Data-Driven Structured Robust Control of Linear Systems

Florian D\"orfler; Jaap Eising; Jared Miller; Roy S. Smith

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Data-Driven Structured Robust Control of Linear Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that one convex linear-matrix-inequality program, built only from measured input-state data and a known noise bound, certifies a worst-case H2 performance bound for a structured state-feedback controller on every plant…

desk verdict Solid combination of known tools into a new SDP for data-driven structured H2 control; a dimension typo and an overclaim about conservatism need fixing before the details are trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11542 v1 pith:PZ3WN67N submitted 2024-11-18 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Jared Miller , Jaap Eising , Florian Dörfler , Roy S. Smith This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY MSC 93B5293B5193C5590C22

keywords data-drivencontrolstructuredH2suboptimallinearmatrixinequalityset-membershipS-lemmaquadraticstatefeedback

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

This paper claims that H2-suboptimal regulation with a structured state-feedback gain can be certified directly from noisy input-state data, without identifying the matrices A and B. It combines a known convex relaxation for structured control with a matrix S-lemma that turns the requirement "performance holds for every plant consistent with the data" into one linear matrix inequality. The result is a single convex program whose size depends on the state and input dimensions but not on the number of collected samples. A feasible solution produces a structured gain K = $LR^{{-1}}$ that meets the reported H2 bound on the true plant and on every plant in the data-consistent set. The significance is that networked or communication-limited controllers can be designed with guaranteed worst-case performance from data alone.

What carries the argument

The paper's central objects are the QMI-ellipsoid set Sigma_D defined in (17) from the measured matrices X-, U-, X+ and the noise bound Phi; the matrix S-lemma (Lemma 3.1) that converts the uniform performance condition over Sigma_D into an LMI with multipliers $\alpha$, $\beta$; and the subspace sets Upsilon(S) from Lemma 2.3, which give a convex sufficient condition R in Upsilon(S), L in S implies $LR^{{-1}}$ in S. These are assembled into the SDP (18), where R acts as a slack Lyapunov factor and L = KR. The SDP's dimensions scale with n and m but not with the trajectory length T.

What would settle it

Construct a data set for which Sigma_D is nonempty but has empty interior (for example, exact noiseless data with fewer samples than states), solve SDP (18), and compare the certified gamma* against an exhaustive grid search for the worst-case H2 norm over all A,B satisfying the QMI; a certified bound below the grid-search worst case would show the hidden regularity condition is needed for the theorem to hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 3.2 is the central claim: given input-state data collected under a known quadratic noise bound and a subspace S of allowed controller gains, if the semidefinite program (18) is feasible with optimal value gamma*, then K = $LR^{{-1}}$ belongs to S and is a gamma*-suboptimal H2 controller for every system (A,B) in Sigma_D, the set of plants compatible with the data. Because the true plant is one of these compatible plants, the controller is guaranteed to regulate the actual system as well. The authors identify the convex condition of Lemma 2.3, used to enforce the subspace constraint, as the only source of conservatism in the design procedure.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the S-procedure step being exact: the data set must contain at least one strictly data-consistent plant in the interior of the ellipsoid, and if that Slater-type condition fails, the LMI certificate may not reflect the true worst case.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single convex LMI certifies a worst-case H2 bound on every plant consistent with the data, so no separate system identification step is needed.
The SDP's size scales with the state and input dimensions but not with the number of collected samples, so long trajectories do not increase the optimization cost.
Structured constraints are encoded through Upsilon(S), so sparsity patterns, decentralized information constraints, or sharing constraints can be enforced while retaining convexity.
The resulting controller K is guaranteed to meet the reported bound on the true underlying system even though A and B are unknown.

Reading between the lines

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

The same QMI-plus-S-lemma template likely extends to H-infinity or mixed-sensitivity objectives, as the paper's future-work section suggests, but each extension needs a new QMI representation of the performance condition.
A quantitative trade-off map between sparsity, data length, noise level, and achievable H2 bound could be extracted from the SDP's feasible region or dual variables; the paper only provides example-based observations.
If Slater regularity fails, a small robustification of the data ellipsoid (slightly shrinking Phi or adding regularization) could restore the exactness of the S-procedure step, at the cost of a slightly conservative bound; this is a testable fix.
The non-monotonic behavior in T seen in Tables II and IV stems from approximating per-sample noise by a single ellipsoid, so alternative noise models such as polytopic bounds might yield monotone guarantees.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, workmanlike paper that combines three known ingredients—the QMI data-consistency framework, the matrix S-lemma, and a convex sufficient condition for structured feedback—into one SDP for data-driven structured H2 control. The problem is genuinely new in this form, and the central theorem is plausible. The manuscript has one blocking typo and one overclaim, both fixable.

