pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.17350 · v3 · submitted 2025-01-28 · 🧮 math.OC

On Min-Max Robust Data-Driven Predictive Control Considering Non-Unique Solutions to Behavioral Representation

Yibo Wang , Qingyuan Liu , Chao Shang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 04:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords data-driven predictive controlrobust controlbehavioral systemsmin-max optimizationsubspace predictive controluncertainty setsconvex reformulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A min-max robust DDPC framework uses an uncertainty set on output trajectories to guarantee performance under bounded additive noise.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks to fix the vulnerability of standard subspace predictive control to uncertainty in stochastic systems. By examining how non-unique solutions arise in behavioral representations, the authors show why nominal predictions can deviate and then build an uncertainty set around those predictions. This set turns the control problem into a min-max optimization whose solutions are robust to the deviations. The resulting method supplies convex reformulations plus theoretical guarantees when noise is bounded, and a feedback extension further limits conservatism.

Core claim

Analyzing non-unique solutions to behavioral representation reveals an inherent lack of robustness in subspace predictive control. The authors therefore construct an uncertainty set that contains every admissible output trajectory deviating from nominal subspace predictions. The resulting min-max robust DDPC formulation endows chosen control sequences with explicit robustness against such deviations, admits tractable convex reformulations, and yields performance guarantees under bounded additive noise; an affine-feedback variant is introduced to reduce conservatism.

What carries the argument

The uncertainty set capturing all admissible output trajectories that deviate from nominal subspace predictions, which is used to formulate the min-max robust DDPC problem.

If this is right

  • Theoretical performance guarantees hold for the closed-loop system when additive noise is bounded.
  • The robust problem admits tractable convex reformulations that can be solved efficiently.
  • An affine feedback policy further incorporated into the robust DDPC reduces design conservatism.
  • Simulation results show that the method robustifies standard subspace predictive control and outperforms projection-based regularization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same uncertainty-set construction could be applied to other behavioral or subspace-based data-driven controllers.
  • Online estimation of the uncertainty set from streaming data would allow the method to adapt when noise statistics drift.
  • Links to set-membership identification techniques might tighten the uncertainty set without losing the coverage guarantee.

Load-bearing premise

The uncertainty set must contain every possible admissible output trajectory that can deviate from the nominal subspace predictions.

What would settle it

An experiment in which measured output trajectories lie outside the constructed uncertainty set while additive noise remains within the stated bound, causing the min-max controller to violate its claimed performance guarantees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.17350 by Chao Shang, Qingyuan Liu, Yibo Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of a two-mass-spring-damper system. B. Simulations and Results For offline data collection, a square wave with a period of 600 time-steps and amplitude of 1, contaminated by a zero￾mean Gaussian noise sequence with variance 0.01, is used as the persistently exciting input in open-loop operations. Based on this, an informative input-output data trajectory is pre￾collected with length N = 600. The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Boxplot of Jtotal of different control algorithms in 100 simulations. 0 50 100 t/s -1 0 1 2 u SPC 0 50 100 t/s -1 0 1 2 u PBR-DDPC 0 50 100 t/s -2 -1 0 1 2 u R-DDPC 0 50 100 t/s -2 -1 0 1 2 u FR-DDPC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average control inputs (red line) with their standard deviations (shaded area) of different control algorithms in 100 simulations and control input in the noise-free case (blue dashed line). robust DDPC methods gets improved with Λ increasing from zero, and is much better than SPC with a suitable selection of Λ. Moreover, AR-DDPC surpasses R-DDPC for large Λ, showing its ability to reduce conservatism. Mea… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solution times of different SDP and QP problems under different sample size N. 0 50 100 t/s -1 0 1 2 u SPC 0 50 100 t/s -1 0 1 2 u PBR-DDPC 0 50 100 t/s -1 0 1 2 u R-DDPC 0 50 100 t/s -1 0 1 2 u FR-DDPC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average control inputs with their standard deviations of different control algorithms based on closed-loop data in 100 simulations. VI. CONCLUSION In this work, we proposed a new robust DDPC method to address the uncertainty in dynamic systems from a pessimistic perspective. By analyzing the non-uniqueness of solutions to behavioral representations, we revealed the inherent lack of robustness in SPC and PB… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Direct data-driven control methods are known to be vulnerable to uncertainty in stochastic systems. In this paper, we propose a new robust data-driven predictive control (DDPC) framework. By analyzing non-unique solutions to behavioral representation, we gain insight into the inherent lack of robustness in subspace predictive control (SPC) and its projection-based regularized variant. This stimulates us to construct an uncertainty set that captures all admissible output trajectories deviating from nominal subspace predictions, which results in a min-max robust formulation of DDPC that endows control sequences with robustness against such unknown deviations. We establish theoretical performance guarantees under bounded additive noise and develop tractable convex reformulations. To mitigate the conservatism of robust design, a feedback robust DDPC scheme is further proposed by incorporating an affine feedback policy. Simulation studies show that the proposed methods effectively robustify SPC and outperform the projection-based regularization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a min-max robust data-driven predictive control (DDPC) framework that analyzes non-uniqueness in behavioral representations to construct an uncertainty set around nominal subspace predictions. This yields a robust formulation with theoretical performance guarantees under bounded additive noise, tractable convex reformulations, and an affine-feedback variant to reduce conservatism; simulations indicate improved robustness over standard SPC and projection-based regularization.

