Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

A Hybrid Perspective on Suboptimal Mixed-Integer Quadratic Programming

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Suboptimal MIQP solvers in feedback loops can still yield stable control, with error bounded by the solver's suboptimality.

desk verdict New hybrid framing of suboptimal MIQP feedback control, but the main stability theorem relies on assumptions that assume the conclusion and a perturbation model that is not verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02772 v1 pith:HVCEOAAM submitted 2025-07-03 math.OC

Luke Fina , Christopher Petersen This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 49M3793C3090C1193D15
keywords mixed-integerquadraticprogramminghybridsystemsmodelpredictivecontrolsuboptimalsolverparametersfeedbackparametricoptimizationpracticalstability
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 aims to prove that running a mixed-integer quadratic programming (MIQP) solver to only moderate accuracy, not to optimality, still produces a stable feedback controller for a dynamical system, provided the suboptimality is small. The authors frame the recursive MIQP solver and the controlled plant together as one hybrid system — flowing continuously while the plant evolves and jumping whenever a new control is computed. Their central result, Theorem 2, gives a bound on how far any trajectory of this hybrid system can wander from the ideal stabilizing set: it stays within a disturbance term sigma of a class-KL decay, so practical stability is preserved. The paper validates this with spacecraft rendezvous simulations using realistic solver limits (time, memory, iteration caps).

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid system $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{MIQP}}$ with state $\chi = (y, x, \tau)$: during flows, the plant $\dot{x} = f(x, \kappa(y))$ evolves and the timer $\tau$ increases; at jumps, the solver returns $y^+ \in \psi_\epsilon(x(\tau), \eta(x(\tau)), \epsilon)$, the $\epsilon$-optimal set of the parametric MIQP. The key identity is the Lyapunov function $L = (\phi_\epsilon - V) + \tfrac{1}{2} x^2$, which encodes both suboptimality and plant-state deviation, and the theorem that small $\epsilon$ (suboptimal solver parameters) perturbs the hybrid system only slightly, so the semiglobal practical robustness result applies.

What would settle it

A concrete test: run the rendezvous MPC simulation from Section V with a soft time limit that frequently cuts off solver progress before any feasible iterate is produced, but keep the perturbation small enough to satisfy Assumption 5. If the observed trajectory violates the bound $|\pi(t,j)|_\mathcal{A} \leq \beta(|\pi(0,0)|_\mathcal{A}, t+j) + \sigma$ (e.g., the objective function diverges for a time limit between the stable 0.05 s and the unstable 0.04 s), then Theorem 2's sufficient conditions fail to hold for that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a recursive MIQP-based feedback controller, solved suboptimally by a black-box solver, can be modeled as a hybrid dynamical system with bounded perturbations. Their main theorem states that under regularity conditions (rational problem data, a closed stabilizing set, and a Lyapunov function bounded by class-K-infinity functions), warm-started suboptimal MIQP feedback keeps the closed-loop trajectories uniformly globally practically pre-asymptotically stable: every solution satisfies $|\pi(t,j)|_\mathcal{A} \leq \beta(|\pi(0,0)|_\mathcal{A}, t+j) + \sigma$ for all $(t,j)$, where $\sigma$ is the perturbation bound induced by the solver's suboptimality. The proof builds a Lyapunov function $L = (\phi_\epsilon - V) + \tfrac{1}{2}x^2$ that combines deviation from optimality with deviation from the equilibrium, and then applies a robustness result for hybrid systems with small perturbations.

