Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 96 references

Welfarist Control Design -- How to fulfill the societal mandate in multi-agent control?

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Feedback control systems allocate scarce societal resources by aggregating agent preferences into objectives that match the societal mandate.

desk verdict The paper introduces a welfare-economics framing for control design but treats preference aggregation as a solved prerequisite rather than a problem to solve. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.23931 v1 pith:NJBC65EM submitted 2026-06-22 eess.SY cs.MAcs.SYmath.OC

Sophie Hall , Kai Zhang , Ilia Shilov , Heinrich H. Nax , Saverio Bolognani This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.MAcs.SYmath.OC
keywords welfaristcontroldesignmulti-agentsocietalmandateresourceallocationfeedbackoptimizationmodelpredictiveMarkovdecisionprocessespreferenceaggregation
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

The paper examines how control engineers tasked with automating allocation of scarce resources such as highway lanes, energy access, or pollution rights can move beyond industry norms toward designs that fulfill a societal mandate. It reviews three paradigms—online feedback optimization, control of Markov decision processes, and model predictive control—beginning with aggregation of individual preferences into objectives and then ensuring and certifying fulfillment of those objectives. The central claim is that the feedback nature of control systems enables allocations of shared resources in ways that were not previously possible. A sympathetic reader would care because increasing automation makes these design choices decisive for fairness and efficiency across socio-technical systems.

What carries the argument

Welfarist control design that aggregates preferences into objectives and uses feedback to certify fulfillment across online feedback optimization, Markov decision process control, and model predictive control.

What would settle it

A deployment in which preferences are aggregated and feedback applied yet the resulting allocation deviates from an independently measured societal preference or mandate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Beginning with aggregating individual agents' preferences into control design objectives, subsequently ensuring and certifying the fulfillment of those specifications, the feedback nature of control systems enables appropriate allocation of the shared resources in ways hitherto unparalleled.

Load-bearing premise

Individual agents' preferences can be meaningfully aggregated into control design objectives that faithfully represent a societal mandate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 'Welfarist Control Design' as a paradigm for multi-agent control in socio-technical systems that allocate scarce resources (e.g., highway lanes, energy, pollution rights). It argues that control engineers should first aggregate individual agents' preferences into design objectives that represent a 'societal mandate,' then apply one of three paradigms—online feedback optimization (OFO), Markov decision process (MDP) control, or model predictive control (MPC)—to meet those objectives. The central claim is that the feedback nature of these methods enables 'appropriate allocation of the shared resources in ways hitherto unparalleled,' moving beyond industry norms to ethically responsible design.

Significance. If the aggregation step can be formalized with explicit welfare functions or certification procedures and the subsequent control steps shown to track the resulting objectives faithfully, the work could encourage control engineers to treat societal objectives as first-class design constraints in applications such as traffic, energy grids, and resource allocation. The manuscript raises a timely question about ethical responsibility in automated allocation but supplies no concrete derivations, examples, or validation criteria.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and opening paragraphs): the headline claim that feedback enables allocation 'in ways hitherto unparalleled' is load-bearing on the premise that individual preferences can be aggregated into objectives that faithfully represent a societal mandate. No social-welfare function, fairness axiom, aggregation operator, or certification procedure is supplied; the aggregation step is treated as a prerequisite rather than a solved sub-problem. Without this, the subsequent OFO/MDP/MPC steps cannot be shown to fulfill any particular mandate rather than an arbitrary designer-chosen objective.
  2. [Abstract] The manuscript contains no equations, theorems, or numerical examples that would demonstrate how any of the three control paradigms (OFO, MDP, MPC) would be instantiated once an aggregated objective is given. The central argument therefore rests entirely on narrative rather than demonstrated support.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The title and abstract introduce the neologism 'Welfarist control design' without a concise definition or comparison to existing terms such as 'socially-aware control' or 'fairness-aware optimization.'
  2. [Abstract] No references are visible to prior work on preference aggregation in control (e.g., mechanism design, social choice theory, or fair resource allocation literature).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We agree that the manuscript is conceptual in nature and that the aggregation step requires clearer framing as an input rather than a solved component. We will revise accordingly to improve precision and add illustrative content.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and opening paragraphs): the headline claim that feedback enables allocation 'in ways hitherto unparalleled' is load-bearing on the premise that individual preferences can be aggregated into objectives that faithfully represent a societal mandate. No social-welfare function, fairness axiom, aggregation operator, or certification procedure is supplied; the aggregation step is treated as a prerequisite rather than a solved sub-problem. Without this, the subsequent OFO/MDP/MPC steps cannot be shown to fulfill any particular mandate rather than an arbitrary designer-chosen objective.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript presents aggregation of preferences into a societal mandate as a prerequisite rather than deriving or certifying a specific welfare function. The central contribution is the argument that feedback-based control methods (OFO, MDP, MPC) can then be applied to pursue and certify fulfillment of objectives once they are specified, in contrast to open-loop or norm-driven design. We will revise the abstract and introduction to explicitly state that the framework takes an aggregated objective as given and to reference established welfare economics tools (e.g., utilitarian or Rawlsian functions) as possible inputs, thereby clarifying the scope of the 'unparalleled' claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The manuscript contains no equations, theorems, or numerical examples that would demonstrate how any of the three control paradigms (OFO, MDP, MPC) would be instantiated once an aggregated objective is given. The central argument therefore rests entirely on narrative rather than demonstrated support.

