The LQR-Schrödinger Bridge

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2506.17273
• Title: The LQR-Schrödinger Bridge
• Author: Marc Lambert (INRIA - Ecole Normale Supérieure - PSL Research university, DGA - French Procurement Agency)
• Classification: math.OC (Optimization and Control)
• Publication Date: November 24, 2025 (arXiv v2)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17273

Abstract

This paper investigates the Schrödinger bridge problem in discrete time by replacing path costs with a sum of quadratic functions, formally analogous to linear quadratic regulator (LQR) costs. The cost includes potential energy terms acting as attractors and kinetic energy terms controlling process diffusion. When both boundary marginal distributions are Gaussian, the authors prove that the LQR-Schrödinger bridge problem admits a closed-form solution. By following dynamic programming principles and interpreting Kantorovich potential functions as cost-to-go functions, these potentials can be exactly propagated via forward and backward passes under the LQR-Gaussian assumption, yielding a dual Riccati equation system well-known in estimation and control. This system converges rapidly in practice. The authors further prove that the optimal process is Markovian and compute its transition kernel and Gaussian marginal distributions in closed form. Through numerical experiments, the method is demonstrated to construct complex non-homogeneous Gaussian processes with acceleration and cyclic properties, and to extend Bures transport between Gaussian distributions to more complex geometries with negative curvature.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Problem

The Schrödinger bridge problem originates from Schrödinger's pioneering work in 1931, aiming to determine the most probable stochastic process given observations of marginal distributions at two time points (initial time p₀ and terminal time pₖ). This is an optimal transport problem with entropy regularization.

Problem Significance

1. Theoretical Importance: Schrödinger systems are intimately connected with entropy-regularized optimal transport and the Sinkhorn algorithm, forming core problems in modern optimal transport theory
2. Application Value: Broad applications in control theory, path planning, covariance control, and related fields
3. Computational Efficiency: Finding special cases amenable to efficient solution is crucial for practical applications

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Reference Measure Constraints: When the reference measure is Brownian motion, the Sinkhorn algorithm can be applied efficiently, but the problem becomes more complex when the reference measure is a linear stochastic process
2. Computational Complexity: Existing methods such as Chen et al. (2016) and Bakolas (2016), while deriving forward-backward Riccati equations, describe the evolution of closed-loop system state covariance matrices rather than the evolution of Kantorovich potential functions
3. Modeling Flexibility: Lack of methods to directly control process geometric properties through path costs

Research Motivation

This paper proposes an alternative: rather than specifying the reference measure through a linear stochastic process, define the joint distribution through path LQR costs. This setup not only controls the state covariance reaching its terminal value but also guides its motion along specific paths or corridors, providing a more flexible modeling framework.

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Contribution: Proposes a new formulation of the LQR-Schrödinger bridge problem, defining the reference measure through path LQR costs (including potential and kinetic energy terms)
2. Closed-Form Solution: Proves that under Gaussian marginal distributions and LQR quadratic cost assumptions, Kantorovich potential functions can be exactly propagated, yielding a dual discrete algebraic Riccati equation system:
   • Backward equation: $P_k^⊖ = Q_k/ε + P_{k+1}^⊖ - P_{k+1}^⊖(R_k/ε + P_{k+1}^⊖)^{-1}P_{k+1}^⊖$
   • Forward equation: $P_{k+1}^{⊕-1} = εR_k^{-1} + P_k^{⊕-1} - P_k^{⊕-1}(εQ_k^{-1} + P_k^{⊕-1})P_k^{⊕-1}$
3. Optimal Process Characterization: Proves the optimal process is Markovian and computes its transition kernel and Gaussian marginal distributions in closed form
4. Geometric Extension: Demonstrates that the method extends Bures transport between Gaussian distributions to more complex geometries with negative curvature
5. Application Demonstration: Validates through numerical experiments that the method can construct complex non-homogeneous Gaussian processes with path following, obstacle avoidance, and cyclic trajectory capabilities

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input:

• Initial and terminal Gaussian marginal distributions: $p_0 = \mathcal{N}(μ_0, Σ_0)$, $p_K = \mathcal{N}(μ_K, Σ_K)$
• LQR cost parameters: potential matrix $Q_k$, control points $x_k^*$, kinetic matrix $R_k$
• Temperature parameter $ε > 0$

