Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 34 references

Deferred-Decision Trajectory Optimization

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that keeping a menu of targets reachable is equivalent to minimizing how often trajectories diverge, and that optimal solutions branch off a shared trunk at branch times.

desk verdict A principled formalization of deferred-decision trajectory optimization with sound equivalence theorems; the main practical caveats are an uncertified big-M bound and an unclosed gap between the theory and the cost-constrained solvers—send it to review. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06623 v1 pith:D64RAUW7 submitted 2025-02-10 math.OC

Purnanand Elango , Selahattin Burak Sarsilmaz , Behcet Acikmese This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 93B0390C2590C1149J15
keywords deferred-decisiontrajectoryoptimizationconstrainedreachablesetsk-reachsetcardinalityminimizationbranchtimetree-structuredtrajectoriesmixed-integerconicprogrammingsequentialconvex
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

DDTO asks how a vehicle should move when it knows several possible goals but will only learn which one is viable later. The paper formalizes this as constrained reachability: maximize, in a cumulative sense, how many candidate targets remain reachable from the trajectory at each time step. It proves that these set-valued formulations are equivalent to minimizing the number of time steps at which trajectories to different targets diverge, a cardinality minimization over pairwise state differences. That equivalence reveals that optimal deferred-decision trajectories form a tree: one shared trunk, then branch trajectories peeling off at branch times. The paper then turns the structure into three algorithms, quasiconvex optimization, mixed-integer conic programming, and sequential convex programming, and demonstrates them on quadrotor motion planning examples.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the k-reach set, the set of all states that can be reached from the start in k-1 steps and still reach a given target in the remaining steps. Its multi-target intersection tells whether every target in a chosen collection is still reachable at time k, and the branch time is the last such k. The equivalence argument uses the indicator norm, which is 0 when two states coincide and 1 otherwise, to convert the reachability condition into the counting objective of summed pairwise divergences. Lemma 5 makes the bridge exact: for n trajectories, the summed cardinality of the coincident sets plus the number of pairwise divergences equals nN at every time step.

What would settle it

Take a small affine system, say three scalar states with horizon N=5 and two or three singleton targets, enumerate all feasible trajectories, and solve the reachability problem and the cardinality problem exactly. If the optimal values differ, or if a minimizer of the cardinality problem yields active sets that are not monotonically shrinking, the claimed equivalence fails. For the MICP method specifically, setting M below the true maximal pairwise state difference should make the reformulation exclude the true optimum, which would test Assumption 2's role.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2 and Theorem 3: the constrained-reachability problems (4) and (5), whose decision variables include sets of target indices, are equivalent to the cardinality minimization problems (11) and (15), whose variables are only the trajectories themselves. Concretely, maximizing the summed size of the active target sets equals minimizing the summed number of nonzero pairwise state differences; a minimizer of the cardinality problem delivers active sets through (12) that solve the reachability problem, and conversely any reachability solution yields trajectories via Corollary 1. A consequence of the proof is that along an optimal solution the active sets shrink monotonically, so the trajectories coincide on a common trunk and split at branch points. The paper does not claim to solve the cardinality problems in general; it uses the equivalence to justify three specialized solution methods for convex and nonconvex settings, with numerical demonstrations on quadrotor planning.

Load-bearing premise

Assumption 2: a known finite scalar M bounds the norm of the state difference between any two feasible trajectories at every time; the MICP reformulation relies on this bound, yet the paper gives no procedure to compute or certify it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the theorem true, any algorithm producing a tree-structured solution is certifiably optimal for the deferred-decision objective, not just a heuristic.
  • DDTO-QCVX recursively computes branch times by quasiconcave maximization, so the trunk segments are found by a sequence of convex feasibility checks via bisection.
  • DDTO-MICP solves an exact mixed-integer convex reformulation when dynamics are affine and constraints are convex; its convex relaxation gives an approximate solution.
  • DDTO-SCP extends the tree structure to continuous-time nonlinear systems with nonconvex constraints by maximizing trunk duration with sequential convex programming.
  • In closed loop, the branch times computed online can be recomputed as perception updates arrive, lengthening the information-gathering phase before a target is selected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same equivalence can be used to measure the price of deferral: with the cumulative-cost constraint active, the gap between the unconstrained and constrained branch time quantifies how much fuel buys extra information gathering.
  • Because the optimal solution is a tree, the trunk segments computed for one priority order can be reused when a target is added or removed, so online re-planning might only need to resolve the local branch.
  • A testable extension is to treat the target set as data: every time perception eliminates a candidate, re-solve the cardinality problem from the current branch point with the remaining targets; the monotonicity lemma suggests the old trunk remains valid until the next branch time.
  • In a stochastic setting, one could average the same divergence-counting objective over an ensemble of target-viability hypotheses, producing a risk-sensitive deferred-decision planner; the paper does not pursue this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DDTO, a framework for generating feedforward trajectories that keep a set of candidate terminal targets reachable as long as possible, thereby allowing the decision among targets to be deferred. The authors propose constrained-reachability problems (4) and (5), prove their equivalence to cardinality-minimization problems (11) and (15), and show that optimal solutions have a monotone tree structure (Lemmas 4 and 6, Theorems 1-3). They then present three solution strategies: a quasiconvex bisection method (DDTO-QCVX), a mixed-integer conic program (DDTO-MICP), and a sequential convex programming method (DDTO-SCP), with demonstrations on two quadrotor motion-planning examples.