What's actually new: Theorem 3.2's SDP (18) is the first convex formulation I know of that gives a hard worst-case H2 guarantee for structured static state feedback using only measured data and a noise bound, with problem size independent of the number of samples. The combination is straightforward—the paper doesn't invent a new framework—but it is a useful application and the structured-control condition from [7] is a good fit for the QMI data model. The examples are small but sensible; Design 4 (R in Υ(S)) clearly beats the diagonal-R alternatives, and the code is available via DOI.

Soft spots, in order of severity:

1. Eq (16) is ill-typed as printed. The block matrix G is (2n+m)×(n+T) and Φ is (n+T)×(n+T), so GᵀΦG doesn't parse unless 2n+m = n+T. The intended definition is clearly Ψ = GΦGᵀ, which is (2n+m)×(2n+m) and makes Σ_D in (17) well-formed. This looks like a simple transpose typo, but it sits in the central object and blocks any formal verification of the theorem. Fix it.

2. The paper claims the only source of conservatism is the convex relaxation from Lemma 2.3. That's contradicted by their own Remark 3 and Table II discussion, where overapproximating per-sample noise bounds by a single ellipsoid is identified as another source. The claim should be retracted or substantially qualified.

3. Lemma 3.1 states an if-and-only-if without restating the regularity conditions from [11, Cor. 4.13]. The direction actually used in Theorem 3.2 is the unconditional S-procedure sufficiency, so the main theorem doesn't depend on those conditions—but the lemma as written is too strong.

Minor: the examples are demonstrations rather than a systematic benchmark, and the numerical code depends on Mosek and YALMIP with no commit hash. That's fine for a first paper on this topic, but the reproducibility claim is a bit weaker than the DOI suggests.

Who this is for: researchers working on data-driven control or structured/decentralized control. They'll find the SDP useful and the paper readable, despite the typos. It deserves a serious referee—the idea is sound and the community will want to see it. My recommendation: accept after the typo is fixed and the conservatism claim is corrected.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a convex LMI-based method for data-driven H2-suboptimal control with structured static state-feedback gains. Given input-state data collected under a bounded process noise satisfying a quadratic matrix inequality (QMI), the authors characterize the set of all plants consistent with the data via a matrix ellipsoid. They then impose the subspace constraint on the controller gain using a convex sufficient condition from [7] and apply a matrix S-lemma to convert the worst-case H2 performance condition into an LMI. The main result, Theorem 3.2, states that a feasible solution of the resulting SDP yields a structured gain that is gamma*-suboptimal for every plant in the data-consistent set, and the SDP size is independent of the number of data samples. Two numerical examples, including sparse and sharing control, illustrate the method.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, the paper offers a computationally appealing convex formulation for a class of structured H2 control problems that are generally NP-hard, with guaranteed worst-case performance over all data-consistent plants. The dimension of the SDP being independent of the data length T is a genuine practical strength, and the authors provide publicly available MATLAB code for reproducibility. The contribution is an incremental combination of existing tools: the QMI/set-membership framework of [11], [12], the structured-control relaxation of [7], and the extended H2 LMI of [34]. That said, the central claim is clear and the intended derivation is plausible, aside from the load-bearing issues detailed below. The paper is a reasonable fit for the journal, provided the major concerns are addressed.

major comments (3)

