal geometry.
standard math Split-conformal prediction guarantee (Lemma 1) from Tibshirani et al. [21].
The core coverage result that justifies the prediction regions; taken as a known theorem.
standard math S-procedure (S-lemma) as in [25, Theorem 4.2] for the invariance condition (18).
Used in the indirect method to convert robust invariance into an LMI condition; requires positive definite matrices and the existence of nonnegative multipliers.
ad hoc to paper There exists a feedback gain K for which the calibrated PRs satisfy the size conditions (6).
The method does not prove existence; the feasibility of the tightened problem (7) is assumed in Theorem 1. The training optimization (11) is heuristic.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conformal Prediction for Distribution-free Optimal Control of Linear Stochastic Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D33CR4F3

@misc{pith2026241119132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conformal Prediction for Distribution-free Optimal Control of Linear Stochastic Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D33CR4F3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19132}
}

abstract

We address an optimal control problem for linear stochastic systems with unknown noise distributions and joint chance constraints using conformal prediction. Our approach involves designing a feedback controller to maintain an error system within a prediction region (PR). We define PRs as sublevel sets of a nonconformity score over error trajectories, enabling the handling of joint chance constraints. We propose two methods to design feedback control and PRs: one through direct optimization over error trajectory samples, and the other indirectly using the $S$-procedure with a disturbance ellipsoid obtained from data. By tightening constraints with PRs, we solve a relaxed problem to synthesize a feedback policy. Our method ensures reliable probabilistic guarantees based on marginal coverage, independent of data size.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

Stochastic model predictive control: An ove rview and perspectives for future research,

A. Mesbah, “Stochastic model predictive control: An ove rview and perspectives for future research,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 30–44, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

Explicit use of probabilistic distributions in linear predictive contr ol,

B. Kouvaritakis, M. Cannon, S. V . Rakovi´ c, and Q. Cheng, “Explicit use of probabilistic distributions in linear predictive contr ol,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1719–1724, 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Stochastic tubes in model predictive control with probabilistic const raints,

M. Cannon, B. Kouvaritakis, S. V . Rakovi´ c, and Q. Cheng, “Stochastic tubes in model predictive control with probabilistic const raints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 194–200, 2011

work page 2011
[4]

Stochastic model predict ive control for linear systems using probabilistic reachable sets,

L. Hewing and M. N. Zeilinger, “Stochastic model predict ive control for linear systems using probabilistic reachable sets,” in 2018 IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2018, pp. 5182–5188

work page 2018
[5]

Recursively feasible st ochastic predictive control using an interpolating initial state constraint,

J. K¨ ohler and M. N. Zeilinger, “Recursively feasible st ochastic predictive control using an interpolating initial state constraint,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 6, pp. 2743–2748, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Probabilistic tube-based control synthesis of stochasti c multi-agent systems under signal temporal logic,

E. E. Vlahakis, L. Lindemann, P . Sopasakis, and D. V . Dima rogonas, “Probabilistic tube-based control synthesis of stochasti c multi-agent systems under signal temporal logic,” 2024, [accepted to CD C24]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02827

arXiv 2024
[7]

A randomized ap proach to stochastic model predictive control,

M. Prandini, S. Garatti, and J. Lygeros, “A randomized ap proach to stochastic model predictive control,” in 2012 IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2012, pp. 7315–7320

work page 2012
[8]

Con straint- tightening and stability in stochastic model predictive co ntrol,

M. Lorenzen, F. Dabbene, R. Tempo, and F. Allg¨ ower, “Con straint- tightening and stability in stochastic model predictive co ntrol,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3165–3177, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 27 references

[9]

Scenario-based probabil istic reachable sets for recursively feasible stochastic model predictive control,

L. Hewing and M. N. Zeilinger, “Scenario-based probabil istic reachable sets for recursively feasible stochastic model predictive control,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 450–455, 2020

2020
[10]

Uncertain convex programs : randomized solutions and conﬁdence levels,

G. Calaﬁore and M. C. Campi, “Uncertain convex programs : randomized solutions and conﬁdence levels,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 25–46, 2005

2005
[11]

The exact feasibility of ran domized solutions of uncertain convex programs,

M. C. Campi and S. Garatti, “The exact feasibility of ran domized solutions of uncertain convex programs,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 1211–1230, 2008

2008
[12]

V ovk, A

V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer, Algorithmic Learning in a Random W orld. Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

2005
[13]

A tutorial on conformal predicti on,

G. Shafer and V . V ovk, “A tutorial on conformal predicti on,” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 371–421, 2008

2008
[14]