Load-bearing premise

Assumption 4 states that the closed-loop system with the exact (optimal) MPC feedback is already asymptotically stable — without that, the theorem gives no guarantee for the suboptimal case, so the proof's force is in extending an existing stability property, not in creating stability from nothing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 2 is correct, practitioners can intentionally trade solution accuracy for computation speed: any solver parameter that degrades optimality only mildly (soft time limits, memory caps, iteration limits) will not break closed-loop stability, as long as the suboptimality stays below a threshold.
  • The hybrid-systems framing implies that analyses of MIQP feedback controllers can reuse the large toolbox of hybrid stability and robustness results, not just continuous-time or discrete-time tools.
  • The framework applies not only to MIQPs but, as the authors note, extends to recursive mixed-integer linear programs and indefinite quadratic programs with minor adjustments, expanding the class of optimization-based controllers that can be analyzed this way.
  • The simulation results suggest that even very tight solver budgets (e.g. a 0.05-second time limit or a 4 MB memory cap) can yield stable spacecraft rendezvous control, except in cases where the solver makes insufficient progress, which matches the theoretical requirement of small perturbation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit a practical tuning rule: the threshold on solver suboptimality is not a fixed number but depends on the plant's stability margin, so a user could in principle estimate how much suboptimality the closed loop tolerates by probing the nominal Lyapunov decay rate.
  • The authors mention time-varying solver parameters only in passing; a direct extension would be to prove stability under an additional assumption that the suboptimality $\epsilon_k$ decays along the trajectory, which would connect this framework to step-size-like scheduling for MIQP solvers.
  • The theory is developed for constant suboptimality $\epsilon$; a testable prediction is that if a solver is run with a monotonically increasing iteration budget, the perturbation term $\sigma$ in Theorem 2 should shrink to zero, which the simulations in Section V appear to support but do not formally verify.
  • Because the stability result relies on warm starting being feasible at every step, a practical extension would be to characterize how often warm-start infeasibility occurs in practice and how that would enter the perturbation bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a hybrid dynamical system HMIQP for feedback control in which a parametric MIQP is solved recursively; the hybrid state is (y,x,τ), the jump map selects y from the ε-optimal set ψε, and the flow map is ẋ=f(x,κ(y)), τ̇=1. Under a rationality assumption on Q and A, Theorem 1 claims HMIQP satisfies the hybrid basic conditions. Lemma 3 claims uniform global pre-asymptotic stability of the stabilizing set A = Y×{0}×[0,Δt] under Assumptions 3 and 4 when Problem 1 is solved optimally, and Theorem 2 claims a semiglobal practical robust stability bound for suboptimal solver parameters modeled as bounded perturbations. The paper closes with MIQP-MPC simulations on a spacecraft rendezvous problem using time-limit, memory-limit, and iteration-limit parameters.

