Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Harnessing Uncertainty for a Separation Principle in Direct Data-Driven Predictive Control (2312.14788v3)

Published 22 Dec 2023 in eess.SY and cs.SY

Abstract: Model Predictive Control (MPC) is a powerful method for complex system regulation, but its reliance on an accurate model poses many limitations in real-world applications. Data-driven predictive control (DDPC) aims at overcoming this limitation, by relying on historical data to provide information on the plant to be controlled. In this work, we present a unified stochastic framework for direct DDPC, where control actions are obtained by optimizing the Final Control Error (FCE), which is directly computed from available data only and automatically weighs the impact of uncertainty on the control objective. Our framework allows us to establish a separation principle for Predictive Control, elucidating the role that predictive models and their uncertainty play in DDPC. Moreover, it generalizes existing DDPC methods, like regularized Data-enabled Predictive Control (DeePC) and $\gamma$-DDPC, providing a path toward noise-tolerant data-based control with rigorous optimality guarantees. The theoretical investigation is complemented by a series of experiments (code available on GitHub: https://github.com/marcofabris92/a-separation-principle-in-d3pc), revealing that the proposed method consistently outperforms or, at worst, matches existing techniques without requiring tuning regularization parameters as other methods do.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (31)
  1. H. Akaike. Fitting autoregressive models for prediction. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 21:243–247, 1969.
  2. Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9:203–228, 1999.
  3. D. Bauer. Asymptotic properties of subspace estimators. Automatica, 41:359–376, 2005.
  4. D. Bauer and L. Ljung. Some facts about the choice of the weighting matrices in Larimore type of subspace algorithm. Automatica, 38:763–773, 2002.
  5. Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness guarantees. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(4):1702–1717, 2020.
  6. Predictive control for linear and hybrid systems. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  7. On the impact of regularization in data-driven predictive control. In 2023 63rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (to appear), 2023. Available on arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00263.
  8. Data-driven predictive control in a stochastic setting: a unified framework. Automatica, 152(110961), 2023.
  9. Uncertainty-aware data-driven predictive control in a stochastic setting. In 2023 22nd IFAC World Congress, 2023.
  10. On the design of regularized explicit predictive controllers from input-output data. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2022.
  11. A. Chiuso. The role of vector autoregressive modeling in predictor-based subspace identification. Automatica, 43(6):1034–1048, 2007.
  12. In preparation. In TBA, 2023.
  13. Data-enabled predictive control: In the shallows of the DeePC. In 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), pages 307–312. IEEE, 2019.
  14. Distributionally robust chance constrained data-enabled predictive control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 67(7):3289–3304, 2022.
  15. Bridging direct & indirect data-driven control formulations via regularizations and relaxations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2022.
  16. F. Dörfler. Data-driven control: Part two of two: Hot take: Why not go with models? IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 43(6):27–31, 2023.
  17. Spc: Subspace predictive control. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 32(2):4004–4009, 1999. 14th IFAC World Congress 1999, Beijing, Chia, 5-9 July.
  18. H. Hjalmarsson. From experiment design to closed-loop control. Automatica, 41(3):393–438, 2005.
  19. V. Krishnan and F. Pasqualetti. On direct vs indirect data-driven predictive control. In 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 736–741. IEEE, 2021.
  20. A flexible transmission system as a benchmark for robust digital control. European Journal of Control, 1(2):77–96, 1995.
  21. M. Lazar and P. C. N. Verheijen. Offset–free data–driven predictive control. In 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 1099–1104, 2022.
  22. M. Lazar and P. C. N. Verheijen. Generalized data-driven predictive control: Merging subspace and Hankel predictors. Mathematics, 11(9), 2023.
  23. L. Ljung. System Identification, Theory for the User. Prentice Hall, 1997.
  24. M. Morari and J. H. Lee. Model predictive control: past, present and future. Computers & chemical engineering, 23(4-5):667–682, 1999.
  25. Regularized System Identification, Learning Dynamic Models from Data. Spinger, 2022.
  26. S. V. Raković. Model predictive control: classical, robust, and stochastic. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 36(6):102–105, 2016.
  27. Y. Shi and K. Zhang. Advanced model predictive control framework for autonomous intelligent mechatronic systems: A tutorial overview and perspectives. Annual Reviews in Control, 52:170–196, 2021.
  28. A. van der Vaart. Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  29. P. Van Overschee and B. De Moor. Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Kluwer Academic Publications, 1996.
  30. A note on persistency of excitation. Systems & Control Letters, 54(4):325–329, 2005.
  31. B. Wittenmark. Adaptive dual control methods: An overview. In IFAC Adaptive Systems in Control and Signal Processing. Budapest, Hungary, 1995, pages 67–72. IFAC, 1995.
Citations (2)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.