pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.19824 · v2 · pith:XFHRTFQOnew · submitted 2025-09-24 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Zonotope-Based Elastic Tube Model Predictive Control

Sabin Diaconescu , Florin Stoican , Bogdan D. Ciubotaru , Sorin Olaru This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 21:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords tube MPCzonotopeelastic tuberobust controlinclusion conditionsmodel predictive controllinear systemsset containment
0
0 comments X

The pith

New scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions simplify elastic tube MPC by removing the need for pre-specified set-containment constraints.

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

The paper develops a more efficient way to parameterize tubes in model predictive control for linear systems facing bounded disturbances. It introduces a new family of conditions on scaled zonotopes that let the tube cross-sections adjust elastically without requiring certain containment relations to be fixed in advance. This change cuts the number of constraints in the optimization problem while still guaranteeing that the tube remains robustly invariant and respects state and input limits. The authors show through complexity counts how this trades off against the size of the region from which the controller can recover, and they demonstrate the method on numerical examples.

Core claim

A new class of scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions is introduced for elastic tube MPC; these conditions remove the requirement to specify certain set-containment constraints a priori and thereby reduce the computational complexity of the resulting optimization problem for both polyhedral and zonotopic tube representations.

What carries the argument

Scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions that enforce tube containment of disturbed trajectories while permitting elastic scaling of the tube cross-sections without fixed a priori set inclusions.

If this is right

  • The domain of attraction can be enlarged relative to fixed-scale tube formulations because the elastic scaling is less constrained.
  • The optimization problem contains fewer decision variables and constraints, lowering online computation time.
  • The same robust guarantees hold for both polyhedral and zonotopic tube descriptions.
  • A quantifiable trade-off appears between the volume of the recoverable set and the size of the resulting optimization problem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The reduction in constraint count could make the controller feasible for embedded hardware with limited solver capacity.
  • Similar inclusion relaxations might be applied to other set-based robust control schemes that currently rely on fixed containment checks.
  • Extending the zonotope scaling to time-varying or parameter-dependent disturbance bounds would be a direct next step.

Load-bearing premise

The new scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions must continue to guarantee robust invariance and constraint satisfaction for the linear system under bounded additive disturbances.

What would settle it

A closed-loop trajectory that exits the computed tube or violates a state or input constraint while the disturbance remains inside its known bound would show the inclusion conditions no longer preserve the required properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.19824 by Bogdan D. Ciubotaru, Florin Stoican, Sabin Diaconescu, Sorin Olaru.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Domain of attraction 5.2 Coupled Spring Experiment - CSE [33] The double integrator example is helpful for visualiza￾tion purposes, but it cannot provide sufficient insights for computational effort quantification. The influence of the problem size is assessed using the continuous-time CSE dynamics, modeled as a system of interconnected springs, dampers, and masses, as provided in COMPleib [33]. The system… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Runtimes for tube and set types with centers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Tube-based Model Predictive Control (MPC) is a widely adopted robust control framework for constrained linear systems under additive disturbance. The paper is focused on reducing the numerical complexity associated with the tube parameterization, described as a sequence of elastically-scaled zonotopic sets. A new class of scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions is proposed, alleviating the need for a priori specification of certain set-containment constraints and achieving significant reductions in complexity. A comprehensive complexity analysis is provided for both the polyhedral and the zonotopic setting, illustrating the trade-off between an enlarged domain of attraction and the required computational effort. The proposed approach is validated through extensive numerical experiments.

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 develops a zonotope-based elastic tube MPC scheme for constrained linear systems subject to additive bounded disturbances. It introduces a new class of scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions that remove the need for a priori set-containment constraints, derives associated complexity reductions relative to both polyhedral and standard zonotopic tube MPC, and reports numerical experiments illustrating an enlarged domain of attraction at lower computational cost.