Significance. The proposed framework addresses an interesting and timely problem: giving a hybrid-systems account of suboptimal MIQP solvers in feedback loops. If Theorem 2 were valid, the paper would provide a useful bridge between parametric optimization and hybrid systems, and the practical robustness statement would be valuable. The explicit definition of solver iterates and the classification of solver parameters are also conceptually useful. However, the paper's central stability claims are not established by the presented proofs; several assumptions carry the entire load and the key perturbation argument is missing. As a result, the theoretical contribution is currently not reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Lemma 3] The proof of Lemma 3 asserts 'the flow dynamics are asymptotically stable, i.e. ˙L(χ) ≤ −ρ(|χ|A) ∀χ ∈ C, which is true under Assumption 4,' but this does not follow from Assumption 4. During flows, y and the sampled parameters c,η are fixed, so the term (ϕε−V) in L (Eq. (7)) is constant; the only evolving part is x, and Assumption 4 does not imply that 1/2|x|^2 is a Lyapunov function for the nonlinear dynamics ẋ=f(x,κ(y)). Moreover, L contains no term that bounds dist(y,Y) for suboptimal y, so the required decrease ˙L ≤ −ρ(|χ|A) cannot be concluded without an additional quantitative relationship between the optimality gap and the distance of y to Y. Thus the KL estimate needed for Theorem 2 is not derived.
  2. [Section IV, Assumptions 3 and 4] Assumption 3 postulates the existence of K∞ functions α1, α2 with α1(|χ|A) ≤ L(χ) ≤ α2(|χ|A), and Assumption 4 postulates that κ(y) renders ẋ=f(x,κ(y)) asymptotically stable. These assumptions essentially assert the Lyapunov-theoretic properties that Lemma 3 is supposed to prove; in particular, Assumption 3 pre-assumes that L behaves as a proper indicator of A, and Assumption 4 pre-assumes nominal closed-loop stability. The paper provides no evidence or construction showing that these assumptions are consequences of the MIQP structure or of warm starting.
  3. [Section IV, Theorem 2] Theorem 2 invokes Proposition 1 ([13, Thm 3.26]) but does not verify two of its key hypotheses. First, to identify He with a hybrid system with disturbances in [13, Sec. 3.3.3], one must show that each point y ∈ ψε(x,η,ε) lies within a bounded distance ρ of the nominal set ψ0(x,η); this requires a quantitative upper-semicontinuity modulus for ψε, which is not stated or proved. Second, the flow perturbation eτ ∈ [−1,∞) is unbounded above, so it cannot be represented as a bounded ρ-perturbation with finite ρ. Consequently, the robust-stability KL bound is not established.
  4. [Section IV, Theorem 2] The bound |π(t,j)|A ≤ β(|π(0,0)|A, t+j)+σ never relates σ to the suboptimality parameter ε or to the perturbation bound ρ. As stated, σ is an unspecified positive number that can always be taken large enough to make the inequality trivially true, so the theorem does not yield a quantitative guarantee that better solver parameters imply smaller steady-state error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (7)] In Eq. (7), the term 1/2 x^2 should be 1/2 |x|^2 for a vector state.
  2. [Section II.A] V is defined as a set-valued mapping V: R^n × R^m ⇒ R, but the value function is single-valued; this notation is confusing.
  3. [Section V, Figures] The caption of Fig. 6 says 'As expected in Figure 2' but should refer to Figure 6; several figure cross-references are mismatched.
  4. [Section V] The simulations consist of single runs without error bars or statistical repetition; the unexplained instability at 0.07 s in Fig. 2 is reported without a supporting numerical investigation, which weakens the empirical validation.
  5. [Introduction] There are minor typos, including 'Nestrov' for 'Nesterov', and the notation eτ = [−1,∞) should be clarified as an interval rather than a vector.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability theorems are conditional robustness transfers from explicitly stated nominal-stability and Lyapunov-bound assumptions, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Lemma 3 and Theorem 2 are explicitly conditional on Assumptions 3 and 4, which assume the existence of K∞ bounds on the Lyapunov function L and asymptotic stability of the nominal closed loop ˙x = f(x, κ(y)). These are strong external premises; using them as hypotheses is not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs, because the theorem's target is the suboptimal or perturbed hybrid system, not the nominal premise itself. The nominal-to-perturbed step invokes Proposition 1 from Sanfelice's textbook ([13, Thm 3.26]) and the parametric-MIQP regularity results of Bank and Hansel [19]; neither is the authors' own prior work, and neither is used to smuggle in the conclusion. There are genuine rigor gaps: Lemma 3 asserts ˙L ≤ −ρ(|χ|A) 'under Assumption 4' without computing the effect of the optimality-gap term (ϕϵ − V) during flows, and Theorem 2 asserts without verification that 'all conditions from Proposition 1 hold' for the ε-suboptimal perturbation model. These are unproven implications or omitted verifications, not circular definitions or fitted-input predictions. No equation reduces to its input by construction, no solver parameter is fit and then reported as a prediction, and no self-citation is load-bearing. The simulations are external numerical experiments and do not feed back into the theorem statements. A correctness review might reject the proofs for missing quantifications and unverified hypotheses, but the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The definitions of solver iterates and solver parameters are conceptual modeling choices, not postulated entities with independent evidence requirements. The main burden is carried by Assumptions 3 and 4, which assume the stability properties that the theorems conclude.

