Practical Considerations for Implementing Robust-to-Early Termination Model Predictive Control

Mehdi Hosseinzadeh; Mohsen Amiri

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Practical Considerations for Implementing Robust-to-Early Termination Model Predictive Control

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that discrete-time Euler REAP with a per-step adapted KKT parameter preserves anytime feasibility and convergence.

desk verdict The adaptive KKT step-size scheme is a practical and well-tested idea, but the central convergence proof relies on a false strong-monotonicity inequality, so the theory as written does not support the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13270 v1 pith:XQZZ5VRF submitted 2025-01-22 math.OC

Mohsen Amiri , Mehdi Hosseinzadeh This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 93C5590C2590C30

keywords ModelPredictiveControlRobust-to-EarlyTerminationDiscrete-TimeImplementationAnytimeFeasibilityPrimal-DualGradientFlowModifiedBarrierFunctionKKTParameterAdaptationLimitedComputingCapacity

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

Model Predictive Control normally requires an optimization to finish before the next sampling instant, which is hard on limited hardware. The Robust-to-Early Termination (REAP) approach instead turns the MPC problem into a virtual dynamical system whose state is always a feasible, suboptimal control sequence, so computation can stop at any moment. The original REAP was analyzed in continuous time. This paper shows that the same guarantees survive a practical Euler discretization when the KKT parameter, the gain that controls how fast the virtual system moves, is chosen at every computation step based on the distance to the active constraints. Under that adaptive choice, the feasible sets stay invariant, the iterates converge to the tightened optimum, and every truncated computation still yields a constraint-satisfying control.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the virtual primal-dual gradient-flow system (10) driven by the modified barrier function (9), together with a per-step adaptive gain $\sigma(\tau|t)$. In continuous time a fixed gain works because infinitesimal steps cannot overshoot; in discrete time the paper makes the gain shrink exactly when a step would threaten a constraint. The upper bound (15)-(16) measures, for each constraint, the Euclidean distance $\delta_i^{\hat u}(\tau-1|t)$ to the shifted hyperplane $\eta_i^\top\theta+\gamma_i+\epsilon=0$ and the distance $\delta_i^{\hat\lambda}(\tau-1|t)$ to the dual nonnegativity boundary, then divides by the local gradient norm with a small smoothing factor to obtain the largest safe gain. This converts the fixed-step Euler update into an adaptive-step algorithm that is slow near constraints and fast away from them.

What would settle it

Run a scalar numerical test with constraint $u\le 0$, the modified barrier (9), and update (14), starting inside the $\epsilon$-band such as $u=-\epsilon/2$ while setting $\sigma(\tau|t)$ equal to the upper bound in (15); if $u(\tau|t)>0$ appears for any $\tau$, then Theorem 1's invariance claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that discrete-time REAP, implemented as Euler updates in (14), keeps both central properties of the continuous-time scheme: anytime feasibility and convergence. The enabling device is a state-dependent KKT parameter. At computation step $\tau$, the gain $\sigma(\tau|t)$ is capped by the Euclidean distance from the current iterate to each shifted constraint hyperplane, and from the dual iterate to its nonnegativity boundary, divided by the local gradient magnitude, producing the upper bound in (15) and (16). Theorem 1 proves these per-step caps keep the iterates inside $D_{\hat u}$ and $D_{\hat\lambda}$; Theorem 2 proves boundedness and convergence to the tightened optimum using a Lyapunov function; Theorem 3 uses the growth of the modified barrier near the boundary to conclude constraint satisfaction at every step. The authors read this as making REAP implementable in discrete time without sacrificing its central guarantee that a feasible suboptimal control is always available when computation is cut short.