[Section III-A, Eq. (16)] The definition of Ψ in Eq. (16) is dimensionally invalid as printed. The matrix G has size (2n+m) × (n+T) while Φ has size (n+T) × (n+T); consequently the product G^T Φ G is undefined unless 2n+m = n+T, which is not assumed. Since Ψ is used to define the consistency set Σ_D in (17) and appears in the main SDP (18a), the central claim of Theorem 3.2 is not well-posed as written. The correct expression is Ψ = G Φ G^T, which follows by substituting W_- = X_+ - A X_- - B U_- into (14) and comparing with the quadratic form in (17). Please correct this and confirm that all subsequent blocks, especially the embedding in (18a), are dimensionally consistent.
[Section III-B, Lemma 3.1] Lemma 3.1 is stated as an if-and-only-if but does not restate the strict feasibility or regularity conditions required by the cited matrix S-lemma [11, Cor. 4.13]. The forward (sufficiency) direction, which is the only direction used in the proof of Theorem 3.2, is the standard unconditional S-procedure argument and is not endangered. However, the claimed equivalence, and the statement that (18a) is 'equivalent' to the robust performance condition, are not justified without those conditions. Please either state the required regularity conditions or reformulate Lemma 3.1 as the sufficiency result that the theorem actually needs.
[Section III-B, end of Section III-B] The last paragraph of Section III-B claims that 'the only non-conservative step leading up to Theorem 3.2 is the convex relaxation based on Lemma 2.3' and that this is 'also the only source of conservatism.' This is contradicted by the paper's own discussion in Section IV.A and Table II, where the authors note that increasing the data length T can lead to more conservative bounds due to the approximation of the per-sample noise bound by a single ellipsoid in (14). The ellipsoidal overapproximation of the noise set is a distinct source of conservatism. Please revise this claim so that it accurately lists all sources of conservatism, and ensure that Lemma 3.1's missing regularity conditions, if not addressed, are also acknowledged.

minor comments (4)

[Table IV] The row labels '3 (P = R diag.)' and '3 (R diag.)' repeat the number 3; the first of these should presumably be '2 (P = R diag.)' to match the design numbering used elsewhere.
[Section IV.B, Eq. (21a)] The notation '13×2' in the sparsity pattern appears to be a typographical artifact; it should likely be '1_{3\times 2}' or another explicit block notation.
[Section III-C and (18a)] After fixing Eq. (16), please make the block structure of the matrix in (18a) explicit, in particular the dimensions of the Ψ embedding and the size of the full constraint, so that the 'scales independently of T' claim is directly verifiable.
[Proof of Theorem 3.2] The proof is a single sentence appealing to a Schur complement and Lemma 3.1. Given the dimension issue in Eq. (16), a few more steps showing how the 4x4 block in (18a) arises from the Schur complement of the lemma would greatly improve readability and verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central SDP is derived from independent external lemmas, not from data fitting or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 3.2 combines Lemma 2.2 (external extended H2 characterization from de Oliveira et al.), Lemma 2.3 (external structured-control relaxation from Ferrante et al.), and Lemma 3.1, which applies the matrix S-lemma from [11] to the nominal condition (10a). No parameter is fitted to the numerical examples and then relabeled as a prediction; the consistent set Sigma_D is defined from the measured data and the a priori noise bound (14), and the SDP (18) is then derived to certify the H2 condition for every plant in that set. The only co-authored citation is [11], since Jaap Eising is an author of both works, but the S-lemma is a general published mathematical result whose assumptions do not include the target controller-design conclusion; it is therefore independent evidence and does not make the argument circular. The numerical experiments are demonstrations, not inputs that shape the derivation. The apparent transpose mismatch in Eq. (16) is a well-posedness or typographical issue, not a self-referential reduction, and the statement in Section III-B that one cannot distinguish among data-consistent plants is a correct caveat rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; alpha, beta and gamma are optimization variables. The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its assumptions are the noise bound, the S-lemma regularity, and the convex structured-control relaxation from prior work.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The process noise W- satisfies the QMI bound (14) with a known matrix Phi, including -Phi22 > 0 (Assumption 1).
Defines the data-consistent plant set Sigma_D; if the noise realization violates this bound, the claimed guarantee for the true plant does not follow.
domain assumption The matrix S-lemma equivalence in Lemma 3.1 is valid for the given data set, including any implicit Slater or strict-feasibility condition inherited from [11, Cor. 4.13].
The proof of Theorem 3.2 relies on this equivalence; the paper does not state or verify the required qualification.
domain assumption The convex structured-control condition of Lemma 2.3 (L in S and R in Upsilon(S) imply LR^{-1} in S) is sufficient, and the restriction R in Upsilon(S) is acceptable for the target application.
This is the admitted source of conservatism; if Upsilon(S) is too small, the SDP may be infeasible even when a structured controller exists.
domain assumption C, D, E are chosen by the designer and known; only A and B are unknown.
The H2 objective and data consistency set are defined with fixed C,D,E; the guarantee applies only to that chosen performance channel.
standard math The extended H2 characterization of De Oliveira et al. (Lemma 2.2) is an exact equivalent reformulation of the H2 suboptimality condition.
Background result from [34] used to make the optimization linear in L and R.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-Driven Structured Robust Control of Linear Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZ3WN67N