free parameters (1)
  • perturbation bound ρ = max{eτ, ey}
    Introduced in Section IV-A to bound suboptimal solver perturbations; the theorem requires ρ to be sufficiently small but no quantitative bound is given, making the result non-constructive.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Q and A are rational matrices (Assumption 1)
    Needed for upper semicontinuity of the ϵ-optimal set mapping via parametric MIQP theory [19]; excludes most real-world floating-point data.
  • domain assumption Flow dynamics f(x,κ(y)) are outer semicontinuous, locally bounded, and convex (Assumption 2)
    Used to satisfy hybrid basic conditions; convexity of a vector field is unusual and not verified.
  • ad hoc to paper There exist K∞ functions α1, α2 with α1(|χ|A) ≤ L(χ) ≤ α2(|χ|A) (Assumption 3)
    This is essentially assuming the Lyapunov function is positive definite and proper, a key part of the stability conclusion.
  • domain assumption The control law κ(y) is asymptotically stable for the plant (Assumption 4)
    This assumes the optimal (or nominal) MIQP feedback stabilizes the system; it is the main load-bearing premise for Theorem 2.
  • domain assumption The optimal solution set Y is compact (Assumption 5)
    Needed to apply the robust stability theorem for perturbed hybrid systems.
  • standard math Parametric MIQP stability results of Bank and Hansel [19] hold
    Used for Propositions 2-6 and Lemma 1; accepted background.
  • standard math Hybrid systems robust stability theorem (Sanfelice [13, Thm 3.26]) holds
    Used in Theorem 2 to conclude practical stability from nominal stability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid Perspective on Suboptimal Mixed-Integer Quadratic Programming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVCEOAAM

@misc{pith2026250702772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid Perspective on Suboptimal Mixed-Integer Quadratic Programming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVCEOAAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02772}
}
read the original abstract

This work solves suboptimal mixed-integer quadratic programs recursively for feedback control of dynamical systems. The proposed framework leverages parametric mixed-integer quadratic programming (MIQP) and hybrid systems theory to model a recursive MIQP feedback controller and a feedback controlled dynamical system. The proposed hybrid framework theoretically encodes the suboptimal part via solver parameters as bounded perturbations from the optimal solution set. The stability of the proposed hybrid framework is theoretically guaranteed and validated through MIQP model predictive control simulations with multiple solver parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02772 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Five runs of soft time limited control for Example 1 are compared. Mild suboptimality was observed for all soft time limits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Five runs of soft time limited cost function for Example 1 are compared. Instability is observed when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Five runs of iteration limited control for Example 1 are compared. Mild suboptimality was observed for all iteration limits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Five runs of iteration limited cost function for Example 1 are compared. Instability is observed when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Five runs of a soft memory limited control for Example 1 are compared. Mild suboptimality was observed for all soft memory limits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Five runs of a soft memory limited cost function for Example 1 are compared. Instability is observed when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Feedback control theory

    John C Doyle, Bruce A Francis, and Allen R Tannenbaum. Feedback control theory. Courier Corporation, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Optimization algorithms as robust feedback controllers

    Adrian Hauswirth, Zhiyu He, Saverio Bolognani, Gabriela Hug, and Florian Dörfler. Optimization algorithms as robust feedback controllers. Annual Reviews in Control, 57:100941, 2024. 10 0 20 40 60 80 100SampleTime,"t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6jfsub!Vj #1012 Iteration Limited Objective Function Iter Limit: 2kIter Limit: 1kIter Limit: 500Iter Limit: 250Iter Limit: 0 Fig....

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    A dynamical systems perspective on nesterov acceleration

    Michael Muehlebach and Michael Jordan. A dynamical systems perspective on nesterov acceleration. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4656–4662. PMLR, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    A dynamical systems perspective on discrete optimization

    Tong Guanchun and Michael Muehlebach. A dynamical systems perspective on discrete optimization. In Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, pages 1373–1386. PMLR, 2023. 11

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Nonlinear programming

    Dimitri P Bertsekas. Nonlinear programming. Journal of the Operational Research Society , 48(3):334–334, 1997

    work page 1997

  6. [6]

    Mixed-integer quadratic programming is in np

    Alberto Del Pia, Santanu S Dey, and Marco Molinaro. Mixed-integer quadratic programming is in np. Mathematical Programming, 162:225–240, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Last fifty years of integer linear programming: a focus on recent practical advances

    François Clautiaux and Ivana Ljubi ´c. Last fifty years of integer linear programming: a focus on recent practical advances. European Journal of Operational Research, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications

    Aaron D Ames, Samuel Coogan, Magnus Egerstedt, Gennaro Notomista, Koushil Sreenath, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier functions: Theory and applications. In 2019 18th European control conference (ECC) , pages 3420–3431. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Model predictive control: past, present and future

    Manfred Morari and Jay H Lee. Model predictive control: past, present and future. Computers & chemical engineering , 23(4-5):667–682, 1999

    1999

  2. [10]