Significance. If the uncertainty set is shown to be both complete and tight, the work would provide a principled robustification of behavioral DDPC with explicit guarantees, which is a meaningful contribution to data-driven control under uncertainty. The convex reformulations and feedback extension are practical strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Uncertainty set construction): The claim that the constructed set 'captures all admissible output trajectories deviating from nominal subspace predictions' is load-bearing for the min-max guarantees, yet the manuscript provides no explicit inclusion proof that every trajectory consistent with the data, the behavioral equation, and the bounded-noise assumption lies inside the set; if any admissible deviation is omitted, both the robustness claim and the subsequent convex reformulation fail.
  2. [§4] §4 (Performance guarantees): The theoretical bounds are stated to hold 'under bounded additive noise,' but they are derived directly from the uncertainty set; without a separate verification that the set is neither empty nor overly conservative relative to the true noise ball, the guarantees reduce to a tautology and do not establish robustness beyond the modeling assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Simulation studies] The simulation section should report the precise system dimensions, noise bounds, and quantitative metrics (e.g., closed-loop cost or violation frequency) rather than qualitative statements.
  2. [Preliminaries] Notation for the behavioral matrix and the projection operator is introduced without a self-contained recap; a short table or paragraph would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which highlights important aspects of the robustness claims. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Uncertainty set construction): The claim that the constructed set 'captures all admissible output trajectories deviating from nominal subspace predictions' is load-bearing for the min-max guarantees, yet the manuscript provides no explicit inclusion proof that every trajectory consistent with the data, the behavioral equation, and the bounded-noise assumption lies inside the set; if any admissible deviation is omitted, both the robustness claim and the subsequent convex reformulation fail.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit inclusion proof is essential for rigor. While Section 3 derives the uncertainty set from the non-uniqueness of solutions to the behavioral equation under bounded noise, the manuscript does not contain a standalone proposition establishing that every admissible trajectory is contained in the set. In the revised manuscript we will add such a proof (as a new lemma), showing that any output sequence satisfying the data equation, the behavioral representation, and the noise bound can be expressed as a deviation within the constructed set around the nominal prediction. This will directly support the min-max formulation and convex reformulations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Performance guarantees): The theoretical bounds are stated to hold 'under bounded additive noise,' but they are derived directly from the uncertainty set; without a separate verification that the set is neither empty nor overly conservative relative to the true noise ball, the guarantees reduce to a tautology and do not establish robustness beyond the modeling assumption.