Output:

• Optimal path distribution $p^*(x_0, ..., x_K)$
• Transition kernel $p^*(x_{k+1}|x_k)$
• Gaussian marginal distributions at intermediate times

Constraints:

• Marginal constraints: $\int p(x_0, ..., x_K)dx_1...dx_K = p_0(x_0)$, $\int p(x_0, ..., x_K)dx_0...dx_{K-1} = p_K(x_K)$

Model Architecture

1. LQR Cost Structure

Path cost is defined as a sum of pairwise terms: $\ell(x_0, ..., x_K) = \sum_{k=0}^{K-1} \ell_k(x_k, x_{k+1})$

where the single-step cost is: $\ell_k(x_k, x_{k+1}) = \frac{1}{2}(x_k - x_k^*)^T Q_k(x_k - x_k^*) + \frac{1}{2}(x_{k+1} - x_k)^T R_k(x_{k+1} - x_k)$

• Potential Energy Term (left term): Attracts the process toward control points $x_k^*$ through penalty matrix $Q_k$
• Kinetic Energy Term (right term): Restricts process diffusion through penalty matrix $R_k$

2. Kantorovich Dual Formulation

The dual form of the Schrödinger bridge problem: $\min_{p \in \mathcal{P}(p_0, p_K)} εKL(p \| \exp(-\ell/ε))$

The optimal solution has Gibbs form: $p^*(x_0, ..., x_K) \propto φ_0(x_0) r(x_0, ..., x_K) φ_K(x_K)$

where $φ_0, φ_K$ are Gibbs potential functions and $r = \exp(-\ell/ε)$ is the unnormalized reference measure.

3. Gaussian Potential Function Parameterization

Under Gaussian assumptions, Kantorovich potential functions are quadratic forms representable by symmetric positive definite matrices:

• Initial potential: $φ_0 = \mathcal{N}(α_0, P_0^{-1})$
• Terminal potential: $φ_K = \mathcal{N}(α_K, P_K^{-1})$
• Forward propagated potential: $φ_k^⊕ = \mathcal{N}(α_k^⊕, P_k^{⊕-1})$
• Backward propagated potential: $φ_k^⊖ = \mathcal{N}(α_k^⊖, P_k^{⊖-1})$

Technical Innovations

1. Dual Riccati Equations

Backward Propagation (Equation 1): P_k^⊖ = Q_k/ε + P_{k+1}^⊖ - P_{k+1}^⊖(R_k/ε + P_{k+1}^⊖)^{-1}P_{k+1}^⊖}

with corresponding drift update: $α_k^⊖ = α_{k+1}^⊖ + P_k^{⊖-1}Q_k/ε(x_k^* - α_{k+1}^⊖)$

Forward Propagation (Equation 2): $P_{k+1}^{⊕-1} = εR_k^{-1} + P_k^{⊕-1} - P_k^{⊕-1}(εQ_k^{-1} + P_k^{⊕-1})P_k^{⊕-1}$

with corresponding drift update: $α_{k+1}^⊕ = (Q_k/ε + P_k^⊕)^{-1}(Q_k/ε x_k^* + P_k^⊕ α_k^⊕)$

2. New Interpretation of Kalman Duality

The forward equation exhibits duality with the backward equation: the roles of $R$ and $Q$ are interchanged. This provides a new interpretation of Kalman duality:

• $Q_k^{-1}$ can be interpreted as the uncertainty (covariance) of prior information
• If $Q_k^{-1} = 0$, the trajectory position at $x_k^*$ can be perfectly predicted
• Otherwise, only the neighborhood around $x_k^*$ can be estimated

3. Optimal Transition Kernel

The optimal transition kernel admits a closed-form solution: $p^*(x_{k+1}|x_k) = \mathcal{N}(x_{k+1}|x_k + β_k + K_k x_k, S_k^{-1})$

where:

• $S_k = R_k/ε + P_{k+1}^⊖$
• $K_k = S_k^{-1}R_k/ε$ (LQR gain)
• β_k = S_k^{-1}P_{k+1}^⊖} α_{k+1} (drift term)

4. Distinction from Existing Methods

• Chen et al. (2016): Forward equation describes closed-loop system state covariance evolution
• This Work: Forward equation describes forward Kantorovich potential function evolution, with path costs introducing additional coupling

Experimental Setup

Dataset

Experiments are conducted in two-dimensional space ($d=2$) using synthetic Gaussian distribution data.