A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty q uantiﬁcation,

A. N. Angelopoulos and S. Bates, “A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty q uantiﬁcation,”
[15]

Confor mal predictive programming for chance constrained optimizati on,

Y . Zhao, X. Y u, J. V . Deshmukh, and L. Lindemann, “Confor mal predictive programming for chance constrained optimizati on,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07407

2024 arXiv
[16]

Multi-agent reachability calibration with conformal prediction,

A. Muthali, H. Shen, S. Deglurkar, M. H. Lim, R. Roelofs, A. Faust, and C. Tomlin, “Multi-agent reachability calibration with conformal prediction,” in 62nd IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2023, pp. 6596–6603

2023
[17]

Recursively feasible shrinking-horizon MPC in dynamic environments with confor mal pre- diction guarantees,

C. Stamouli, L. Lindemann, and G. Pappas, “Recursively feasible shrinking-horizon MPC in dynamic environments with confor mal pre- diction guarantees,” in Proc. of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conf. , vol. 242. PMLR, 2024, pp. 1330–1342

2024
[18]

Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal predicti on,

L. Lindemann, M. Cleaveland, G. Shim, and G. J. Pappas, “ Safe planning in dynamic environments using conformal predicti on,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 5116–5123, 2023

2023
[19]

Formal veriﬁcation and control with conformal prediction ,

L. Lindemann, Y . Zhao, X. Y u, G. J. Pappas, and J. V . Deshm ukh, “Formal veriﬁcation and control with conformal prediction ,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00536

2024 arXiv
[20]

Op timization over state feedback policies for robust control with constraint s,

P . J. Goulart, E. C. Kerrigan, and J. M. Maciejowski, “Op timization over state feedback policies for robust control with constraint s,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 523–533, 2006

2006
[21]

Conformal prediction under covariate shift,

R. J. Tibshirani, R. F. Barber, E. J. Cand` es, and A. Ramd as, “Conformal prediction under covariate shift,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019

2019
[22]

Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors,

V . V ovk, “Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors,” in Proc. of the Asian Conf. on Machine Learning , vol. 25, 2012, pp. 475– 490

2012
[23]

Boyd and L

S. Boyd and L. V andenberghe, Convex optimization . Cambridge university press, 2004

2004
[24]

Set invariance in control,

F. Blanchini, “Set invariance in control,” Automatica, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1747–1767, 1999

1999
[25]

A survey of the S-lemma,

I. P´ olik and T. Terlaky, “A survey of the S-lemma,” SIAM Review , vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 371–418, 2007

2007
[26]

E. E. Vlahakis, https://github.com/lefterisvl83/Vl ahakis LCSS2024
[2022]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107. 07511

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Stochastic model predictive control: An ove rview and perspectives for future research,

A. Mesbah, “Stochastic model predictive control: An ove rview and perspectives for future research,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 30–44, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Explicit use of probabilistic distributions in linear predictive contr ol,

B. Kouvaritakis, M. Cannon, S. V . Rakovi´ c, and Q. Cheng, “Explicit use of probabilistic distributions in linear predictive contr ol,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1719–1724, 2010

work page 2010

[3] [3]

Stochastic tubes in model predictive control with probabilistic const raints,

M. Cannon, B. Kouvaritakis, S. V . Rakovi´ c, and Q. Cheng, “Stochastic tubes in model predictive control with probabilistic const raints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 194–200, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Stochastic model predict ive control for linear systems using probabilistic reachable sets,

L. Hewing and M. N. Zeilinger, “Stochastic model predict ive control for linear systems using probabilistic reachable sets,” in 2018 IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2018, pp. 5182–5188

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Recursively feasible st ochastic predictive control using an interpolating initial state constraint,

J. K¨ ohler and M. N. Zeilinger, “Recursively feasible st ochastic predictive control using an interpolating initial state constraint,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 6, pp. 2743–2748, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Probabilistic tube-based control synthesis of stochasti c multi-agent systems under signal temporal logic,

E. E. Vlahakis, L. Lindemann, P . Sopasakis, and D. V . Dima rogonas, “Probabilistic tube-based control synthesis of stochasti c multi-agent systems under signal temporal logic,” 2024, [accepted to CD C24]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02827

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

A randomized ap proach to stochastic model predictive control,

M. Prandini, S. Garatti, and J. Lygeros, “A randomized ap proach to stochastic model predictive control,” in 2012 IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2012, pp. 7315–7320

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Con straint- tightening and stability in stochastic model predictive co ntrol,

M. Lorenzen, F. Dabbene, R. Tempo, and F. Allg¨ ower, “Con straint- tightening and stability in stochastic model predictive co ntrol,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 3165–3177, 2017

work page 2017