Significance. The main theoretical contribution---the equivalence between constrained reachability and cardinality minimization, together with the monotonicity/tree-structure characterization---is proven cleanly from the stated definitions; the identity (13) and the arguments for Lemmas 4 and 6 are internally consistent. The paper is honest about which methods are exact and which are heuristics, and the code is released. If the big-M issue is resolved, the DDTO-MICP method would provide a practically useful exact solver for the affine-convex case. The QCVX quasiconcavity argument is also sound. The contribution appears significant for the trajectory-optimization community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1, Assumption 2 and Eq. (18)-(19)] The exactness of the MICP reformulation depends on the existence of a known finite M bounding all feasible pairwise state differences. The paper gives no method to compute or certify M from X, U, and the affine dynamics, and the experimental appendix does not report the value used. If M is chosen too small, the implication constraint (18) can render (19) infeasible even when the original problem (11) is feasible, or it can exclude the true optimum; if M is too large, numerical conditioning degrades. This is load-bearing for the claim that (19) is an exact MICP representation of (11). Please provide a constructive bound or explicitly position M as a per-instance validation requirement.
  2. [Section 5.1, Eq. (19) vs Section 4.2] The equivalence theorems are stated for a common horizon N. Equation (19) uses different horizon lengths N_j and truncates the objective at N_ij = min(N_i, N_j). As written, the statement that (19) is 'the MICP representation for (11)' holds only when all N_j coincide. Please either state the equivalence for equal horizons and present (19) as an extension, or extend the theorems to the unequal-horizon case.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 3] The horizon update should subtract the previously computed branch time k_{lambda_{n-k+2}}, not k_{lambda_{n-k+1}}, which has not yet been assigned at that point in the loop.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 11] Setting k_{lambda_1} to k_{lambda_2} conflicts with Definition 8, where k_j is the latest time target j is reachable; for the highest-priority target this should be N_{lambda_1}. The pseudocode appears to use k_{lambda_1} as the start of the final branch, so please clarify or rename the variable.
  3. [Section 5.1] Please state explicitly whether (19) is equivalent to (11) only when N_j = N for all j, and how the unequal-horizon case relates to the theorems.
  4. [Appendix B.1] Report the value of M used for DDTO-MICP and the criterion used to select it, since the exactness claim depends on this choice.
  5. [Figures 5-7] The line and legend markers for trunks and branches appear to be missing in the rendered figures; please restore them so that the captions and the text referring to the markers are interpretable.
  6. [Algorithm 2, comment line 5] The text 'CT-SC VX' should read 'CT-SCvX' to match the citation in Section 5.3.
  7. [Section 1.2, notation] The notation ||x||_diamond is an indicator function, not a norm; consider calling it an indicator to avoid confusion with the p-norm notation used later in Eq. (18) and Remark 7.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: The equivalence theorems are proven from the paper's own definitions; the only self-citations are algorithmic references and are not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the constrained-reachability formulations (4) and (5) to the cardinality-minimization problems (11) and (15). Lemma 5 establishes the bridge through the algebraic identity in Eq. (13): the objective of (11) equals nN minus the sum of |J_k|, where J_k is defined by trajectory coincidence in Eq. (12). Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 then use this identity together with Corollary 1 to show that optimality transfers in both directions. These proofs are direct and do not rely on any fitted parameter, normalization choice, or externally imported uniqueness result as the load-bearing step. The monotonicity of the sets J_k is proven in Lemmas 4 and 6 from the problem structure rather than assumed. The paper does cite the authors' prior work: [9] for the QCVX heuristic, [10] for the closed-loop ADAPTIVE-DDTO variant, and [8] (CT-SCvX) as the SCP solver in DDTO-SCP. Those citations support algorithmic components and numerical implementation, not the equivalence theorems, so they are self-citations that are not load-bearing. Assumption 2 in Section 5.1 supplies the big-M bound used in constraint (18); the paper provides no constructive or certified value of M and Appendix B.1 reports no numerical value. That is a genuine correctness and conditioning caveat for DDTO-MICP, but it is not circular: the bound is an input assumption rather than a fitted quantity later renamed as a prediction, and the central equivalence does not reduce to it. I therefore identify no circular step and assign score 2 only for the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or formal entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions. The 'tree', 'trunk', 'branch', and 'branch time' are structural properties of the solution, not independent postulates.