Parameter Settings

1. Marginal Distributions:
   • Initial and terminal Gaussian distributions $\mathcal{N}(μ_0, Σ_0)$ and $\mathcal{N}(μ_K, Σ_K)$ represented by red ellipses
   • Potential functions initialized as $\mathcal{N}(μ_0, Σ_0^{-1})$ and $\mathcal{N}(μ_K, Σ_K^{-1})$
2. Number of Path Points: $K+1 \in [15, 100]$, depending on visualization requirements
3. Temperature Parameter:
   • Cold temperature: $ε = 0.001$ (requires approximately 5 iterations)
   • Warm temperature: $ε = 1$ (typically converges in 1 iteration)
4. Cost Matrices:
   • Diffusion matrix: $R_k = rI$ (diagonal constant)
   • Potential matrix: $Q_k = qI$ (diagonal constant, or zero at certain times)

Experimental Scenarios

Multiple typical scenarios are designed to test method performance:

1. Optimal Transport: Verifying relationship with Bures transport
2. Wave Path Following: Using dense control points
3. Sawtooth Pattern: Obstacle avoidance scenario
4. Scoubidou: Cyclic trajectory
5. Twisted Obstacle: Non-isotropic potential matrices

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Optimal Transport and Geometric Extension (Figure 2)

Brownian Bridge (Warm Temperature):

• Parameters: $ε=1$, $q=0$, $r=100$
• Result: Standard Brownian bridge between two Dirac measures, path is a stochastic process
• Contracts to Euclidean geodesic as $ε→0$

Negative Curvature Geometry (Cold Temperature):

• Parameters: $ε=0.001$, $q=0.3$, $r=10$
• Result: Transport between two Gaussian distributions; after adding intermediate attractive potential, geodesics deviate from Bures transport, exhibiting negative curvature properties
• Validates that the method extends to more complex geometries

2. Complex Stochastic Process Construction (Figures 3-4)

Cold Temperature Scenarios ($ε=0.001$):

1. Wave Path ($r=1$, $q=10$, $K=15$):
   • Uses $K$ control points for dense guidance
   • Process is nearly deterministic; covariance decreases due to high potential values
   • Demonstrates precise path-following capability
2. Sawtooth Pattern ($r=10$, $q=0.1$, $K=100$):
   • Uses 2 control points to guide Gaussian process
   • Successfully achieves obstacle avoidance
3. Scoubidou ($r=10$, $q=0.2$, $K=100$):
   • Uses 3 control points
   • Forms cyclic trajectory structure
4. Twisted Obstacle ($r=10$, $q=0.2$, $K=200$):
   • Uses 1 control point with non-isotropic potential matrix
   • Gaussian marginal covariance undergoes twisting near the potential
   • Demonstrates covariance control capability

Warm Temperature Scenarios ($ε=1$):

• With identical parameters, processes exhibit greater diffusivity
• Constraints from control points weaken
• Wave path is no longer deterministic
• Diffusion significantly increases in other scenarios

Experimental Findings

1. Rapid Convergence: With warm temperature or large $K$ values, typically converges in 1 iteration; with cold temperature and small $K$, requires approximately 5 iterations
2. Temperature Effects:
   • Cold temperature: Process approaches determinism, potential effects are significant, covariance decreases
   • Warm temperature: Process exhibits strong diffusivity, potential constraints weaken
3. Potential Control:
   • High $q$ values: Strong attraction, reduced covariance, more deterministic trajectories
   • Low $q$ values: Weak constraints, preserves more randomness
   • Non-isotropic $Q_k$: Can control covariance shape and orientation
4. Geometric Flexibility:
   • When $Q_k=0$: Recovers Bures geodesics
   • Activating potential: Produces negative curvature geometry
   • Through control point placement and potential strength: Can design complex trajectories

