Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Eigendecomposition Parameterization of Penalty Matrices for Enhanced Control Design: Aerospace Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing diagonal penalty matrices with full positive-definite matrices built from eigenvalues and eigenvector rotations improves control performance by up to 65% in the reported aerospace examples.

desk verdict Useful numerical extension of the authors' own GEAGSP parameterization, but the headline 65% improvement is not yet supported by a controlled optimization comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16328 v1 pith:HR4X5KGG submitted 2025-04-23 math.OC cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY

Nicholas P. Nurre , Ehsan Taheri This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.ROcs.SYeess.SY MSC 15B4849N1093D0570M20
keywords penaltymatrixparameterizationeigendecompositionpositive-definitematriceslinearquadraticregulatorLyapunov-basedcontrollow-thrusttrajectoryoptimizationQ-lawspacecraftattitude
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's thesis is that the usual diagonal penalty matrices in quadratic costs and Lyapunov functions are too restrictive: they omit cross-coupling terms that a full positive-definite matrix can provide, and full matrices can be searched just as easily if parameterized by eigendecomposition. It supplies an explicit parameterization, eigenvalues plus a minimally parameterized orthogonal eigenvector matrix, that makes positive-definiteness automatic, and optimizes those parameters with particle swarm optimization in three aerospace testbeds. Across LQR attitude control, Lyapunov attitude control, and low-thrust trajectory design, the full matrices reduce the performance objective, with the largest reported gain being 65%, and improve the mean objective in every reported case. A practitioner who adopts this parameterization can explore a larger class of feedback laws without changing the controller structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the eigendecomposition $K = Q\Lambda Q^{\top}$ of a symmetric positive-definite penalty matrix. $\Lambda$ holds positive eigenvalues, so sign-definiteness is automatic, and $Q$ is an orthogonal eigenvector matrix parameterized with $M = N(N-1)/2$ angular variables via a generalization of Euler angles combined with Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. This converts the search for a positive-definite matrix into an unconstrained search over bounded angles and positive eigenvalues, while adding cross-coupling terms that a diagonal $K$ cannot represent. For full matrices, a diagonal binary selector matrix is premultiplied onto the error vector when certain states should not be penalized, avoiding rederivation of the cost.

What would settle it

For the two-state Zermelo example, solve the diagonal parameterization $(k_1,k_2)$ and the full eigendecomposition parameterization $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\theta)$ to verified global optimality with the same integration tolerances and compare the best costs; if the diagonal optimum equals the full optimum, the claimed advantage of the off-diagonal terms evaporates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that full, cross-coupled positive-definite penalty matrices are not merely feasible but beneficial. By writing a symmetric penalty matrix as $K = Q\Lambda Q^{\top}$ with positive eigenvalues $\Lambda$ and an orthogonal eigenvector matrix $Q$, positive-definiteness is enforced implicitly, and the off-diagonal terms represent cross-coupling among states that a diagonal matrix cannot capture. Optimizing these matrices with particle swarm optimization gives lower costs than optimally tuned diagonal matrices in a two-state Lyapunov control problem, in LQR and Lyapunov-rate spacecraft attitude control, and in generic Lyapunov and Q-law low-thrust trajectory design; the largest reduction, about 65%, occurs in the LQR detumbling minimum-energy problem. The paper also presents three orthogonal-matrix parameterizations, Cayley transform, Givens rotations, and generalized Euler angles with Gram-Schmidt, and uses the last one for all results.