Load-bearing premise

The invariance proof assumes that the distance to a slightly shifted copy of each constraint, divided by the local gradient norm, is a safe per-step movement bound that keeps iterates inside the original feasible set; near the true boundary this distance can exceed the remaining margin, so the bound may allow a step past the constraint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An Euler implementation of REAP with $\sigma(\tau|t)$ chosen by (15) keeps $\hat u(\tau|t)$ inside the tightened feasible set for every computation step, so early termination at any $\tau$ still returns a feasible control.
The discrete iterates converge to the tightened optimum $u^\dagger(t)$ as $\tau\to\infty$, provided the adaptive gain does not become identically zero.
Fixed gains in discrete time can violate constraints; the paper reports violations in 48.9% to 100% of tested runs for fixed $\sigma$, whereas the adaptive gain produced zero violations in the same tests.
When available computation time is only half the sampling period, the reported performance degradation stays below 0.3% relative to a powerful processor solving the MPC problem optimally.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not develop this, but the adaptive $\sigma$ rule is functionally a per-step backtracking line search; coupling it with a projected or predictor-corrector step could reduce the conservatism noted in Remark 3.
If the guarantee holds as stated, REAP becomes a candidate for fixed-point processors with hard deadlines, since no offline bound on the iteration count is needed, only the per-step distance computation.
The $\epsilon$-band subtlety in the distance-to-shifted-constraint bound suggests a practical hardening: compute the distance to the original constraint boundary rather than the shifted one, or keep iterates outside the $\epsilon$-band, before relying on Theorem 1's step bound.
A testable extension would replace the Euler integrator with a Runge-Kutta or operator-splitting scheme and derive the analogous per-step gain bound from the local truncation error.

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

This paper addresses a real practical gap: continuous-time REAP needs a discrete-time implementation, and the existing advice to use a sufficiently small Euler step leaves the user with no way to choose that step without either stalling the virtual dynamics or risking constraint violations. The authors' adaptive KKT parameter, chosen from distance-to-constraint bounds, is a sensible and novel extension of [25]. The simulation study and the Parrot Bebop 2 experiment are credible, and the zero-violation results with the adaptive rule in the tested cases are worth attention. The MATLAB package is a useful addition.

The theory, however, has load-bearing problems. The proof of Theorem 2 relies on inequality (22), which claims strong monotonicity of the stacked vector field [∇_u B; −∇_λ B]. But the modified barrier is affine in λ: ∇_λ B = −log(−β(η_i^T u+γ_i)) has no λ-dependence. A concrete counterexample is the scalar problem min 0.5u² subject to u+1/β≤0. At u = u† = −1/β and λ = λ†+δ, the u-gradient changes by βδ while the λ-gradient is unchanged, so the left side of (22) is 0 and the right side is μδ²; no μ>0 exists. This invalidates the Lyapunov difference bound (28), the invariance of T, and the claimed convergence to (u†,λ†). This is not a minor gap; the convergence theorem is the core of the paper.

Theorem 1 has a separate scaling error. δ_i^u is the Euclidean distance to the shifted hyperplane, whereas η_i^T Δu is a change in the constraint value. The comparison in the proof is valid only for unit normals; with σ_i^u as in (16a), a non-normalized constraint with ||η_i||<1 can be crossed by the allowed step. This is fixable by normalizing the constraint normal or rescaling σ_i^u.

The experiments remain useful and the adaptive scheme may well work, but the theoretical guarantees as stated are not proven. I would not cite this paper for a convergence result. I would, however, send it to peer review: the practical extension is valuable, the proof failures are concrete and likely repairable, and a referee can point to exactly what needs to be fixed. As it stands it is a conditional reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the discrete-time (Euler) implementation of the Robust-to-Early Termination (REAP) MPC scheme proposed by Hosseinzadeh et al. The authors introduce an adaptive Karush-Kuhn-Tucker parameter sigma(tau|t), chosen at each computation step from the distance to the constraint boundaries, and claim that this choice preserves the invariance of the feasible sets D_hatu and D_hatlambda, maintains anytime feasibility, and guarantees convergence to the tightened optimal solution. The theoretical results are stated as Theorems 1-3. The paper also reports simulation studies for a Parrot Bebop 2 model, a comparison of fixed versus adaptive sigma, suboptimality estimates, experimental results on the drone, and a MATLAB package called DiscreteREAP.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a practically useful discretization guideline for REAP: a computable step-size selection rule that preserves the anytime feasible and convergent behavior of the continuous-time scheme. The adaptive-sigma idea is sensible, and the paper contains a notable empirical component: a comparison across five sigma strategies, a study with state and input constraints, an assessment of degradation under reduced available computation time, and real-time experiments on a Parrot Bebop 2. The release of the DiscreteREAP MATLAB package is also a positive contribution that lowers the barrier for other researchers. However, the theoretical core contains load-bearing gaps: Theorem 1 is scale-dependent unless constraint normals are normalized, and the convergence proof of Theorem 2 relies on a monotonicity inequality that is false for the modified barrier used in the paper.