@misc{pith2026241111542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-Driven Structured Robust Control of Linear Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZ3WN67N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11542}
}

abstract

Static structured control refers to the task of designing a state-feedback controller such that the control gain satisfies a subspace constraint. Structured control has applications in control of communication-inhibited dynamical systems, such as systems in networked environments. This work performs $H_2$-suboptimal regulation under a common structured state-feedback controller for a class of data-consistent plants. The certification of $H_2$-performance is attained through a combination of standard $H_2$ LMIs, convex sufficient conditions for structured control, and a matrix S-lemma for set-membership. The resulting convex optimization problems are linear matrix inequalities whose size scales independently of the number of data samples collected. Data-driven structured $H_2$-regulation control is demonstrated on example systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Dissipativity-Based Data-Driven Decentralized Control of Interconnected Systems
eess.SY 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Data-driven decentralized control of interconnected discrete-time LTI systems is achieved by synthesizing local dissipative controllers and certifying global stability with LMIs from local data and noise bounds.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[7]

On the design of structured stabilizers for LTI systems,

F. Ferrante, F. Dabbene, and C. Ravazzi, “On the design of structured stabilizers for LTI systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 289–294, 2019

work page 2019
[11]

Quadratic matrix inequalities with applications to data- based control,

H. J. V an Waarde, M. K. Camlibel, J. Eising, and H. L. Tren telman, “Quadratic matrix inequalities with applications to data- based control,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 2251– 2281, 2023

work page 2023
[12]

From no isy data to feedback controllers: Nonconservative design via a matrix S- lemma,

H. J. van Waarde, M. K. Camlibel, and M. Mesbahi, “From no isy data to feedback controllers: Nonconservative design via a matrix S- lemma,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 162–175, 2020

work page 2020
[34]

Exte nded H2 and H∞ norm characterizations and controller parametrizations f or discrete-time systems,

M. C. De Oliveira, J. C. Geromel, and J. Bernussou, “Exte nded H2 and H∞ norm characterizations and controller parametrizations f or discrete-time systems,” International journal of control, vol. 75, no. 9, pp. 666–679, 2002

work page 2002
[1]

NP-hardness of some lin ear control design problems,

V . Blondel and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “NP-hardness of some lin ear control design problems,” SIAM journal on control and optimization , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 2118–2127, 1997

work page 1997
[2]

On the stabilization of decen tralized control systems,

S.-H. Wang and E. Davison, “On the stabilization of decen tralized control systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 473–478, 1973

work page 1973
[3]

Decentralized control: An overview,

L. Bakule, “Decentralized control: An overview,” Annual reviews in control, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 87–98, 2008

work page 2008
[4]

Quadratic invariance is necessa ry and suf- ﬁcient for convexity,

L. Lessard and S. Lall, “Quadratic invariance is necessa ry and suf- ﬁcient for convexity,” in Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference, 2011, pp. 5360–5362

work page 2011

Show all 40 references

[5]

Robust distributed contr ol beyond quadratic invariance,

L. Furieri and M. Kamgarpour, “Robust distributed contr ol beyond quadratic invariance,” in 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2018, pp. 3728–3733

2018
[6]

On Separable Quadratic Lyapunov Functions for Convex Desi gn of Distributed Controllers,

L. Furieri, Y . Zheng, A. Papachristodoulou, and M. Kamga rpour, “On Separable Quadratic Lyapunov Functions for Convex Desi gn of Distributed Controllers,” in 2019 18th European control conference (ECC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 42–49

2019
[8]

An LMI approach for structured H∞ state feedback control,

F. Ferrante, C. Ravazzi, and F. Dabbene, “An LMI approach for structured H∞ state feedback control,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 4058–4063, 2020

2020
[9]

From model-based control to data-dri ven control: Survey, classiﬁcation and perspective,