    Authors: The performance guarantees in Section 4 are obtained by solving the min-max problem over the uncertainty set, which by construction is non-empty (it contains at least the nominal prediction). The set is not an arbitrary enlargement but is explicitly generated from the range of behavioral representations consistent with the data and noise bound; this provides a data-driven characterization rather than a purely modeling assumption. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that a dedicated verification step would improve clarity. In revision we will add a short corollary or remark confirming non-emptiness and relating the set's size to the noise bound, thereby making explicit that the guarantees follow from the set's completeness property rather than reducing to a tautology. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained with independent uncertainty-set construction

full rationale

The paper constructs an uncertainty set by analyzing non-unique solutions to the behavioral representation under bounded additive noise, then forms a min-max robust DDPC and derives performance guarantees from that set. No quoted step reduces a prediction or guarantee to a fitted parameter defined by the same data, nor does any load-bearing claim rest on a self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The central claims therefore remain externally falsifiable and do not collapse by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is abstract-only; free parameters, axioms, and invented entities cannot be audited in detail. The uncertainty set itself functions as a constructed object whose tightness depends on noise bounds that are not specified here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5678 in / 1073 out tokens · 20835 ms · 2026-05-23T04:26:33.666355+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    Z.-S. Hou and Z. Wang, “From model-based control to data-driven control: Survey, classification and perspective,”Information Sciences, vol. 235, pp. 3–35, Jun. 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Data analytics and machine learning for smart process manufacturing: Recent advances and perspectives in the big data era,

    C. Shang and F. You, “Data analytics and machine learning for smart process manufacturing: Recent advances and perspectives in the big data era,”Engineering, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1010–1016, Dec. 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Behavioral systems theory in data-driven analysis, signal processing, and control,

    I. Markovsky and F. D ¨orfler, “Behavioral systems theory in data-driven analysis, signal processing, and control,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 52, pp. 42–64, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Data-driven methods for building control — a review and promising future directions,

    E. T. Maddalena, Y . Lian, and C. N. Jones, “Data-driven methods for building control — a review and promising future directions,”Control Engineering Practice, vol. 95, p. 104211, Feb. 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Fast data- driven model predictive control strategy for connected and automated vehicles,

    V . Bhattacharyya, A. F. Canosa, and B. HomChaudhuri, “Fast data- driven model predictive control strategy for connected and automated vehicles,”ASME Letters in Dynamic Systems and Control, vol. 1, no. 4, p. 041011, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Data-driven predictive control with online adaption: Application to a fuel cell system,

    L. Schmitt, J. Beerwerth, M. Bahr, and D. Abel, “Data-driven predictive control with online adaption: Application to a fuel cell system,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 61–72, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    J. C. Willems and J. W. Polderman,Introduction to Mathematical Systems Theory: A Behavioral Approach. Springer Science & Business Media, 1997, vol. 26

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    A note on persistency of excitation,

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

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Data-enabled predictive con- trol: In the shallows of the DeePC,

    J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Data-enabled predictive con- trol: In the shallows of the DeePC,” in2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), IEEE. IEEE, Jun. 2019, pp. 307–312

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Data-driven control based on the behavioral approach: From theory to applications in power systems,

    I. Markovsky, L. Huang, and F. D ¨orfler, “Data-driven control based on the behavioral approach: From theory to applications in power systems,” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 28–68, Oct. 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Maximum likelihood estimation in data-driven modeling and control,

    M. Yin, A. Iannelli, and R. S. Smith, “Maximum likelihood estimation in data-driven modeling and control,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 317–328, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    SPC: Subspace predictive control,

    W. Favoreel, B. D. Moor, and M. Gevers, “SPC: Subspace predictive control,”IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 4004–4009, Jul. 1999

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness guarantees,

    J. Berberich, J. K ¨ohler, M. A. M ¨uller, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness guarantees,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1702–1717, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Bridging direct and indirect data-driven control formulations via regularizations and relaxations,

    F. D ¨orfler, J. Coulson, and I. Markovsky, “Bridging direct and indirect data-driven control formulations via regularizations and relaxations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 883–897, Feb. 2023. WANG, LIU AND SHANG: MIN-MAX ROBUST DDPC CONSIDERING NON-UNIQUE SOLUTIONS TO BEHAVIORAL REPRESENTATION 15