    Advances in mixed-integer model predictive control

    Robert D McAllister and James B Rawlings. Advances in mixed-integer model predictive control. In 2022 American Control Conference (ACC) , pages 364–369. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Mixed-integer programming for signal temporal logic with fewer binary variables

    Vince Kurtz and Hai Lin. Mixed-integer programming for signal temporal logic with fewer binary variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06367 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hybrid dynamical systems

    Rafal Goebel, Ricardo G Sanfelice, and Andrew R Teel. Hybrid dynamical systems. IEEE control systems magazine , 29(2):28–93, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Hybrid feedback control

    Ricardo G Sanfelice. Hybrid feedback control . Princeton University Press, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Distributed nonconvex optimization with exponential convergence rate via hybrid systems methods

    Katherine R Hendrickson, Dawn M Hustig-Schultz, Matthew T Hale, and Ricardo G Sanfelice. Distributed nonconvex optimization with exponential convergence rate via hybrid systems methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02597 , 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Uniting nesterov and heavy ball methods for uniform global asymptotic stability of the set of minimizers

    Dawn M Hustig-Schultz and Ricardo G Sanfelice. Uniting nesterov and heavy ball methods for uniform global asymptotic stability of the set of minimizers. Automatica, 160:111389, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Set-valued mappings

    AB Kharazishvili. Set-valued mappings. In Applications of Point Set Theory in Real Analysis , pages 21–38. Springer, 1998

    1998

  9. [17]

    Variational analysis, volume 317

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J-B Wets. Variational analysis, volume 317. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Time-varying convex optimization: Time- structured algorithms and applications

    Andrea Simonetto, Emiliano Dall’Anese, Santiago Paternain, Geert Leus, and Georgios B Giannakis. Time-varying convex optimization: Time- structured algorithms and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE , 108(11):2032–2048, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Stability of mixed-integer quadratic programming problems

    Bernd Bank and Rainer Hansel. Stability of mixed-integer quadratic programming problems . Springer, 1984

    1984

  12. [20]

    Numerical analysis

    Walter Gautschi. Numerical analysis. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011

    2011

  13. [21]

    Non-linear parametric optimization , volume 58

    Bernd Bank, Jürgen Guddat, Diethard Klatte, Bernd Kummer, and Klaus Tammer. Non-linear parametric optimization , volume 58. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 1982

    1982

  14. [22]

    Practical considerations for implementing robust-to-early termination model predictive control

    Mohsen Amiri and Mehdi Hosseinzadeh. Practical considerations for implementing robust-to-early termination model predictive control. Systems & Control Letters , 196:106018, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Conforti, G

    M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols, and G. Zambelli. Integer Programming. Springer, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, 2024

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Scip: solving constraint integer programs

    Tobias Achterberg. Scip: solving constraint integer programs. Mathematical Programming Computation , 1:1–41, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    Parallelizing the dual revised simplex method

    Qi Huangfu and JA Julian Hall. Parallelizing the dual revised simplex method. Mathematical Programming Computation , 10(1):119–142, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Presolve, crash and software engineering for HiGHS

    Ivet Galabova. Presolve, crash and software engineering for HiGHS . PhD thesis, The University of Edinburgh, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Suboptimal model predictive control (feasibility implies stability)

    Pierre OM Scokaert, David Q Mayne, and James B Rawlings. Suboptimal model predictive control (feasibility implies stability). IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 44(3):648–654, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    Autonomous satellite rendezvous and proximity operations with time- constrained sub-optimal model predictive control

    Gabriel Behrendt, Alexander Soderlund, Matthew Hale, and Sean Phillips. Autonomous satellite rendezvous and proximity operations with time- constrained sub-optimal model predictive control. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 56(2):9380–9385, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Time-distributed optimization for real-time model predictive control: Stability, robustness, and constraint satisfaction

    Dominic Liao-McPherson, Marco M Nicotra, and Ilya Kolmanovsky. Time-distributed optimization for real-time model predictive control: Stability, robustness, and constraint satisfaction. Automatica, 117:108973, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints

    Alberto Bemporad and Manfred Morari. Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints. Automatica, 35(3):407–427, 1999

    1999

  24. [32]