Load-bearing premise

The comparisons assume particle swarm optimization has searched both parameter spaces well enough that the remaining gap reflects the parameterization rather than the optimizer's luck or the larger number of free variables; the paper itself concedes that limited runs of PSO mean its solutions are not truly optimal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In LQR spacecraft attitude control, full $Q$ and $R$ matrices cut the mean minimum-energy cost from 0.423 to 0.146 in the detumbling maneuver and from 0.400 to 0.152 in the rest-to-rest maneuver, about 65% and 63% respectively.
  • In Lyapunov-based attitude control, full $K_p$ and $K_d$ matrices cut the mean cost from 0.107 to 0.076 in detumbling and from 0.091 to 0.068 in rest-to-rest.
  • In generic Lyapunov low-thrust control, the full penalty matrix reduced mean time of flight in all five transfer cases, with the largest mean savings being about 3.2 days in Case B and 2.2 days in Case E.
  • In Q-law low-thrust control, the full matrix reduced mean time of flight and increased mean final mass in every case, with Case E gaining about 10.5 days of flight time or close to 90 kg of final mass.
  • Because a diagonal matrix is a special case of the full parameterization, the method enlarges the achievable feedback-law class without adding constraints to the optimization and without changing the controller form.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the effect is genuinely due to cross-coupling, the same eigendecomposition parameterization should transfer to other quadratic weighting schemes such as model predictive control, control barrier functions, and sliding-mode weighting; the paper motivates this but does not demonstrate it.
  • A stricter test would hold the optimization budget fixed and compare the full parameterization against a globally optimal diagonal tuning, isolating the parameterization's contribution from the effects of a larger search space and stochastic search.
  • The long-duration low-thrust results show qualitatively different orbital-element histories between diagonal and full matrices, suggesting the full matrix reshapes the Lyapunov landscape rather than merely changing one gain; mapping the basin of attraction of each closed-loop law would test that interpretation.
  • A natural follow-up is gradient-based optimization on the same parameterization, since the paper notes the orthogonal parameterization admits gradients and could be refined locally after an initial heuristic search.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes parameterizing positive-definite penalty matrices as K = Q Λ Q^T, where Λ is a diagonal matrix of positive eigenvalues and Q is an orthogonal matrix built with a generalized Euler-angle/Gram-Schmidt parameterization (GEAGSP). The parameters are tuned with particle swarm optimization (PSO), and the method is compared against conventional diagonal penalty matrices in three aerospace control settings: a Lyapunov-stabilized Zermelo navigation problem, LQR and Lyapunov-based spacecraft attitude control, and low-thrust trajectory design using both a generic Lyapunov law and Q-law. The reported results show lower control effort, time of flight, or higher final mass for the full parameterization, with the abstract citing improvements up to 65%. The paper also provides numerical penalty matrices in Appendix A and a public code repository.