Related Work

1. Schrödinger Bridge and Optimal Transport

• Schrödinger (1931): Pioneering work proposing maximum entropy methods to determine the most probable process given marginal distributions
• Léonard (2001, 2014): Kantorovich dual formulation and theoretical foundations
• Peyré & Cuturi (2019): Connections between entropy-regularized optimal transport and Sinkhorn algorithm
• Sinkhorn (1964), Cuturi (2013): Efficient solution of discrete optimal transport

2. Schrödinger Bridge for Linear Stochastic Processes

• Levy et al. (1990): Modeling and estimation of discrete-time Gaussian reciprocal processes
• Jamison (1975), Beghi (1996): Doob transform and conditioning of Markov processes
• Chen et al. (2016): Prove Schrödinger bridge equivalence to stochastic control with quadratic cost, derive forward-backward Riccati equations
• Bakolas (2016): Optimal covariance control under integral quadratic state constraints
• Bunne et al. (2022): Closed-form solutions for Schrödinger bridges between Gaussian measures

3. Control Theory

• Kalman (1960): Foundational work on LQR control and Riccati equations
• Hotz & Skelton (1985): Covariance control theory
• Okamoto & Tsiotras (2019): Stochastic vehicle path planning using covariance guidance

4. Reinforcement Learning and Maximum Entropy Control

• Ziebart et al. (2010): Maximum causal entropy principle
• Haarnoja et al. (2018): Soft actor-critic algorithm
• Lambert et al. (2024): Variational dynamic programming

Advantages of This Work

1. Unified Framework: Unifies LQR control, optimal transport, and Schrödinger bridge into a single framework
2. Closed-Form Solution: Obtains complete analytical solutions under Gaussian assumptions
3. Computational Efficiency: Riccati equations can be solved efficiently with rapid convergence
4. Modeling Flexibility: Potential terms provide additional control degrees of freedom for designing complex geometries
5. New Theoretical Insights: Reveals new interpretations of Kalman duality

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Theoretical Achievement: Successfully integrates LQR control ideas into the optimal transport framework, obtaining complete closed-form solutions in the Gaussian-LQR setting
2. Algorithm Efficiency: Derived dual Riccati equations achieve exact implementation without approximation, with rapid practical convergence
3. Geometric Richness: Introduction of potential terms produces rich geometric structures; through strategic placement of attractors, one can control, deform, or reduce the covariance of Gaussian distributions
4. Application Potential: Method applicable to path following, covariance guidance, obstacle avoidance, and other practical problems

Limitations

1. Velocity Controllability Assumption: Current results restricted to settings where velocity is directly controllable ($u_k \propto x_{k+1} - x_k$); extension to channel-controlled cases left for future work
2. Discrete Time: Results derived only for discrete-time setting; continuous-time generalization requires further research
3. Gaussian Assumption: Method relies on Gaussianity of marginal distributions; extension to non-Gaussian cases is challenging
4. Experimental Validation: Numerical experiments primarily conducted in two-dimensional space; high-dimensional performance requires further verification

Future Directions

1. Control Extensions: Integrate prior information about the process (e.g., known passive dynamics), restricting optimization to control policies $p(u|x)$
2. Continuous Time: Extend to continuous-time settings
3. Non-Gaussian Cases: Explore approximation methods for non-Gaussian marginal distributions
4. Application Development: Practical applications in robot path planning, financial modeling, and other domains
5. Theoretical Deepening: Further investigate geometric structures induced by potentials and their properties

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Significant Theoretical Contributions:
   • Proposes new perspective on Schrödinger bridge problem by defining reference measure through LQR costs
   • Reveals deep connections of dual Riccati equations, providing new interpretation of Kalman duality
   • Complete closed-form solution is theoretically elegant and computationally efficient
2. Methodological Innovation:
   • Introduction of potential terms is key innovation, providing additional modeling freedom
   • Cleverly combines dynamic programming, optimal transport, and control theory
   • Recursive normalization procedure is simple and effective
3. Mathematical Rigor:
   • Derivation is clear and complete, progressively refining from general Schrödinger bridge to LQR-Gaussian case
   • Fully exploits properties of Gaussian distributions (products, convolution formulas)
   • Skillful application of Woodbury formula demonstrates technical proficiency
4. Well-Designed Experiments:
   • Scenario design is targeted, demonstrating diverse capabilities of the method
   • Temperature parameter comparisons clearly show different behavioral modes
   • Visualizations are intuitive and effective
5. High Writing Quality:
   • Clear notation system (particularly probabilistic graphical model style)
   • Logical structure progresses from simple to complex
   • Connections with related work thoroughly discussed