    Continuous-time signal temporal logic planning with control barrier functions

    Guang Yang, Calin Belta, and Roberto Tron. Continuous-time signal temporal logic planning with control barrier functions. In 2020 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 4612–4618. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Linear tracking mpc for nonlinear systems—part i: The model-based case

    Julian Berberich, Johannes Köhler, Matthias A Müller, and Frank Allgöwer. Linear tracking mpc for nonlinear systems—part i: The model-based case. IEEE transactions on automatic control , 67(9):4390–4405, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    An abstract model for branch and cut

    Aleksandr M Kazachkov, Pierre Le Bodic, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. An abstract model for branch and cut. Mathematical Programming, 206(1):175–202, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    An abstract model for branching and its application to mixed integer programming

    Pierre Le Bodic and George Nemhauser. An abstract model for branching and its application to mixed integer programming. Mathematical Programming, 166(1):369–405, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    A simple effective heuristic for embedded mixed-integer quadratic programming

    Reza Takapoui, Nicholas Moehle, Stephen Boyd, and Alberto Bemporad. A simple effective heuristic for embedded mixed-integer quadratic programming. International journal of control , 93(1):2–12, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Introduction to linear optimization , volume 6

    Dimitris Bertsimas and John N Tsitsiklis. Introduction to linear optimization , volume 6. Athena scientific Belmont, MA, 1997. VII. A PPENDIX This appendix provides technical lemmas, propositions, and definitions for the hybrid system, MIQP stability, and simulation results. A...

    1997

  30. [38]

    H satisfies the basic hybrid conditions defined in Definition 1 12

  31. [39]

    A is a compact pre-asymptotically stable set for H with basin pre-attraction BA (defined in Definition 6), for which the proper indicator ω of A on BA and the KL function β are such that the KL function derived from Lemma 3 holds for each solution of π to H

  32. [40]

    Then, the compact set A satisfies the following KL function ω(πρ(t, j)) ≤ β(ω(yρ(0, 0), t+ j) + κ ∀(t, j) domπρ

    The ρ-perturbation of H given by Hρ has a maximum allowable perturbation that is defined example by [13][Assumption 3.25]. Then, the compact set A satisfies the following KL function ω(πρ(t, j)) ≤ β(ω(yρ(0, 0), t+ j) + κ ∀(t, j) domπρ. Proposition 1 refers to the following def...

  33. [41]

    Let’s define the feasible region H(η(k)) of a perturbed mixed-integer quadratic program on the feasible parameter set as Γ = {η(k) ∈ Rm|H(η(k)) ̸= ∅}

    Continuity of Constraint Mapping: To discuss the continuity of the constraint set mapping H : Rm ⇒ R. Let’s define the feasible region H(η(k)) of a perturbed mixed-integer quadratic program on the feasible parameter set as Γ = {η(k) ∈ Rm|H(η(k)) ̸= ∅}. Upper semi-continuity of...

  34. [42]

    there exists a upper semi-continuous set value mapping K : Γ ⇒ Rn with compact nonempty images such that the feasible region H(η(k)) may be represented by G(η(k)) = K(η(k)) + G(0), η(k) ∈ Γ, and

  35. [43]

    Proposition 4

    the restriction of the constraint set mapping H to the feasible parameter set η(k) is upper semi-continuous. Proposition 4. [19] Let the constraint matrix be rational and let η(k)0 be an arbitrarily fixed vector belonging to the feasible set Γ, then the restriction of the cons...

  36. [44]

    The following lemma and proposition provide technical details on continuity of the value function

    Continuity of Value Function: The upper semi-continuity relies on continuity of the value function V. The following lemma and proposition provide technical details on continuity of the value function. Lemma 5. [19] Let E∗ be a subset of E defined in Proposition 5 such thatη(k)...

  37. [45]

    Upper Semi-continuity of Suboptimal Mapping: The following technical proof is provided for completeness as to how upper semi-continuity holds for ψϵ. Proof for Lemma 1[19]: Let (c(k)t, η(k)t, ϵt),t = 1, 2, ...,be an arbitrary sequence with (c(k)t, η(k)t) ∈ E∗, t= 0, 1, 2, ...,...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.