Z. Hou and Z. Wang, “From model-based control to data-dri ven control: Survey, classiﬁcation and perspective,” Information Sciences, vol. 235, pp. 3–35, 2013, data-based Control, Decision, Sch eduling and Fault Diagnostics

2013
[10]

Data-Driven Control and Learning Systems,

Z. Hou, H. Gao, and F. L. Lewis, “Data-Driven Control and Learning Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 4070–4075, 2017

2017
[13]

S-Procedure in Nonlinear Control Th eory,

V . A. Y akubovich, “S-Procedure in Nonlinear Control Th eory,” V estnickLeningrad Univ. Math., vol. 4, pp. 73–93, 1997

1997
[14]

Informativity for centraliz ed design of distributed controllers for networked systems,

J. Eising and J. Cort´ es, “Informativity for centraliz ed design of distributed controllers for networked systems,” in 2022 European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, 2022, pp. 681–686

2022
[15]

Data -driven control of distributed event-triggered network systems,

X. Wang, J. Sun, G. Wang, F. Allg¨ ower, and J. Chen, “Data -driven control of distributed event-triggered network systems,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 351–364, 2023

2023
[16]

Learning controll ers for performance through LMI regions,

A. Bisofﬁ, C. De Persis, and P . Tesi, “Learning controll ers for performance through LMI regions,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2022

2022
[17]

Robust Superstabil izing Con- troller Design from Open-Loop Experimental Input/Output D ata,

Y . Cheng, M. Sznaier, and C. Lagoa, “Robust Superstabil izing Con- troller Design from Open-Loop Experimental Input/Output D ata,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 28, pp. 1337–1342, 2015, 17 th IFAC Symposium on System Identiﬁcation SYSID 2015

2015
[18]

Data-driv en control of positive linear systems using linear programming,

J. Miller, T. Dai, M. Sznaier, and B. Shafai, “Data-driv en control of positive linear systems using linear programming,” in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2023, pp. 1588–1594

2023
[19]

Une extension du lemme de Farkas et son ap plication au probl` eme de r´ egulation lin´ eaire sous contraintes,

J.-C. Hennet, “Une extension du lemme de Farkas et son ap plication au probl` eme de r´ egulation lin´ eaire sous contraintes,” C. R. Acad. Sciences, vol. 308, 01 1989

1989
[20]

Virtual re ference feed- back tuning: a direct method for the design of feedback contr ollers,

M. C. Campi, A. Lecchini, and S. M. Savaresi, “Virtual re ference feed- back tuning: a direct method for the design of feedback contr ollers,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1337–1346, 2002

2002
[21]

A. S. Bazanella, L. Campestrini, and D. Eckhard, Data-Driven Controller Design: The H2 approach . Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

2011
[22]

Iterative Feedback Tuning: Theory and Applications,

H. Hjalmarsson, M. Gevers, S. Gunnarsson, and O. Lequin , “Iterative Feedback Tuning: Theory and Applications,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 26–41, 1998

1998
[23]

Iterative cor relation-based controller tuning,

A. Karimi, L. Miˇ skovi´ c, and D. Bonvin, “Iterative cor relation-based controller tuning,” International journal of adaptive control and signal processing, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 645–664, 2004

2004
[24]

A note on persistency of excitation,

J. C. Willems, P . Rapisarda, I. Markovsky, and B. L. De Mo or, “A note on persistency of excitation,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 325–329, 2005

2005
[25]

Data informativity: a new perspective on data-driven anal ysis and control,

H. J. V an Waarde, J. Eising, H. L. Trentelman, and M. K. Ca mlibel, “Data informativity: a new perspective on data-driven anal ysis and control,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. , vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4753–4768, 2020

2020
[26]

Formulas for Data-Driven Cont rol: Stabi- lization, Optimality, and Robustness,

C. De Persis and P . Tesi, “Formulas for Data-Driven Cont rol: Stabi- lization, Optimality, and Robustness,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 909–924, 2020

2020
[27]

Data-enabled p redictive control: In the shallows of the DeePC,

J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D¨ orﬂer, “Data-enabled p redictive control: In the shallows of the DeePC,” in 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 307–312

2019
[28]

Data-Driven Model Predictive Control With Stability and Robustness Gua rantees,

J. Berberich, J. K¨ ohler, M. A. M¨ uller, and F. Allg¨ ower, “Data-Driven Model Predictive Control With Stability and Robustness Gua rantees,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. , vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1702–1717, 2021