Significance. The mathematical core is sound: with Λ > 0 and Q ranging over O(N), the factorization K = Q Λ Q^T is a legitimate parameterization of the positive-definite cone, and it contains the diagonal parameterization as a subset. The manuscript is careful about reproducibility details (integration tolerances, PSO settings, event-detection thresholds, and concrete penalty matrices in Appendix A), and the presentation of the GEAGSP algorithm is a useful practical contribution. If the reported improvements are genuine, the method gives control practitioners a simple way to enlarge the searchable design space for LQR and Lyapunov-type controllers. However, the central empirical claim currently rests on a small number of stochastic PSO runs with no statistical analysis, on an admitted lack of optimality, and on one benchmark that was modified to force convergence; these weaknesses are load-bearing for the stated conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3–§5, Tables 1, 2, 4, 5; §4.1; §6] The abstract's 'improvements up to 65%' is an empirical claim that assumes PSO reaches comparably converged optima for the diagonal and full parameterizations. The paper itself states that the PSO swarm size and iteration limits were 'arbitrarily chosen such that solutions we deemed to be optimal ... could be obtained' (§4.1) and that 'solutions are by no means optimal due to limited runs of PSO' (§6). Tables 1, 2, 4, and 5 report only 5–10 runs per case with no confidence intervals or hypothesis tests, and the full-parameterization runs exhibit large variance (e.g., Table 1 rest-to-rest Q2,R2 values range from 0.06420 to 0.38302, and Table 2 detumbling Kp,2,Kd,2 values range from 0.05594 to 0.10420). Section 3 reports only a single pair of costs for Zermelo, despite PSO being stochastic. Because the full parameterization has a different and higher-dimensional search space, unequal local-minimum trapping could produce lower reported costs even if the true diagonal-constrained optimum is no worse. Please provide evidence that the diagonal results are at or near the diagonal-constrained optimum (e.g., many more multi-start runs, convergence diagnostics, or comparison with a reference solution), and add a statistical comparison of the two parameterizations.
  2. [§5, Table 3, Case E*] The Q-law Case E is not solved on the original benchmark from Ref. [6]; Table 3 shows that the 'Case E*' boundary conditions change the initial inclination from 0.06° to 30.06° and the target inclination from 116° to 86° because the original case 'did not converge' with the authors' Q-law implementation. This modification is not a minor numerical detail: it changes the difficulty and shape of the transfer, and the improvement reported for Case E may be specific to the modified case rather than to the penalty-matrix parameterization. Please either solve the original Case E or justify explicitly why Case E* is a legitimate proxy, and report the convergence failure of the original case separately from the performance comparison.
  3. [§4 and §5 (LQR attitude, Lyapunov attitude, low-thrust transfers)] Each example is optimized for a single initial condition or a single transfer scenario, and the extra off-diagonal degrees of freedom can simply tune to that one scenario. This is a concrete overfitting risk for the 65% LQR improvement in particular, since the full parameterization has many more free parameters than the diagonal one while the validation is performed on the same trajectory used for tuning. Please test robustness by re-optimizing over several initial conditions or transfer scenarios and reporting the distribution of improvements, or otherwise demonstrate that the gains obtained with the full parameterization are not scenario-specific.
  4. [§2.1–§2.3] The paper asserts that the Cayley transform and Givens rotation parameterizations are 'comparable in performance' to GEAGSP but provides no numerical comparison or supporting data for this claim. If these alternatives are not used in the results, the statement should be either supported with a small comparative experiment or removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2, Eq. (1)] The indexing in the displayed symmetric matrix does not correctly define an M = (N^2+N)/2 parameterization of a symmetric matrix: the row patterns shown (e.g., row 2 begins with k_{N−1}, row 3 begins with k_3) are inconsistent, and the placement of diagonal entries is unclear. Please rewrite the display with standard symmetric indexing or with an explicit small example such as N = 3.
  2. [§5.1, Figure 10 caption] The caption of Figure 10(b) reads 'Case E trajectory: minimum-fuel Q-law with K2', but Section 5.1 describes these panels as the generic Lyapunov control-law trajectories for Case E. Please correct the caption so that it matches the content.
  3. [§5.2, Eq. (30)] The expression Q_{1,2} = (1 + W_P P) (SND)^T K_{1,2} (ND) is ambiguous because the parentheses around SND and ND are not placed. Please write the expression as (S N D)^T K (N D) and state the dimensions of S, N, and D.
  4. [§2.3, Algorithm 1] The input line says j = 1,...,N−i, which is empty for i = N, and the Gram–Schmidt step in line 6 is described only verbally. A short clarifying sentence about the N = i case and the construction of the basis B would improve reproducibility.