major comments (3)

The invariance proof compares a Euclidean distance in u-space with a constraint-value change. Equation (18) bounds |eta_i^T (hatu(tau)-hatu(tau-1))| by ||eta_i|| ||hatu(tau)-hatu(tau-1)||, but equation (16a) then bounds ||eta_i|| times the step size by the Euclidean distance delta_i^u to the shifted hyperplane eta_i^T theta + gamma_i + epsilon = 0. For a point with constraint margin d_i = -eta_i^T hatu - gamma_i - epsilon, the Euclidean distance is d_i/||eta_i||. The proof therefore only guarantees |eta_i^T (hatu(tau)-hatu(tau-1))| <= d_i/||eta_i||, which is larger than the allowed constraint-value margin d_i whenever ||eta_i||<1. Hence Theorem 1, and consequently the anytime feasibility statement in Theorem 3, is not proved for general constraint normalizations. The fix is either to state explicitly that all normals are normalized to unit length, or to define delta_i^u as the constraint-value margin -eta_i^T hatu - gamma_i - epsilon rather than the Euclidean distance.
Inequality (22) is asserted as a strong-monotonicity property of the vector field [nabla_u B; -nabla_lambda B], but the modified barrier function in (9) is affine in lambda, so nabla_lambda B = -log(-beta(eta_i^T u + gamma_i + 1/beta)+1) is independent of lambda. The vector field therefore cannot be strongly monotone in the lambda direction. A concrete counterexample is the scalar problem min 0.5 u^2 subject to u <= 0, with tightened constraint u + 1/beta <= 0 and modified barrier B(u,lambda)=0.5u^2 - lambda log(-beta u). At u = -1/beta, lambda = 1/beta^2 + delta, the field value is (beta delta, 0) while (u-u^dagger, lambda-lambda^dagger) = (0, delta), so the left side of (22) is 0 and no mu>0 can satisfy the inequality. This invalidates the Lyapunov difference bound (28), the invariance of the set T in (21), and the claimed convergence to (u^dagger, lambda^dagger). Additionally, the proof applies (22) with gradients evaluated at tau-1 paired with the error at tau, a cross-evaluation that is not justified by the stated inequality even if strong monotonicity held.
There is an internal inconsistency between the convergence claim and the stated behavior of the adaptive parameter. Remark 4 states that if delta_i^hatu(tau-1|t)=0 or delta_i^hatlambda(tau-1|t)=0, then sigma(tau|t)=0 and consequently sigma(tau+theta|t)=0 for all theta=0,1,...; the iterates stall for the rest of the computation interval at time t. Under this mechanism, sigma(0|t)>0 but sigma(1|t)=0 already implies the trajectory never converges. Theorem 2's hypothesis only excludes "sigma(tau|t) equivalently equal to zero at all tau", which is insufficient; the proof needs either a strict positivity assumption on sigma for all tau or a mechanism that restarts the evolution after a zero step. As written, the convergence result is not supported for trajectories that touch the shifted constraint boundary before reaching u^dagger.

minor comments (6)

