Canonical Form of Datatic Description in Control Systems (2403.01768v1)
Abstract: The design of feedback controllers is undergoing a paradigm shift from modelic (i.e., model-driven) control to datatic (i.e., data-driven) control. Canonical form of state space model is an important concept in modelic control systems, exemplified by Jordan form, controllable form and observable form, whose purpose is to facilitate system analysis and controller synthesis. In the realm of datatic control, there is a notable absence in the standardization of data-based system representation. This paper for the first time introduces the concept of canonical data form for the purpose of achieving more effective design of datatic controllers. In a control system, the data sample in canonical form consists of a transition component and an attribute component. The former encapsulates the plant dynamics at the sampling time independently, which is a tuple containing three elements: a state, an action and their corresponding next state. The latter describes one or some artificial characteristics of the current sample, whose calculation must be performed in an online manner. The attribute of each sample must adhere to two requirements: (1) causality, ensuring independence from any future samples; and (2) locality, allowing dependence on historical samples but constrained to a finite neighboring set. The purpose of adding attribute is to offer some kinds of benefits for controller design in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. To provide a more close-up illustration, we present two canonical data forms: temporal form and spatial form, and demonstrate their advantages in reducing instability and enhancing training efficiency in two datatic control systems.
- K. J. Åström and P. R. Kumar, “Control: A perspective.” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 3–43, 2014.
- S. E. Li, F. Gao, K. Li, L.-Y. Wang, K. You, and D. Cao, “Robust longitudinal control of multi-vehicle systems—a distributed h-infinity method,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 2779–2788, 2017.
- S. E. Li, K. Li, R. Rajamani, and J. Wang, “Model predictive multi-objective vehicular adaptive cruise control,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 556–566, 2010.
- E. Canuto, “Drag-free and attitude control for the goce satellite,” Automatica, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1766–1780, 2008.
- S. Pérez-Roca, J. Marzat, H. Piet-Lahanier, N. Langlois, M. Galeotta, F. Farago, and S. Le Gonidec, “Model-based robust transient control of reusable liquid-propellant rocket engines,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 129–144, 2020.
- G. Zhan, Y. Jiang, S. E. Li, Y. Lyu, X. Zhang, and Y. Yin, “A transformation-aggregation framework for state representation of autonomous driving systems,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024.
- R. E. Kalman, “Canonical structure of linear dynamical systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 596–600, 1962.
- Y.-C. Ho, “Team decision theory and information structures,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 644–654, 1980.
- R. E. Kalman, “On the computation of the reachable/observable canonical form,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 258–260, 1982.
- R. E. Kalman, Y.-C. Ho, and K. S. Narendra, “Controllability of linear dynamical systems,” Contributions to Differential Equations, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 189–213, 1963.
- D. Prätzel-Wolters, “Canonical forms for linear systems,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 50, pp. 437–473, 1983.
- J. Duan, Y. Guan, S. E. Li, Y. Ren, Q. Sun, and B. Cheng, “Distributional soft actor-critic: Off-policy reinforcement learning for addressing value estimation errors,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 6584–6598, 2021.
- J. Berberich, J. Köhler, M. A. Müller, and F. Allgöwer, “Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness guarantees,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1702–1717, 2020.
- D. Fridovich-Keil, E. Ratner, L. Peters, A. D. Dragan, and C. J. Tomlin, “Efficient iterative linear-quadratic approximations for nonlinear multi-player general-sum differential games,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1475–1481.
- Y. Jiang, G. Zhan, Z. Lan, C. Liu, B. Cheng, and S. E. Li, “A reinforcement learning benchmark for autonomous driving in general urban scenarios,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023.
- S. Feng, H. Sun, X. Yan, H. Zhu, Z. Zou, S. Shen, and H. X. Liu, “Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles,” Nature, vol. 615, no. 7953, pp. 620–627, 2023.
- P. R. Wurman, S. Barrett, K. Kawamoto, J. MacGlashan, K. Subramanian, T. J. Walsh, R. Capobianco, A. Devlic, F. Eckert, F. Fuchs et al., “Outracing champion gran turismo drivers with deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 602, no. 7896, pp. 223–228, 2022.
- H. Ju, R. Juan, R. Gomez, K. Nakamura, and G. Li, “Transferring policy of deep reinforcement learning from simulation to reality for robotics,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 1077–1087, 2022.
- Y. Yang, Z. Zheng, and S. E. Li, “On the stability of datatic control systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16793, 2024.
- W. Wang, Y. Zhang, J. Gao, Y. Jiang, Y. Yang, Z. Zheng, W. Zou, J. Li, C. Zhang, W. Cao et al., “Gops: A general optimal control problem solver for autonomous driving and industrial control applications,” Communications in Transportation Research, vol. 3, p. 100096, 2023.
- S. Fujimoto and S. S. Gu, “A minimalist approach to offline reinforcement learning,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021, pp. 20 132–20 145.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.