  5. [§4.1 and §6] Section 4.1 reports an average decrease of 65.4697% for the detumbling LQR case, while Section 6 says 'in the most extreme case, the improvement in performance was 65%.' Because 65% is the average improvement for one maneuver, not an extreme-case value, please clarify whether the quoted number refers to a mean or to a single best run.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the eigendecomposition parameterization is constructed in-paper and the reported improvements are empirical optimization outcomes, not predictions derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is K = Q Λ Q^T (Eq. 2) with positive eigenvalues and an orthogonal matrix parameterized by GEAGSP (Eq. 9 and Algorithm 1), all defined within the manuscript. The claim that full matrices enlarge the feasible penalty-matrix class is a mathematical containment statement, not an input-output equivalence: the diagonal parameterization is the subset obtained when Q is the identity and the off-diagonal terms vanish, so the paper is comparing optimization over a superset against a subset. The reported improvements (e.g., 65% for LQR attitude control) come from PSO runs on benchmark control problems, with costs evaluated by simulation; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is assumed from prior work. Self-citations to Refs. [17] and [26] are transparent and not load-bearing: Ref. [17] is explicitly credited for the GEAGSP parameterization and for prior presentation of the generic Lyapunov results, but the algorithm is restated in the paper rather than imported as an unverified black box. The limitation stated in Section 6 ('solutions are by no means optimal due to limited runs of PSO') concerns the reliability of the empirical comparison, not the logical derivation of the parameterization; a fair audit of circularity therefore finds no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The penalty matrix entries, eigenvalues, and angles are all optimized by PSO to minimize the same performance objective later reported as the improvement, so the results are demonstrations from fitted parameters rather than predictions. The optimization success is assumed, and the paper's own caveats confirm this. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Zermelo K1 diagonal entries = k1=0.8094, k2=0.1611
    Section 3: PSO optimizes k1,k2 in [0,10] to minimize control energy J; these are the reported best K1 values.
  • Zermelo K2 eigenvalues and rotation angle = not reported explicitly; resulting K2=[[1.7421,0.9560],[0.9560,1.1414]]
    Section 3: full 2x2 matrix K2=QΛQ^T is optimized via lambda1, lambda2, theta; only the resulting matrix is given.
  • LQR attitude Q and R penalty parameters = best matrices in Appendix A, Eqs. (A.1)
    Section 4.1: PSO tunes diagonal and full Q6x6, R3x3 to minimize control energy over 10 runs.
  • Lyapunov attitude Kp and Kd gain parameters = best matrices in Appendix A, Eqs. (A.2)
    Section 4.2: PSO tunes Kp and Kd (diagonal or full) for the quaternion-based Lyapunov controller.
  • Generic low-thrust K parameters = Case E best matrices in Eq. (A.3)
    Section 5.1: PSO tunes K for the generic Lyapunov control law's CLF; only Case E matrices are listed.
  • Q-law K parameters = Case E best matrices in Eqs. (A.4) and (A.5)
    Section 5.2: PSO tunes the 5x5 K in the proximity quotient for minimum-time and minimum-fuel cases.
  • Q-law coasting cutoff eta_cut = not reported
    Equation (38) defines delta via eta_cut, but the value used in minimum-fuel runs is not stated; this parameter changes the fuel/time trade-off.
  • PSO hyperparameters (swarm size, max iterations) = attitude: 500, 1e4; low-thrust: 50/50 or 200/300
    Sections 4 and 5: chosen arbitrarily; they influence how well the penalty parameter optima are approached.
  • Penalty matrix bounds = [0,10] Zermelo; [1e-8,10] attitude; [0,100] low-thrust
    Sections 3, 4, 5: arbitrary bounds on K entries and eigenvalues constrain the search space.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Symmetric positive-definite matrices admit K=QΛQ^T with Q orthogonal and positive eigenvalues.
    Used throughout Section 2 to enforce positive-definiteness via positive eigenvalues.
  • standard math The GEAGSP construction in Algorithm 1 parameterizes all orthogonal matrices with N(N-1)/2 parameters.
    Invoked in Section 2.3; based on Refs. [18,19] and the authors' Ref. [17] without proof in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper PSO finds sufficiently converged optima for both diagonal and full penalty parameterizations.
    Sections 4 and 5 choose swarm sizes and iteration counts arbitrarily, and Section 6 concedes solutions are not optimal; the comparison relies on this.
  • domain assumption Linearization of attitude dynamics about the target state is a valid basis for LQR gains applied to nonlinear dynamics.
    Section 4.1 linearizes Eq. (16) around X0=0 and U0=0, then uses u=-kLQR x on the nonlinear system.
  • domain assumption The rotated Case E* boundary conditions are equivalent to Case E up to a 30-degree inertial rotation.
    Section 5 and Table 3 introduce Case E* because original Case E did not converge with the implemented Q-law; the paper treats the solved problem as representative of Case E.
  • domain assumption The modified Q-law using the N matrix and avoiding the cos^-1 singularity preserves the stabilizing behavior of the original Q-law.
    Section 5.2 introduces N to zero out non-targeted elements and a workaround for Eq. (32); no stability or convergence proof is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eigendecomposition Parameterization of Penalty Matrices for Enhanced Control Design: Aerospace Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HR4X5KGG