The sentence "its not clear if its properties are maintained" contains a grammatical error: it should be "it is not clear whether its properties are maintained".
The notation in equation (16b) contains a misplaced comma: "nabla_lambda B(x(t), r, hatu, (tau-1|t), hatlambda(tau-1|t))" should read "nabla_lambda B(x(t), r, hatu(tau-1|t), hatlambda(tau-1|t))".
The table caption and text use "ceases" where "cases" is intended, and the phrase "for all ceases" should be corrected.
The claim that B and its gradients are "bounded and definite" is unclear; the intended meaning appears to be that the logarithm argument remains positive so that B is well defined and finite on the iterates. The wording should be revised.
Several reference titles contain typos: reference [26] reads "onvex Optimization" and reference [34] reads "gradient synamics". These should be corrected before publication.
The text "See Figure 2 and (3) for geometric illustrations" appears to refer to Figure 3, not equation (3); the cross-reference should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adaptive step-size bound is a constructive sufficient condition, and the paper's central claims are not fitted restatements of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is a conditional design guarantee: if the KKT parameter σ(τ|t) is chosen no larger than the explicit bound in (15)–(16), then the discrete-time Euler updates (14) keep the iterates inside D_û and D_λ. This is a standard constructive sufficient condition proved via Cauchy–Schwarz, not a prediction that is equivalent to a fitted input. The step-size bound is derived from the geometry of the current iterate and the constraint data, so the invariance conclusion is the content of the theorem rather than a restatement of an assumption. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then 'predicted' on a closely related quantity: σ(τ|t) is selected online from the current distance-to-boundary information, and the theoretical guarantees are stated for all σ satisfying (15). The paper does rely on prior work [25] for the continuous-time REAP baseline and for barrier-function properties, but that prior work is published, external support, and the discrete-time Lyapunov/invariance arguments are separate from those cited results. Self-citations appear frequently, but they are not load-bearing in the sense of replacing an argument with an unverified assertion by the same authors; the discrete-time feasibility proof is anchored in Theorem 1, and the convergence argument is an explicit Lyapunov difference calculation. Any concerns about the correctness of inequality (22), the normalization of constraint normals, or the cross-evaluation of gradients are mathematical correctness issues, not circularity: a false lemma is not the same as a derivation that reduces to its own input. The simulations and drone experiments are external validation of the proposed scheme, not inputs to the theoretical derivation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained relative to its stated assumptions and does not exhibit self- definitional, fitted-input, uniqueness-imported, or ansatz-by-citation circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on user-selected constants β, ε, ψ, and dτ, plus inherited properties of the modified barrier and warm-start feasibility from prior REAP work. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile assumption is the implicit normalization of constraint normals in Theorem 1, alongside the imported strong convexity inequality used in Theorem 2.

free parameters (5)

beta (tightening factor) = not specified; user-selected
Defines the tightened constraint set U_β in (8); the anytime feasibility and optimality gap depend on it.
epsilon (constraint margin) = small positive constant, not specified
Used in (17) to shift the constraint hyperplane and in Remark 2 to keep the barrier function definite. The proof of Theorem 1 needs this margin to be compatible with the tightening β.
psi (smoothing factor) = positive constant, not specified
Introduced in (16) to prevent division by zero when gradients vanish; it affects the size of the admissible KKT parameter.
dτ (discretization step) = 0.001 in simulations
Fixed Euler step for the virtual system; the adaptive σ bound depends inversely on it.
KKT parameter σ(τ|t) = adaptively set to upper bound in (15) in CASE V
The adaptive schedule is the main algorithmic device; the choice is not fitted to data but is selected by the proposed rule.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Constraint normals η_i are normalized, or their scale can be ignored when comparing Euclidean distances with constraint-value changes.
Theorem 1 bounds η_i^T Δû by the Euclidean distance δ_i^u; without unit-normalized constraints this comparison is not dimensionally valid. The paper never states a normalization assumption.
domain assumption The modified barrier function is strongly convex in û and satisfies the monotonicity inequality (22) even when gradients at step τ−1 are paired with the difference at step τ.
Theorem 2 relies on (22) to conclude ∆W < 0; this strong convexity/monotonicity property is imported from prior work [25, 28, 40] and not proved for the cross-term pairing used here.
domain assumption The shifted previous control sequence padded with the terminal control law is feasible for the tightened set U_β at every time instant.
Remark 1 relies on this warm-start construction to provide feasible initial conditions; recursive feasibility is not proved in this paper and is inherited from terminal-constraint MPC theory.
domain assumption Alexandrov's theorem can be applied to show that the discrete-time barrier decreases near the boundary of D_û.
Theorem 3 invokes 'arguments similar to [25]' and Alexandrov's theorem without giving a discrete-time proof of the required barrier decrease.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Practical Considerations for Implementing Robust-to-Early Termination Model Predictive Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQZZ5VRF