2021
[29]

On a stochastic fundam ental lemma and its use for data-driven optimal control,

G. Pan, R. Ou, and T. Faulwasser, “On a stochastic fundam ental lemma and its use for data-driven optimal control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 5922–5937, 2022

2022
[30]

Closed-loop aspects of data-enabled predictive control,

R. Dinkla, S. P . Mulders, J.-W. van Wingerden, and T. Oom en, “Closed-loop aspects of data-enabled predictive control, ” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 1388–1393, 2023, 22n d IFAC World Congress

2023
[31]

Data-driven ei genstructure as- signment for sparse feedback design,

F. Celi, G. Baggio, and F. Pasqualetti, “Data-driven ei genstructure as- signment for sparse feedback design,” in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 618–623

2023
[32]

Zhou and J

K. Zhou and J. C. Doyle, Essentials of Robust Control. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998, vol. 104

1998
[33]

S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V . Balakrishnan, Linear matrix inequalities in system and control theory . SIAM, 1994

1994
[35]

ApS, The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MA TLAB manual

M. ApS, The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MA TLAB manual. V ersion 9.2., 2020. [Online]. Available: https://docs.mosek.com/9.2/toolbox/index.html

2020
[36]

Y ALMIP : a toolbox for modeling and optimiz ation in MA TLAB,

J. Lofberg, “Y ALMIP : a toolbox for modeling and optimiz ation in MA TLAB,” in ICRA (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37508), 2004, pp. 284–289

2004
[37]

Cont roller synthesis for input-state data with measurement errors,

A. Bisofﬁ, L. Li, C. De Persis, and N. Monshizadeh, “Cont roller synthesis for input-state data with measurement errors,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, 2024

2024
[38]

Data-driven gain scheduling control of linear parameter-varying systems using quadratic matrix inequal ities,

J. Miller and M. Sznaier, “Data-driven gain scheduling control of linear parameter-varying systems using quadratic matrix inequal ities,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 835–840, 2022

2022
[39]

Decoupl ing parameter variation from noise: Biquadratic Lyapunov forms in data-d riven LPV control,

C. V erhoek, J. Eising, F. D¨ orﬂer, and R. Toth, “Decoupl ing parameter variation from noise: Biquadratic Lyapunov forms in data-d riven LPV control,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control ,

2024
[2024]

Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16565

[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16565

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

On the design of structured stabilizers for LTI systems,

F. Ferrante, F. Dabbene, and C. Ravazzi, “On the design of structured stabilizers for LTI systems,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 289–294, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [11]

Quadratic matrix inequalities with applications to data- based control,

H. J. V an Waarde, M. K. Camlibel, J. Eising, and H. L. Tren telman, “Quadratic matrix inequalities with applications to data- based control,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 2251– 2281, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [12]

From no isy data to feedback controllers: Nonconservative design via a matrix S- lemma,

H. J. van Waarde, M. K. Camlibel, and M. Mesbahi, “From no isy data to feedback controllers: Nonconservative design via a matrix S- lemma,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 162–175, 2020

work page 2020

[4] [34]

Exte nded H2 and H∞ norm characterizations and controller parametrizations f or discrete-time systems,

M. C. De Oliveira, J. C. Geromel, and J. Bernussou, “Exte nded H2 and H∞ norm characterizations and controller parametrizations f or discrete-time systems,” International journal of control, vol. 75, no. 9, pp. 666–679, 2002

work page 2002

[5] [1]

NP-hardness of some lin ear control design problems,

V . Blondel and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “NP-hardness of some lin ear control design problems,” SIAM journal on control and optimization , vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 2118–2127, 1997

work page 1997

[6] [2]

On the stabilization of decen tralized control systems,

S.-H. Wang and E. Davison, “On the stabilization of decen tralized control systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 473–478, 1973

work page 1973

[7] [3]

Decentralized control: An overview,

L. Bakule, “Decentralized control: An overview,” Annual reviews in control, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 87–98, 2008

work page 2008

[8] [4]

Quadratic invariance is necessa ry and suf- ﬁcient for convexity,

L. Lessard and S. Lall, “Quadratic invariance is necessa ry and suf- ﬁcient for convexity,” in Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference, 2011, pp. 5360–5362

work page 2011