free parameters (2)
  • big-M bound M
    In the MICP reformulation (19), M is an externally supplied upper bound on ||x_i^k - x_j^k|| for all feasible trajectories (Assumption 2, Section 5.1). If chosen too small it cuts off optimal solutions; if too large it degrades numerical conditioning. The paper does not provide a method to determine or certify M.
  • constraint tolerance epsilon = 1e-5 (Table 2)
    Relaxation of the periodicity constraint (24d) to the inequality (26d) in the SCP discretization; set to 1e-5 by hand. It is a numerical regularization parameter, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: each target is reachable at horizon N and all targets are jointly reachable from z0 at time 1 (R^[1:n]_1 nonempty).
    Stated at the end of Section 2. It guarantees feasibility of (4)/(5) and that every target has a well-defined branch time (Corollary 1) for the constructed tree solution.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: the norm of the difference between states at each time on any two trajectories is bounded above by M.
    Stated in Section 5.1 before (18). Required so that the binary constraints (18) do not exclude feasible solutions in the MICP (19).
  • domain assumption Continuous differentiability of all functions in the SCP problem (24).
    Stated in Section 5.3 before (24). Required for the isoperimetric reformulation and for the CT-SCvX solver assumptions inherited from [8].
  • standard math The system dynamics and constraint sets define valid forward and backward reachable sets as in Definitions 1 and 2.
    Standard reachability definitions used throughout; no nonstandard assumptions beyond the explicit ones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deferred-Decision Trajectory Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D64RAUW7

@misc{pith2026250206623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deferred-Decision Trajectory Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D64RAUW7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06623}
}
read the original abstract

We present DDTO--deferred-decision trajectory optimization--a framework for trajectory generation with resilience to unmodeled uncertainties and contingencies. The key idea is to ensure that a collection of candidate targets is reachable for as long as possible while satisfying constraints, which provides time to quantify the uncertainties. We propose optimization-based constrained reachability formulations and construct equivalent cardinality minimization problems, which then inform the design of computationally tractable and efficient solution methods that leverage state-of-the-art convex solvers and sequential convex programming (SCP) algorithms. The goal of establishing the equivalence between constrained reachability and cardinality minimization is to provide theoretically-sound underpinnings for the proposed solution methods. We demonstrate the solution methods on real-world optimal control applications encountered in quadrotor motion planning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06623 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Mars landing example where deferring de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A trajectory of horizon length 7 from z 0 to Zi passing through R j 4 at the fourth time node. The arguments of Fk and Bk , for k ∈ [0:3], are omitted for brevity. trajectory of horizon length 4 from x4 to target j, where x4 is the fourth state on a feasible trajectory to target i. In other words, x4 ∈ Rj 4 ∩ Ri 4 . We use Definitions 3 and 4 for representing the intersection of k-reach sets of targets in J. Definit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Trajectories forming a tree-like structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Algorithms 1 and 2 recursively compute trunk and branch trajectories connected by branch points while adhering to the given target prioritization. Section 4 under special cases, or generate solutions with the tree structure in the general setting. Two of the so￾lution …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Position trajectories for the discrete-time con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Algorithm 1 applied to the discrete-time convex optimal control example in Appendix B.1. inferring the structure of the optimal DDTO solutions, we designed specialized solution methods for convex and nonconvex optimal control problems, which we demon￾strated on two opt…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Algorithm 2 applied to the continuous-time nonconvex optimal control example in Appendix B.2. [7] Elaine Crespo Marques, Nilson Maciel, Lirida Naviner, Hao Cai, and Jun Yang. A review of sparse recovery algorithms. IEEE Access, 7:1300–1322, 2019. doi:10.1109/access.201…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Deferring Decision in Multi- target Trajectory Optimization