@misc{pith2026250416328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eigendecomposition Parameterization of Penalty Matrices for Enhanced Control Design: Aerospace Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HR4X5KGG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16328}
}
read the original abstract

Modern control algorithms require tuning of square weight/penalty matrices appearing in quadratic functions/costs to improve performance and/or stability output. Due to simplicity in gain-tuning and enforcing positive-definiteness, diagonal penalty matrices are used extensively in control methods such as linear quadratic regulator (LQR), model predictive control, and Lyapunov-based control. In this paper, we propose an eigendecomposition approach to parameterize penalty matrices, allowing positive-definiteness with non-zero off-diagonal entries to be implicitly satisfied, which not only offers notable computational and implementation advantages, but broadens the class of achievable controls. We solve three control problems: 1) a variation of Zermelo's navigation problem, 2) minimum-energy spacecraft attitude control using both LQR and Lyapunov-based methods, and 3) minimum-fuel and minimum-time Lyapunov-based low-thrust trajectory design. Particle swarm optimization is used to optimize the decision variables, which will parameterize the penalty matrices. The results demonstrate improvements of up to 65% in the performance objective in the example problems utilizing the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16328 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Zermelo’s problem: state space with the trajectories from each solution with the vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Zermelo’s problem: Lyapunov functions vs. states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zermelo’s problem: Lyapunov functions time-derivatives vs. states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Zermelo’s problem: Euclidean norm of control function vs. states. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the cost values for the LQR and Lyapunov-based controller with diagonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results from best detumbling solution for each type of penalty matrix with the LQR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results from best detumbling solution for each type of penalty matrix with the Lyapunov [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average time-of-flight tf for each case and penalty matrix for the low-thrust results for the generic Lyapunov-based control laws and Q-law, denoted “GLC” and “QL” in the legend, respectively. 0 20 40 60 80 Time [days] 3 4 a [DU] K1 K2 0 20 40 60 80 Time [days] 0.6 0.7…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Case E orbital elements: minimum-time generic control law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Case E trajectory: minimum-fuel Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average minimum-fuel objective values for the Q-law solutions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Case E orbital elements: minimum-time Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Case E orbital elements: minimum-time Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Case E orbital elements: minimum-fuel Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Case E orbital elements: minimum-fuel Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Case E trajectory: minimum-time Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Case E trajectory: minimum-fuel Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Case E trajectory: minimum-fuel Q-law with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    N. P. Nurre, S. Tafazzol, E. Taheri, Expanding the Class of Quadratic Control- Lyapunov Functions for Low-Thrust Trajectory Optimization, arXiv:2408.14412 [math] (Aug. 2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [6]

    A. Petropoulos, Low-Thrust Orbit Transfers Using Candidate Lyapunov Func- tions with a Mechanism for Coasting, in: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Providence, Rhode Island, 2004.doi:10.2514/6.2004-5089

    doi:10.2514/6.2004-5089 2004

  3. [1]

    Z. Zhou, R. Colgren, A non-linear spacecraft attitude tracking controller for large non-constant rate commands, International Journal of Control 78 (5) 35 (2005) 311–325. doi:10.1080/00207170500079779

    work page doi:10.1080/00207170500079779 2005

  4. [2]