Weaknesses

1. Experimental Limitations:
   • Validation only in two-dimensional space; numerical stability and computational efficiency in high dimensions unknown
   • Lacks quantitative comparisons with other methods (e.g., Chen et al. 2016)
   • No theoretical convergence guarantees provided (though practical convergence is rapid)
2. Theoretical Restrictions:
   • Velocity controllability assumption is strong, limiting application scope
   • Discrete-time setting; continuous-time extension is non-trivial
   • Gaussian assumption limits method generality
3. Technical Details:
   • Conditions under which $P_0^⊖ \prec Σ_0^{-1}$ holds insufficiently discussed
   • Numerical stability issues (e.g., matrix inversion) not thoroughly analyzed
   • Impact of initialization strategy not systematically studied
4. Application Guidance:
   • Lack of systematic guidance for parameter selection ($Q_k$, $R_k$, $ε$) in specific applications
   • Design principles for control points $x_k^*$ insufficiently discussed
   • Interface with practical control problems needs clarification

Impact

1. Theoretical Impact:
   • Provides new research perspective on Schrödinger bridge problem
   • Deepens connections between optimal transport and control theory
   • May inspire approximation methods for non-Gaussian cases
2. Methodological Impact:
   • Provides efficient implementable algorithm (code open-sourced)
   • Can serve as baseline or component for other methods
   • Mature numerical methods for Riccati equations directly applicable
3. Application Impact:
   • Robot path planning: Covariance guidance and obstacle avoidance
   • Financial modeling: Stochastic process conditioning
   • Machine learning: Generative models and variational inference
   • Control engineering: Non-homogeneous system design
4. Reproducibility:
   • Algorithm description is clear and easy to implement
   • Code available on GitHub
   • Experimental setup detailed and verifiable

Applicable Scenarios

1. Best Suited For:
   • Optimal transport between Gaussian distributions
   • Path planning requiring covariance control
   • Stochastic control with path constraints
   • Non-homogeneous Gaussian process modeling
2. Promising Extensions:
   • Initialization or approximation for non-Gaussian cases
   • Combination with particle methods for multimodal distributions
   • Online adaptive control (through iterative updates)
3. Not Suitable For:
   • Non-Gaussian marginal distributions (requires extension)
   • Problems requiring channel control (current version)
   • Extremely high-dimensional problems (matrix operation complexity)

References

Key Citations

1. Schrödinger Bridge Foundations:
   • Léonard, C. (2014). A survey of the Schrödinger problem and some of its connections with optimal transport.
   • Chen, Y., Georgiou, T. T., & Pavon, M. (2021). Stochastic control liaisons: Richard Sinkhorn meets Gaspard Monge on a Schrödinger bridge.
2. Optimal Transport:
   • Peyré, G., & Cuturi, M. (2019). Computational optimal transport: With applications to data science.
   • Villani, C. (2008). Optimal Transport: Old and New.
3. Control Theory:
   • Kalman, R. E. (1960). Contributions to the theory of optimal control.
   • Lancaster, P., & Rodman, L. (2002). Algebraic Riccati Equations.
4. Related Methods:
   • Chen, Y., Georgiou, T. T., & Pavon, M. (2016). Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a final probability distribution.
   • Bunne, C., et al. (2022). The Schrödinger bridge between Gaussian measures has a closed form.

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality theoretical work that successfully combines the LQR framework from control theory with the Schrödinger bridge problem from optimal transport, obtaining elegant closed-form solutions under Gaussian assumptions. The derivation of dual Riccati equations and new interpretation of Kalman duality hold significant theoretical value. While numerical experiments are limited to low dimensions, they effectively demonstrate the method's flexibility and potential. Main limitations stem from Gaussian and velocity controllability assumptions, but as a special case, this work provides a solid foundation for research on more general problems. Open-source code enhances its practical value and reproducibility.