Significance. If the new inclusion conditions are shown to be both sufficient and non-vacuous while preserving robust positive invariance and constraint satisfaction, the work would provide a concrete complexity-reduction technique for tube MPC that could facilitate real-time implementation on higher-dimensional systems. The explicit complexity comparisons and numerical validation constitute useful evidence of the claimed trade-off.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Theorem 1] §3.2, Theorem 1 and the subsequent invariance proof: the argument that the scaled-zonotope inclusion (Eq. (12)) guarantees robust positive invariance for arbitrary generator matrices and admissible disturbance sets is not fully rigorous; the derivation appears to impose implicit positivity or boundedness restrictions on the scaling sequence that are not stated as assumptions, leaving open the possibility that invariance fails for some generator choices.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1, complexity analysis: the reported reduction in the number of decision variables and constraints is derived under a fixed number of zonotope generators; it is unclear whether the scaling with system dimension and disturbance-set complexity remains favorable when the generator count must increase to maintain the same approximation quality, which directly affects the claimed computational advantage.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2.3] The definition of the elastic scaling factor sequence in §2.3 could be accompanied by an explicit statement of the admissible range to avoid ambiguity in later sections.
  2. [Figure 4] Figure 4 caption does not indicate which curves correspond to the proposed method versus the baseline; adding this information would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major comment below with clarifications and indicate where revisions will be made to improve the rigor and completeness of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2, Theorem 1] §3.2, Theorem 1 and the subsequent invariance proof: the argument that the scaled-zonotope inclusion (Eq. (12)) guarantees robust positive invariance for arbitrary generator matrices and admissible disturbance sets is not fully rigorous; the derivation appears to impose implicit positivity or boundedness restrictions on the scaling sequence that are not stated as assumptions, leaving open the possibility that invariance fails for some generator choices.

    Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this point. The scaled-zonotope inclusion (Eq. (12)) is constructed so that the scaling sequence is optimized within the MPC problem and is therefore positive and bounded by definition in the elastic-tube setting. Nevertheless, we agree that these properties should be stated explicitly rather than left implicit. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit assumption on the positivity and boundedness of the scaling sequence to the statement of Theorem 1 and will expand the invariance proof to reference these properties at each relevant step. This change will make the argument fully rigorous for arbitrary generator matrices while leaving the main results unchanged. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1, complexity analysis: the reported reduction in the number of decision variables and constraints is derived under a fixed number of zonotope generators; it is unclear whether the scaling with system dimension and disturbance-set complexity remains favorable when the generator count must increase to maintain the same approximation quality, which directly affects the claimed computational advantage.

    Authors: The referee correctly observes that the complexity counts in §4.1 are given for a fixed generator count. To address this, we will extend the analysis in the revised Section 4.1 to include the case in which the number of generators grows with system dimension and disturbance-set complexity in order to preserve a target approximation quality. We will show that the proposed scaled-zonotope conditions still yield a net reduction relative to both polyhedral and standard zonotopic tube MPC, because they eliminate the a-priori set-containment constraints whose number scales linearly with the generator count. Asymptotic expressions that account for this generator scaling will be added to clarify that the computational advantage is retained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in proposed scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions

full rationale

The paper proposes a new class of scaled-zonotope inclusion conditions for elastic tube MPC that remove the need for certain a priori set-containment constraints. This is presented as an independent derivation extending standard tube MPC for linear systems with bounded disturbances, with claims of complexity reduction and preserved robust invariance supported directly by the new conditions rather than by fitting parameters, renaming prior results, or load-bearing self-citations. No equations or steps in the provided abstract reduce by construction to the inputs; the approach builds on existing zonotopic frameworks with novel inclusion relations that are claimed to be both sufficient and non-vacuous.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard domain assumption of linear dynamics with bounded additive disturbances and on the new inclusion conditions themselves; no free parameters or invented entities are indicated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The plant is a constrained linear system subject to additive bounded disturbances.
    This is the foundational modeling assumption stated for tube-based MPC in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5642 in / 1260 out tokens · 89237 ms · 2026-05-21T21:41:52.207025+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

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rawlings, D

    J. Rawlings, D. Mayne, and M. Diehl,Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design. Nob Hill Publishing, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise,

    D. Q. Mayne, “Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise,”Automatica, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 2967–2986, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Borrelli, A

    F. Borrelli, A. Bemporad, and M. Morari,Predictive Control for Linear and Hybrid Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Model predictive control: past, present and future,