    Marco, P

    A. Marco, P. Hennig, J. Bohg, S. Schaal, S. Trimpe, Automatic LQR tuning based on Gaussian process global optimization, in: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, Stockholm, 2016, pp. 270–277. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487144

    arXiv 2016

  5. [3]

    Di Cairano, H

    S. Di Cairano, H. Park, I. Kolmanovsky, Model Predictive Control approach for guidance of spacecraft rendezvous and proximity maneuvering, International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 22 (12) (2012) 1398–1427.doi:10. 1002/rnc.2827

    work page 2012

  6. [4]

    Nguyen, S

    K. Nguyen, S. Schoedel, A. Alavilli, B. Plancher, Z. Manchester, TinyMPC: Model-Predictive Control on Resource-Constrained Microcontrollers, in: 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), IEEE, Yokohama, Japan, 2024, pp. 1–7.doi:10.1109/ICRA57147.2024.10610987

    arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    J. L. Crassidis, F. L. Markley, Sliding mode control using modified Rodrigues parameters, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 19 (6) (1996) 1381–

    work page 1996

  8. [7]

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, P. Tabuada, Control Barrier Function Based Quadratic Programs for Safety Critical Systems, IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control 62 (8) (2017) 3861–3876.doi:10.1109/TAC.2016.2638961

    arXiv 2017

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Eui Chang, D

    D. Eui Chang, D. F. Chichka, J. E. Marsden, ,Control and Dynamical Systems 107-81, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, Lyapunov- based transfer between elliptic Keplerian orbits, Discrete & Continuous Dy- namical Systems - B 2 (1) (2002) 57–67.doi:10.3934/d...

    2002 doi

  2. [9]

    J. L. Junkins, Y. Kim, Introduction to Dynamics and Control of Flexible Struc- tures, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, 2000

    2000

  3. [10]

    Schaub, J

    H. Schaub, J. L. Junkins, Analytical mechanics of space systems, fourth edi- tion Edition, AIAA education series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc(AIAA), Reston, VA, 2018. 36

    2018

  4. [11]

    Strang, Introduction to linear algebra, 6th Edition, Wellesley-Cambridge press, Wellesley, Mass, 2023

    G. Strang, Introduction to linear algebra, 6th Edition, Wellesley-Cambridge press, Wellesley, Mass, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Shepard, S

    R. Shepard, S. R. Brozell, G. Gidofalvi, The Representation and Parametriza- tion of Orthogonal Matrices, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 119 (28) (2015) 7924–7939. doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.5b02015

    2015 doi

  6. [13]

    Cayley, On the Motion of Rotation of a Solid Body, Cambridge Mathematics Journal 3 (1843) 224–232

    A. Cayley, On the Motion of Rotation of a Solid Body, Cambridge Mathematics Journal 3 (1843) 224–232

  7. [14]

    Bar-Itzhack, F

    I. Bar-Itzhack, F. Markley, Minimal parameter solution of the orthogonal matrix differential equation, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 35 (3) (1990) 314–317. doi:10.1109/9.50344

    1990 doi

  8. [15]

    Schaub, P

    H. Schaub, P. Tsiotras, J. L. Junkins, Principal rotation representations of proper N × N orthogonal matrices, International Journal of Engineering Sci- ence 33 (15) (1995) 2277–2295.doi:10.1016/0020-7225(95)00070-E

    1995 doi

  9. [16]

    Oshman, I

    Y. Oshman, I. Bar-Itzhack, Eigenfactor solution of the matrix Riccati equation– A continuous square root algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 30 (10) (1985) 971–978.doi:10.1109/TAC.1985.1103823

    1985

  10. [18]

    D. K. Hoffman, R. C. Raffenetti, K. Ruedenberg, Generalization of Euler Angles toN -Dimensional Orthogonal Matrices, Journal of Mathematical Physics 13 (4) (1972) 528–533. doi:10.1063/1.1666011