    Purnanand Elango, Selahattin Burak Sarsılmaz, and Behçet Açıkme¸ se. Deferring Decision in Multi- target Trajectory Optimization. In AIAA SciTech 2022 Forum , San Diego, CA, 2022. American In- stitute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi:10. 2514/6.2022-1583

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Toward an algorithmic control theory

    Panagiotis Tsiotras and Mehran Mesbahi. Toward an algorithmic control theory. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 40(2):194–196, February 2017. doi:10.2514/1.g002754

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g002754 2017

  3. [2]

    D.Q. Mayne. Robust and stochastic MPC: Are we going in the right direction? IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(23):1–8, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.11. 255

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.11 2015

  4. [3]

    Guidance, navigation and control for the entry, descent, and landing of the Mars 2020 mission

    Paul Brugarolas. Guidance, navigation and control for the entry, descent, and landing of the Mars 2020 mission. In Annual Guidance and Control Conference,

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Image of the Week - Week 149

    NASA. Image of the Week - Week 149. https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/multimedia/ raw-images/image-of-the-week/week-149 , December 2023. Accessed: 2024-06-25

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Mo Chen and Claire J. Tomlin. Hamilton–Jacobi reachability: Some recent theoretical advances and applications in unmanned airspace management. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 1(1):333–358, May 2018. doi:10.1146/ annurev-control-060117-104941

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    David L. Donoho. Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory, 52(4):1289–1306, 2006. doi:10.1109/TIT.2006.871582. 13 5 10 15[m] −30−20 [m] −10 0 30 [m] 201010 0−10 z4 z3 z2 z1 (a) Position 0 2 4 6 8[s] 0 5[m/s] (b) Speed 0 2 4 6 8[s] 0 500 1000[m2/s4] (c) Cumulative trajectory cost 0 2 4 6 8[s] 0 10 20[m/s2] (d) Thrust magnitude 0 2 4 6 ...

    work page arXiv 2006

  8. [7]

    A review of sparse recovery algorithms

    Elaine Crespo Marques, Nilson Maciel, Lirida Naviner, Hao Cai, and Jun Yang. A review of sparse recovery algorithms. IEEE Access, 7:1300–1322, 2019. doi:10.1109/access.2018.2886471

    work page arXiv 2019

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Ka- math, Samet Uzun, Taewan Kim, and Behçet Açık- me¸ se

    Purnanand Elango, Dayou Luo, Abhinav G. Ka- math, Samet Uzun, Taewan Kim, and Behçet Açık- me¸ se. Successive Convexification for Trajectory Op- timization with Continuous-Time Constraint Satis- faction, 2024. arXiv:2404.16826

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hayner, Samuel C

    Christopher R. Hayner, Samuel C. Buckner, Daniel Broyles, Evelyn Madewell, Karen Leung, and Be- hçet Açıkme¸ se. HALO: Hazard-Aware Landing Op- timization for Autonomous Systems. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2023. doi:10.11...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Andreas Orthey, Constantinos Chamzas, and Ly- dia E. Kavraki. Sampling-based motion plan- ning: A comparative review. Annual Re- view of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Sys- tems, 7(1), November 2023. doi:10.1146/ annurev-control-061623-094742

    2023

  4. [12]

    ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems

    Alexander Domahidi, Eric Chu, and Stephen Boyd. ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems. In 2013 European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, July

    2013

  5. [13]

    Extrapolated proportional-integral projected gradient method for conic optimization

    Yue Yu, Purnanand Elango, Behçet Açıkme¸ se, and Ufuk Topcu. Extrapolated proportional-integral projected gradient method for conic optimization. IEEE Control Systems Letters , 7:73–78, 2023. doi: 10.1109/lcsys.2022.3186647

    2023

  6. [14]

    Deferability: A concept for incremental air traffic management de- cision making

    Stephen Zobell and Craig Wanke. Deferability: A concept for incremental air traffic management de- cision making. In 9th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (ATIO). Ameri- can Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009. doi:10.2514/6.2009-6964

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    S. B. H. Bruder and K. Wedeward. Terrain aided INS robot navigation: a deferred decision making approach. In 42nd Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (Cat. No.99CH36356), volume 1, pages 135–139, 1999. doi:10.1109/MWSCAS.1999.867227

    1999

  8. [16]

    P . O. M. Scokaert and D. Q. Mayne. Min-max feed- back model predictive control for constrained lin- ear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol, 43(8):1136–1142, August 1998. doi:10.1109/9. 704989