    M. Morari and J. H. Lee, “Model predictive control: past, present and future,”Computers&Chemical Engineering, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 667–682, 1999. 9

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Kouvaritakis and M

    B. Kouvaritakis and M. Cannon,Model Predictive Control: Classical, Robust and Stochastic. Springer International Publishing, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Blanchini and S

    F. Blanchini and S. Miani,Set-theoretic methods in control. Birkh¨ auser Cham, 2 ed., 2008. ISBN: 978-3-319-17933-9

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Robust model predictive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,

    D. Mayne, M. Seron, and S. Rakovi´ c, “Robust model predictive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,”Automatica, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219–224, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    The implicit rigid tube model predictive control,

    S. V. Rakovi´ c, “The implicit rigid tube model predictive control,”Automatica, vol. 157, p. 111234, 2023

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Homothetic tube model predictive control,

    S. V. Rakovi´ c, B. Kouvaritakis, R. Findeisen, and M. Cannon, “Homothetic tube model predictive control,”Automatica, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1631–1638, 2012

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    Parameterized tube model predictive control,

    S. V. Rakovic, B. Kouvaritakis, M. Cannon, C. Panos, and R. Findeisen, “Parameterized tube model predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 2746–2761, 2012

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    Robust Tube MPC for Linear Systems With Multiplicative Uncertainty,

    J. Fleming, B. Kouvaritakis, and M. Cannon, “Robust Tube MPC for Linear Systems With Multiplicative Uncertainty,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1087–1092, 2015

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    Elastic tube model predictive control,

    S. V. Rakovi´ c, W. S. Levine, and B. A¸ cikmese, “Elastic tube model predictive control,” inAmerican Control Conference, pp. 3594–3599, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Scalable tube model predictive control of uncertain linear systems using ellipsoidal sets,

    A. Parsi, A. Iannelli, and R. S. Smith, “Scalable tube model predictive control of uncertain linear systems using ellipsoidal sets,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02134, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Configuration-constrained tube mpc,

    M. E. Villanueva, M. A. M¨ uller, and B. Houska, “Configuration-constrained tube mpc,”Automatica, vol. 163, p. 111543, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Guaranteed methods based on constrained zonotopes for set-valued state estimation of nonlinear discrete-time systems,

    B. S. Rego, G. V. Raffo, J. K. Scott, and D. M. Raimondo, “Guaranteed methods based on constrained zonotopes for set-valued state estimation of nonlinear discrete-time systems,”Automatica, vol. 111, p. 108614, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Closed-loop input design for guaranteed fault diagnosis using set-valued observers,

    D. M. Raimondo, G. R. Marseglia, R. D. Braatz, and J. K. Scott, “Closed-loop input design for guaranteed fault diagnosis using set-valued observers,”Automatica, vol. 74, pp. 107–117, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Tube- based model predictive control based on constrained zonotopes,

    R. Andrade, J. E. Normey-Rico, and G. V. Raffo, “Tube- based model predictive control based on constrained zonotopes,”IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 50100–50113, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Tube-based robust MPC with adjustable uncertainty sets using zonotopes,

    V. Raghuraman and J. P. Koeln, “Tube-based robust MPC with adjustable uncertainty sets using zonotopes,” in2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 462–469, IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Hierarchical MPC for coupled subsystems using adjustable tubes,

    V. Raghuraman and J. P. Koeln, “Hierarchical MPC for coupled subsystems using adjustable tubes,”Automatica, vol. 143, p. 110435, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Tube-based robust mpc for two-timescale systems using reduced-order models,

    W. Wang and J. P. Koeln, “Tube-based robust mpc for two-timescale systems using reduced-order models,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 799–804, 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Navigation in a multi-obstacle environment. from partition of the space to a zonotopic-based mpc,

    D. Ioan, S. Olaru, S.-I. Niculescu, I. Prodan, and F. Stoican, “Navigation in a multi-obstacle environment. from partition of the space to a zonotopic-based mpc,” in2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), pp. 1772–1777, IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Scalable zonotopic under- approximation of backward reachable sets for uncertain linear systems,