    1972 doi

  11. [19]

    L. E. Blumenson, A Derivation of n-Dimensional Spherical Coordinates, The American Mathematical Monthly 67 (1) (1960) 63.doi:10.2307/2308932

    1960 doi

  12. [20]

    J. G. Ziegler, N. B. Nichols, Optimum Settings for Automatic Controllers, Jour- nal of Fluids Engineering 64 (8) (1942) 759–765.doi:10.1115/1.4019264

    1942 doi

  13. [21]

    Åström, T

    K. Åström, T. Hägglund, Revisiting the Ziegler–Nichols step response method for PID control, Journal of Process Control 14 (6) (2004) 635–650.doi:10. 1016/j.jprocont.2004.01.002

    2004

  14. [22]

    A. E. Bryson, Y.-C. Ho, Applied optimal control: optimization, estimation, and control, rev. print Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975. 37

    1975

  15. [23]

    Trimpe, A

    S. Trimpe, A. Millane, S. Doessegger, R. D’Andrea, A Self-Tuning LQR Ap- proach Demonstrated on an Inverted Pendulum, IFAC Proceedings Volumes 47 (3) (2014) 11281–11287.doi:10.3182/20140824-6-ZA-1003.01455

    2014

  16. [24]

    855–869.doi:10.1109/AERO.2005.1559377

    S.Lee, P.VonAilmen, W.Fink, A.Petropoulos, R.Terrile, Designandoptimiza- tion of low-thrust orbit transfers, in: 2005 IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE, Big Sky, MT, USA, 2005, pp. 855–869.doi:10.1109/AERO.2005.1559377

    2005

  17. [25]

    Kennedy, R

    J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, in: Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, Vol. 4, IEEE, Perth, WA, Australia, 1995, pp. 1942–1948.doi:10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968

    1995

  18. [26]

    N. P. Nurre, E. Taheri, End-to-end lyapunov-based eclipse-feasible low-thrust transfer trajectories to NRHO, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03196 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    1642–1647

    J.L.Junkins, D.W.Rew, ASimultaneousStructure/ControllerDesignIteration Method, in: 1985 American Control Conference, 1985, pp. 1642–1647. doi: 10.23919/ACC.1985.4788878

    1985

  20. [28]

    J. L. Junkins, J. D. Turner, Optimal spacecraft rotational maneuvers, no. 3 in Studies in astronautics, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam, 1986

    1986

  21. [29]

    G. I. Varga, J. M. S. Perez, Many-Revolution Low-Thrust Orbit Transfer Com- putation using Equinoctial Q-Law Including J2 and Eclipse Effects, in: 6th International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques (ICATT), Darmstadt, Germany, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    D. A. Vallado, Fundamentals of astrodynamics and applications, fifth edition, first printing Edition, no. 21 in Space technology library, Microcosm Press, Torrance, CA, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, M. Diehl, CasADi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control, Math- ematical Programming Computation 11 (1) (2019) 1–36. doi:10.1007/ s12532-018-0139-4

    2019

  24. [32]

    J. L. Shannon, M. T. Ozimek, J. A. Atchison, C. M. Hartzell, Q-Law Aided Di- rect Trajectory Optimization of Many-Revolution Low-Thrust Transfers, Jour- nal of Spacecraft and Rockets 57 (4) (2020) 672–682.doi:10.2514/1.A34586. 38

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    A. E. Petropoulos, Refinements to the Q-law for low-thrust orbit transfers, in: 15th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Conference, AAS 05-162, Cop- per Mountain, Colorado, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (Dec

    Noble Ariel Hatten, A Critical Evaluation of Modern Low-Thrust, Feedback- Driven Spacecraft Control Laws, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (Dec. 2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    G. R. Hecht, E. M. Botta, Q-Law Control With Sun-Angle Constraint for Solar Electric Propulsion, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems (2024) 1–13doi:10.1109/TAES.2024.3424429. 39

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.