@misc{pith2026250113270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Practical Considerations for Implementing Robust-to-Early Termination Model Predictive Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQZZ5VRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13270}
}

read the original abstract

Model Predictive Control (MPC) is widely used to achieve performance objectives, while enforcing operational and safety constraints. Despite its high performance, MPC often demands significant computational resources, making it challenging to implement in systems with limited computing capacity. A recent approach to address this challenge is to use the Robust-to-Early Termination (REAP) strategy. At any time instant, REAP converts the MPC problem into the evolution of a virtual dynamical system whose trajectory converges to the optimal solution, and provides guaranteed sub-optimal and feasible solution whenever its evolution is terminated due to limited computational power. REAP has been introduced as a continuous-time scheme and its theoretical properties have been derived under the assumption that it performs all the computations in continuous time. However, REAP should be practically implemented in discrete-time. This paper focuses on the discrete-time implementation of REAP, exploring conditions under which anytime feasibility and convergence properties are maintained when the computations are performed in discrete time. The proposed methodology is validated and evaluated through extensive simulation and experimental studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13270 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Geometric illustration of how to determine the KKT parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Overview of the experimental setup utilized to perform the experi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Time-profile of states and control inputs for all five cases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Time profile of the KKT parameter σ(τ|t) with the proposed scheme (i.e., CASE V). a Parrot Bebop 2 drone. Our experimental setup (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Impact of the available time for REAP’s execution on the performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Time profile on states and control inputs with the proposed scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Experimental results—time-profile of states and control inputs of the Parrot Bebop 2 drone with discrete-time REAP given in (14). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Evolution of the KKT parameter σ(τ|t); top figure shows the evolution across all time instants, while the bottom figures show the evolution within two typical time instants. σ(τ|t) ∈ [0, 63.2137] during the experiment, with a mean value of 0.2392 across all time inst…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[25]

Hosseinzadeh, B

M. Hosseinzadeh, B. Sinopoli, I. Kolmanovsky, S. Baruah, Robust to early termination model predictive control, IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic ControlDOI: 10.1109/TAC.2023.3308817 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[1]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, M. Diehl, Model predictive control: theory, computation, and design, V ol. 2, Nob Hill Publishing Madison, WI, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons, E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons, Model predictive controllers, Springer, 2007

work page 2007
[3]

Alessio, A

A. Alessio, A. Bemporad, A survey on explicit model predictive control, in: L. Magni, D. M. Raimondo, F. Allgower (Eds.), Nonlinear Model Pre- dictive Control: Towards New Challenging Applications, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 345–369

work page 2009
[4]

Kvasnica, P

M. Kvasnica, P. Bakar ´aˇc, M. Klau ˇco, Complexity reduction in explicit mpc: A reachability approach, Systems & Control Letters 124 (2019) 19–26

work page 2019
[5]

X. Xiu, J. Zhang, Grid kd tree approach for point location in polyhedral data sets–application to explicit MPC, International Journal of Control 93 (4) (2020) 872–880

work page 2020
[6]

Henriksson, D

E. Henriksson, D. E. Quevedo, H. Sandberg, K. H. Johansson, Self- triggered model predictive control for network scheduling and control, IFAC Proceedings V olumes 45 (15) (2012) 432–438

work page 2012
[7]

L. Long, J. Wang, Safety-critical dynamic event-triggered control of non- linear systems, Systems & Control Letters 162 (2022) 105176

work page 2022

Show all 40 references

[8]

L. Lu, J. M. Maciejowski, Self-triggered MPC with performance guaran- tee using relaxed dynamic programming, Automatica 114 (2020) 108803