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    Brown, and Anca D

    Avik Jain, Lawrence Chan, Daniel S. Brown, and Anca D. Dragan. Optimal cost design for model predictive control. In Proceedings of the 3rd Confer- ence on Learning for Dynamics and Control , volume 144, pages 1205–1217. PMLR, 2021. 14

    2021

  10. [18]

    Interactive multi-modal motion planning with branch model predictive control

    Yuxiao Chen, Ugo Rosolia, Wyatt Ubellacker, Noel Csomay-Shanklin, and Aaron D Ames. Interactive multi-modal motion planning with branch model predictive control. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):5365–5372, April 2022. doi:10.1109/ LRA.2022.3156648

    2022

  11. [19]

    Interaction-aware model predictive control for autonomous driving

    Renzi Wang, Mathijs Schuurmans, and Panagio- tis Patrinos. Interaction-aware model predictive control for autonomous driving. In 2023 European Control Conference (ECC), pages 1–6. IEEE, June 2023. doi:10.23919/ECC57647.2023.10178332

    2023

  12. [20]

    Real-time anomaly detection and reactive planning with large language models

    Rohan Sinha, Amine Elhafsi, Christopher Agia, Matthew Foutter, Ed Schmerling, and Marco Pavone. Real-time anomaly detection and reactive planning with large language models. In Robotics: Science and Systems, 2024. arXiv:2407.08735

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sandoval

    Ping Lu and Sergio A. Sandoval. Abort guidance during powered descent for crewed lunar missions. In AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2021. doi:10.2514/ 6.2021-0505

    2021

  14. [22]

    Contingency planning over probabilistic obstacle predictions for autonomous road vehicles

    Jason Hardy and Mark Campbell. Contingency planning over probabilistic obstacle predictions for autonomous road vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 29(4):913–929, 2013. doi:10.1109/TRO. 2013.2254033

    2013

  15. [23]

    Alsterda, Matthew Brown, and J

    John P . Alsterda, Matthew Brown, and J. Chris- tian Gerdes. Contingency model predictive con- trol for automated vehicles. In 2019 American Con- trol Conference (ACC) , pages 717–722, 2019. doi: 10.23919/ACC.2019.8815260

    2019

  16. [24]

    Yan and Chris Chu

    Jackey Z. Yan and Chris Chu. DeFer: Deferred de- cision making enabled fixed-outline floorplanner. In 2008 45th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Confer- ence, pages 161–166, 2008. doi:10.1145/1391469. 1391512

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    Y. Baram. Partial classification: The benefit of de- ferred decision. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis and Machine Intelligence , 20(8):769–776, 1998. doi:10.1109/34.709564

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    Multiple-model active fault diagnosis with deferred decisions

    Ivo Punˇ cochᡠr and Ondˇ rej Straka. Multiple-model active fault diagnosis with deferred decisions. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 6340–6345, December 2018. doi:10.1109/ CDC.2018.8619089

    2018

  19. [27]

    Choice under con- flict - the dynamics of deferred decision

    Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir. Choice under con- flict - the dynamics of deferred decision. Psychologi- cal Science, 1992

    1992

  20. [28]

    The surprising habits of original thinkers

    Adam Grant. The surprising habits of original thinkers. [Online]. Available from: https://youtu. be/fxbCHn6gE3U, February 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Predictive Control for Linear and Hy- brid Systems

    Francesco Borrelli, Alberto Bemporad, and Man- fred Morari. Predictive Control for Linear and Hy- brid Systems . Cambridge University Press, 2017. doi:10.1017/9781139061759

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Disciplined quasiconvex programming

    Akshay Agrawal and Stephen Boyd. Disciplined quasiconvex programming. Optimization Letters , 14(7):1643–1657, October 2020. doi:10.1007/ s11590-020-01561-8

    2020

  23. [31]

    A multiple shooting algo- rithm for direct solution of optimal control prob- lems

    H G Bock and K J Plitt. A multiple shooting algo- rithm for direct solution of optimal control prob- lems. IFAC Proc. Vol., 17(2):1603–1608, July 1984

    1984

  24. [32]

    MOSEK Modeling Cookbook 3.3.0, 2024

    MOSEK ApS. MOSEK Modeling Cookbook 3.3.0, 2024. Accessed: 2024-06-28. URL: https://docs.mosek. com/modeling-cookbook/index.html. Appendix A Time-Dilation Consider a discrete-time dynamical system given by xk+1 = fk(xk, uk), k ≥ 1. (28) We consider a trajectory and a control in...

    2024

  25. [2013]

    doi:10.23919/ecc.2013.6669541

    2013

  26. [2017]

    URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/ 20190028435

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.