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Data-driven output predic- tion and control of stochastic systems: An innovation-based approach,

    Y . Wang, K. You, D. Huang, and C. Shang, “Data-driven output predic- tion and control of stochastic systems: An innovation-based approach,” Automatica, vol. 171, p. 111897, Jan. 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Technical note—a data- driven approach to beating SAA out of sample,

    J.-y. Gotoh, M. J. Kim, and A. E. B. Lim, “Technical note—a data- driven approach to beating SAA out of sample,”Operations Research, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 829–841, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    From noisy data to feedback controllers: Nonconservative design via a matrix s-lemma,

    H. J. van Waarde, M. K. Camlibel, and M. Mesbahi, “From noisy data to feedback controllers: Nonconservative design via a matrix s-lemma,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 162–175, Jan. 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Formulas for data-driven control: Stabilization, optimality, and robustness,

    C. De Persis and P. Tesi, “Formulas for data-driven control: Stabilization, optimality, and robustness,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 909–924, Mar. 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Combining prior knowl- edge and data for robust controller design,

    J. Berberich, C. W. Scherer, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Combining prior knowl- edge and data for robust controller design,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 4618–4633, Aug. 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Provably robust verification of dissipativity properties from data,

    A. Koch, J. Berberich, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Provably robust verification of dissipativity properties from data,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 4248–4255, Aug. 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    A behavioral approach to data-driven control with noisy input–output data,

    H. J. van Waarde, J. Eising, M. K. Camlibel, and H. L. Trentelman, “A behavioral approach to data-driven control with noisy input–output data,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 813– 827, Feb. 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Data-driven min-max MPC for linear systems: Robustness and adaptation,

    Y . Xie, J. Berberich, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Data-driven min-max MPC for linear systems: Robustness and adaptation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19096, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Decentralized data- enabled predictive control for power system oscillation damping,

    L. Huang, J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Decentralized data- enabled predictive control for power system oscillation damping,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1065– 1077, May 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Robust data-enabled predictive control: Tractable formulations and performance guarantees,

    L. Huang, J. Zhen, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Robust data-enabled predictive control: Tractable formulations and performance guarantees,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 3163–3170, May 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Robust and kernelized data- enabled predictive control for nonlinear systems,

    L. Huang, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Robust and kernelized data- enabled predictive control for nonlinear systems,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 611–624, Mar. 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Willems’ fundamental lemma for state-space systems and its extension to multiple datasets,

    H. J. van Waarde, C. De Persis, M. K. Camlibel, and P. Tesi, “Willems’ fundamental lemma for state-space systems and its extension to multiple datasets,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 602–607, Jul. 2020

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Data-driven simulation and control,

    I. Markovsky and P. Rapisarda, “Data-driven simulation and control,” International Journal of Control, vol. 81, no. 12, pp. 1946–1959, Dec. 2008

    work page 1946

  28. [28]

    On the regularization in DeePC,

    P. Mattsson and T. B. Sch ¨on, “On the regularization in DeePC,”IFAC- PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 625–631, 2023

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Huang and R

    B. Huang and R. Kadali,Dynamic Modeling, Predictive Control and Performance Monitoring: A Data-Driven Subspace Approach. Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  30. [30]

    On the perturbation of pseudo-inverses, projections and linear least squares problems,

    G. W. Stewart, “On the perturbation of pseudo-inverses, projections and linear least squares problems,”SIAM Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 634– 662, Oct. 1977

    work page 1977

  31. [31]

    Robust solutions to least-squares problems with uncertain data,

    L. El Ghaoui and H. Lebret, “Robust solutions to least-squares problems with uncertain data,”SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 1035–1064, Oct. 1997

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    A robust MPC approach to the design of behavioural treatments,

    K. Bekiroglu, C. Lagoa, S. A. Murphy, and S. T. Lanza, “A robust MPC approach to the design of behavioural treatments,” in52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE. IEEE, Dec. 2013, pp. 3505–3510