2020
[9]

X. Mi, Y . Zou, S. Li, Event-triggered MPC design for distributed systems toward global performance, International Journal of Robust and Nonlin- ear Control 28 (4) (2018) 1474–1495

2018
[10]

B. Wang, J. Huang, C. Wen, J. Rodriguez, C. Garcia, H. B. Gooi, Z. Zeng, Event-triggered model predictive control for power converters, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 68 (1) (2020) 715–720

2020
[11]

Heydari, M

R. Heydari, M. Farrokhi, Robust event-triggered model predictive control of polytopic lpv systems: An input-to-state stability approach, Systems & Control Letters 163 (2022) 105202

2022
[12]

Cimini, A

G. Cimini, A. Bemporad, Exact complexity certification of active-set methods for quadratic programming, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 62 (12) (2017) 6094–6109

2017
[13]

Ghaemi, J

R. Ghaemi, J. Sun, I. V . Kolmanovsky, An integrated perturbation analy- sis and sequential quadratic programming approach for model predictive control, Automatica 45 (10) (2009) 2412–2418

2009
[14]

Liao-McPherson, M

D. Liao-McPherson, M. M. Nicotra, I. Kolmanovsky, Time-distributed optimization for real-time model predictive control: Stability, robustness, and constraint satisfaction, Automatica 117 (2020) 108973

2020
[15]

Feller, C

C. Feller, C. Ebenbauer, A stabilizing iteration scheme for model pre- dictive control based on relaxed barrier functions, Automatica 80 (2017) 328–339

2017
[16]

Feller, C

C. Feller, C. Ebenbauer, Sparsity-exploiting anytime algorithms for model predictive control: A relaxed barrier approach, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 28 (2) (2018) 425–435

2018
[17]

Gharbi, C

M. Gharbi, C. Ebenbauer, Anytime mhe-based output feedback mpc, IFAC-PapersOnLine 54 (6) (2021) 264–271

2021
[18]

Amiri, M

M. Amiri, M. Hosseinzadeh, Steady-state-aware model predictive control for tracking in systems with limited computing capacity, IEEE Control Syst. Lett.DOI:10.1109/LCSYS.2024.3370266 (2024)

2024
[19]

Limon, I

D. Limon, I. Alvarado, T. Alamo, E. F. Camacho, MPC for tracking piecewise constant references for constrained linear systems, Automat- ica 44 (9) (2008) 2382–2387

2008
[20]

Ferramosca, D

A. Ferramosca, D. Limon, I. Alvarado, T. Alamo, E. F. Camacho, MPC for tracking with optimal closed-loop performance, Automatica 45 (8) (2009) 1975–1978

2009
[21]

M. M. Nicotra, D. Liao-McPherson, I. V . Kolmanovsky, Dynamically embedded model predictive control, in: Proc. Annual American Control Conf., Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2018, pp. 4957–4962

2018
[22]

Nicotra, D

M.-M. Nicotra, D. Liao-McPherson, I. V . Kolmanovsky, Embedding con- strained model predictive control in a continuous-time dynamic feedback, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 64 (5) (2018) 1932–1946

2018
[23]

Hosseinzadeh, E

M. Hosseinzadeh, E. Garone, An explicit reference governor for the inter- section of concave constraints, IEEE Transactions on Automatic control 65 (1) (2019) 1–11

2019
[26]

S. Boyd, L. Vandenberghe, onvex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, 2006

2006
[28]

Hosseinzadeh, B

M. Hosseinzadeh, B. Sinopoli, I. Kolmanovsky, S. Baruah, ROTEC: Ro- bust to early termination command governor for systems with limited computing capacity, Systems & Control Letters 161 (Mar. 2022)

2022
[29]

Strang, Introduction to Linear Algebra, Wellesley-Cambridge Press, 2016

G. Strang, Introduction to Linear Algebra, Wellesley-Cambridge Press, 2016

2016
[30]

E. G. Gilbert, K. T. Tan, Linear systems with state and control constraints: the theory and application of maximal output admissible sets, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 36 (9) (1991) 1008–1020