    L. Yang and N. Ozay, “Scalable zonotopic under- approximation of backward reachable sets for uncertain linear systems,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 1555– 1560, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Set operations and order reductions for constrained zonotopes,

    V. Raghuraman and J. P. Koeln, “Set operations and order reductions for constrained zonotopes,”Automatica, vol. 139, p. 110204, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Robust stable model predictive control with constraint tightening,

    A. Richards and J. How, “Robust stable model predictive control with constraint tightening,” inAmerican Control Conference, pp. 1557–1562, 2006

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Polyhedral computation,

    K. Fukuda, “Polyhedral computation,”Department of Mathematics, Institute of Theoretical Computer Science ETH Zurich, 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Elastic tube model predictive control with scaled zonotopic sets,

    S. Diaconescu, F. Stoican, B. D. Ciubotaru, and S. Olaru, “Elastic tube model predictive control with scaled zonotopic sets,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 8, pp. 1343–1348, 2024

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Robust Optimization for MPC,

    B. Houska and M. E. Villanueva, “Robust Optimization for MPC,” inHandbook of Model Predictive Control(S. V. Rakovi´ c and W. S. Levine, eds.), pp. 413–443, Springer International Publishing, 2019

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Linear encodings for polytope containment problems,

    S. Sadraddini and R. Tedrake, “Linear encodings for polytope containment problems,” in2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 4367–4372, IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Invariant approximations of the minimal robust positively invariant set,

    S. V. Rakovic, E. C. Kerrigan, K. I. Kouramas, and D. Q. Mayne, “Invariant approximations of the minimal robust positively invariant set,”IEEE Transactions on automatic control, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 406–410, 2005. Publisher: IEEE

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,

    D. Mayne, J. Rawlings, C. Rao, and P. Scokaert, “Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality,”Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

    work page 2000

  31. [31]

    A quasi-infinite horizon nonlinear model predictive control scheme with guaranteed stability,

    H. Chen and F. Allg¨ ower, “A quasi-infinite horizon nonlinear model predictive control scheme with guaranteed stability,” Automatica, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1205–1217, 1998

    work page 1998

  32. [32]

    The implicit maximal positively invariant set,

    S. V. Rakovi´ c and S. Zhang, “The implicit maximal positively invariant set,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 4738–4753, 2023

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    COMPleib: COnstrained Matrix–optimization Problem library – a collection of test examples for nonlinear semidefinite programs, control system design and related problems,

    F. Leibfritz, “COMPleib: COnstrained Matrix–optimization Problem library – a collection of test examples for nonlinear semidefinite programs, control system design and related problems,” 2006

    work page 2006

  34. [34]

    Automatic robust convex programming,

    J. L¨ ofberg, “Automatic robust convex programming,” Optimization methods and software, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 115– 129, 2012

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,” 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    An Introduction to CORA 2015,

    M. Althoff, “An Introduction to CORA 2015,” inProc. of the 1st and 2nd Workshop on Applied Verification for Continuous and Hybrid Systems, pp. 120–151, December 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Multi- Parametric Toolbox 3.0,

    M. Herceg, M. Kvasnica, C. Jones, and M. Morari, “Multi- Parametric Toolbox 3.0,” inProc. of the European Control Conference, (Z¨ urich, Switzerland), pp. 502–510, July 17–19 2013

    work page 2013

  38. [38]

    volesti: A C++ library for sampling and volume computation on convex bodies,

    A. Chalkis, V. Fisikopoulos, M. Papachristou, and E. Tsigaridas, “volesti: A C++ library for sampling and volume computation on convex bodies,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 10, no. 108, p. 7886, 2025

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Tenscalc: a toolbox to generate fast code to solve nonlinear constrained minimizations and compute Nash equilibria,

    J. Hespanha, “Tenscalc: a toolbox to generate fast code to solve nonlinear constrained minimizations and compute Nash equilibria,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 14, pp. 451–496, 2022

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    OSQP: an operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,

    B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd, “OSQP: an operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 637–672, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic programming,

    H. Ferreau, C. Kirches, A. Potschka, H. Bock, and M. Diehl, “qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic programming,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 327–363, 2014. 10

    work page 2014