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Ben-Tal, L

    A. Ben-Tal, L. El Ghaoui, and A. Nemirovski,Robust Optimization. Princeton University Press, Dec. 2009

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Manifestations of the schur complement,

    R. W. Cottle, “Manifestations of the schur complement,”Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 189–211, Jun. 1974

    work page 1974

  35. [35]

    Dimension reduction for efficient data-enabled predictive control,

    K. Zhang, Y . Zheng, C. Shang, and Z. Li, “Dimension reduction for efficient data-enabled predictive control,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 3277–3282, 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    ApS,The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual

    M. ApS,The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 10.0., 2022. [Online]. Available: http://docs.mosek.com/9.0/ toolbox/index.html

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Using sedumi 1.02, a matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones,

    J. F. Sturm, “Using sedumi 1.02, a matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones,”Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 11, no. 1–4, pp. 625–653, Jan. 1999

    work page 1999

  38. [38]

    Sdpt3 — a matlab soft- ware package for semidefinite programming, version 1.3,

    K.-C. Toh, M. J. Todd, and R. H. T ¨ut¨unc¨u, “Sdpt3 — a matlab soft- ware package for semidefinite programming, version 1.3,”Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 11, no. 1–4, pp. 545–581, Jan. 1999

    work page 1999

  39. [39]

    Conic formulation of a convex programming problem and duality,

    Y . Nesterov and A. Nemirovsky, “Conic formulation of a convex programming problem and duality,”Optimization Methods and Software, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 95–115, Jan. 1992

    work page 1992

  40. [40]

    An algorithm for convex quadratic program- ming that requiresO(n 3.5L)arithmetic operations,

    S. Mehrotra and J. Sun, “An algorithm for convex quadratic program- ming that requiresO(n 3.5L)arithmetic operations,”Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 342–363, May 1990

    work page 1990

  41. [41]

    Feedback min-max model predictive control using a single linear program: robust stability and the explicit solution,

    E. C. Kerrigan and J. M. Maciejowski, “Feedback min-max model predictive control using a single linear program: robust stability and the explicit solution,”International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 395–413, Jan. 2004

    work page 2004

  42. [42]

    Approximations of closed-loop minimax MPC,

    J. Lofberg, “Approximations of closed-loop minimax MPC,” in42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37475), ser. CDC-03, vol. 2, IEEE. IEEE, 2003, pp. 1438– 1442

    work page 2003

  43. [43]

    The feedback robust MPC for LPV systems with bounded rates of parameter changes,

    D. Li and Y . Xi, “The feedback robust MPC for LPV systems with bounded rates of parameter changes,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 503–507, Feb. 2010

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    Reducing conservativeness in predictive control of constrained systems with disturbances,

    A. Bemporad, “Reducing conservativeness in predictive control of constrained systems with disturbances,” inProceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (Cat. No.98CH36171), ser. CDC- 98, vol. 2, IEEE. IEEE, 1998, pp. 1384–1389

    work page 1998

  45. [45]

    Data-driven predictive control with improved performance using seg- mented trajectories,

    E. O’Dwyer, E. C. Kerrigan, P. Falugi, M. Zagorowska, and N. Shah, “Data-driven predictive control with improved performance using seg- mented trajectories,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1355–1365, May 2023

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Y ALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB,

    J. Lofberg, “Y ALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in MATLAB,” in2004 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37508). IEEE, 2004, pp. 284–289

    work page 2004

  47. [47]

    Data-driven predictive control in a stochastic setting: a unified framework,

    V . Breschi, A. Chiuso, and S. Formentin, “Data-driven predictive control in a stochastic setting: a unified framework,”Automatica, vol. 152, p. 110961, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Closed- loop aspects of data-enabled predictive control,

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

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Data-driven predictive control using closed-loop data: An instrumental variable approach,

    Y . Wang, Y . Qiu, M. Sader, D. Huang, and C. Shang, “Data-driven predictive control using closed-loop data: An instrumental variable approach,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 3639–3644, 2023. Yibo Wangreceived the B.S degree in automa- tion from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 2021, where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in con...

    work page 2023