1991
[31]

Polyak, Modified barrier functions (theory and methods), Mathemati- cal Programming 54 (1–3) (1992) 177–222

R. Polyak, Modified barrier functions (theory and methods), Mathemati- cal Programming 54 (1–3) (1992) 177–222

1992
[32]

Melman, R

A. Melman, R. Polyak, The newton modified barrier method for QP prob- lems, Annals of Operations Research 62 (1996) 465–519

1996
[33]

V . S. Vassiliadis, S. A. Brooks, Application of the modified barrier method in large-scale quadratic programming problems, Computers & Chemical Engineering 22 (9) (1998) 1197–1205

1998
[34]

Feijer, F

D. Feijer, F. Paganini, Stability of primal-dual gradient synamics and applications to netwrok optimization, Automatica 46 (12) (2010) 1974– 1981

2010
[35]

Hosseinzadeh, E

M. Hosseinzadeh, E. Garone, An explicit reference governor for the inter- section of concave constraints, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 65 (1) (2020) 1–11

2020
[36]

Hosseinzadeh, A

M. Hosseinzadeh, A. Cotorruelo, D. Limon, E. Garone, Constrained con- trol of linear systems subject to combinations of intersections and unions of concave constraints, IEEE Control Systems Letters 3 (3) (2019) 571– 576

2019
[37]

Hosseinzadeh, E

M. Hosseinzadeh, E. Garone, L. Schenato, A distributed method for linear programming problems with box constraints and time-varying inequali- ties, IEEE Control Systems Letters 3 (2) (2019) 404–409

2019
[38]

M. Hosseinzadeh, Optimization-free control of safety-critical sys- tems subject to the intersection of multiple time-varying con- cave constraints, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2024.3403031 (2024)

2024
[39]

A. D. Alexandrov, Convex Polyhedra, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2005

2005
[40]

K. Ryu, S. Boyd, Primer on monotone operator methods, Appl. Comput. Math 15 (1) (2016) 3–43

2016
[41]

S. B. Y . Wang, Fast model predictive control using online optimization, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 18 (2) (2010) 267– 278

2010
[42]

Amiri, M

M. Amiri, M. Hosseinzadeh, Closed-loop model identification and mpc- based navigation of quadcopters: A case study of parrot bebop 2, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07267 (2024). 11

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Hosseinzadeh, B

M. Hosseinzadeh, B. Sinopoli, I. Kolmanovsky, S. Baruah, Robust to early termination model predictive control, IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic ControlDOI: 10.1109/TAC.2023.3308817 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[2] [1]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, M. Diehl, Model predictive control: theory, computation, and design, V ol. 2, Nob Hill Publishing Madison, WI, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [2]

E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons, E. F. Camacho, C. Bordons, Model predictive controllers, Springer, 2007

work page 2007

[4] [3]

Alessio, A

A. Alessio, A. Bemporad, A survey on explicit model predictive control, in: L. Magni, D. M. Raimondo, F. Allgower (Eds.), Nonlinear Model Pre- dictive Control: Towards New Challenging Applications, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 345–369

work page 2009

[5] [4]

Kvasnica, P

M. Kvasnica, P. Bakar ´aˇc, M. Klau ˇco, Complexity reduction in explicit mpc: A reachability approach, Systems & Control Letters 124 (2019) 19–26

work page 2019

[6] [5]

X. Xiu, J. Zhang, Grid kd tree approach for point location in polyhedral data sets–application to explicit MPC, International Journal of Control 93 (4) (2020) 872–880

work page 2020

[7] [6]

Henriksson, D

E. Henriksson, D. E. Quevedo, H. Sandberg, K. H. Johansson, Self- triggered model predictive control for network scheduling and control, IFAC Proceedings V olumes 45 (15) (2012) 432–438

work page 2012

[8] [7]

L. Long, J. Wang, Safety-critical dynamic event-triggered control of non- linear systems, Systems & Control Letters 162 (2022) 105176

work page 2022