    Authors: The manuscript is a position paper outlining a design paradigm rather than a technical derivation of new control algorithms. Consequently it contains no new equations or theorems and relies on narrative to connect the three established paradigms to welfarist objectives. We accept that this limits demonstrated support. In revision we will add a short illustrative schematic (e.g., an OFO update law applied to a simple resource-allocation welfare objective) together with pointers to how standard MDP and MPC formulations can incorporate such objectives, while preserving the conceptual focus. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; derivation is self-contained conceptual proposal

full rationale

The manuscript is a high-level position paper that begins by treating aggregation of individual preferences into societal-mandate objectives as an explicit starting assumption rather than a derived quantity. It then enumerates three standard control paradigms (OFO, MDP control, MPC) as tools to meet those objectives and concludes that feedback enables better allocation. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems appear in the provided text; the central claim is therefore not forced by construction from its own inputs and remains an independent normative argument.

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

The proposal rests on the domain assumption that preferences aggregate into a coherent societal mandate and that feedback control can certify fulfillment of that mandate; no free parameters or invented physical entities are stated.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Individual agents' preferences can be aggregated into control design objectives that match the societal mandate.
    Stated in the abstract as the starting point for the three control paradigms.
invented entities (1)
  • Welfarist control design
    purpose: New paradigm that combines welfare economics with feedback control to fulfill societal mandates.
    Introduced as the central framing of the paper; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction supplied in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Welfarist Control Design -- How to fulfill the societal mandate in multi-agent control?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJBC65EM

@misc{pith2026260623931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Welfarist Control Design -- How to fulfill the societal mandate in multi-agent control?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJBC65EM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.23931}
}
read the original abstract

At the core of most socio-technical systems lies a scarce resource that is allocated among agents: highway lanes, public transit, road space, water rights, energy access, grid capacity, user attention, pollution rights, etc. With further automation of the underlying allocation processes, control engineers are increasingly tasked to make decisive assumptions regarding what society wants. In practice to date, design choices are largely driven by industry norms and conventions rather than a result of conscientiously responsible and ethical design. In this paper, we look at tools available to control engineers to design systems in a more principled manner in order to match the societal mandate. We consider three control design paradigms: online feedback optimization, control of Markov decision processes, and model predictive control. Beginning with aggregating individual agents' preferences into control design objectives, subsequently ensuring and certifying the fulfillment of those specifications, we argue that the feedback nature of control systems enables appropriate allocation of the shared resources in ways hitherto unparalleled.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-objective op- timal control: An overview,

    A. Gambier and E. Badreddin, “Multi-objective op- timal control: An overview,” inIEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 2007

    2007

  2. [2]

    Coali- tional control: Cooperative game theory and con- trol,

    F. Fele, J. M. Maestre, and E. F. Camacho, “Coali- tional control: Cooperative game theory and con- trol,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 53–69, 2017

    2017

  3. [3]

    A unified frame- work for max-min and min-max fairness with ap- plications,

    B. Radunovic and J.-Y. Le Boudec, “A unified frame- work for max-min and min-max fairness with ap- plications,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1073–1083, 2007

    2007

  4. [4]

    Fair end-to-end window- based congestion control,

    J. Mo and J. Walrand, “Fair end-to-end window- based congestion control,”IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 556–567, 2000

    2000

  5. [5]

    Rate control for communication networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability,

    F. P . Kelly, A. K. Maulloo, and D. K. H. Tan, “Rate control for communication networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability,”Journal of the Op- «Working paper19 erational Research Society, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 237–252, 1998

    1998

  6. [6]

    Analysis of the increase and decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer networks,

    D.-M. Chiu and R. Jain, “Analysis of the increase and decrease algorithms for congestion avoidance in computer networks,”Computer Networks and ISDN systems, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 1989

    1989

  7. [7]

    Convergence of proportional-fair sharing algorithms under general conditions,

    H. J. Kushner and P . A. Whiting, “Convergence of proportional-fair sharing algorithms under general conditions,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communi- cations, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1250–1259, 2004

    2004

  8. [8]

    A general approach to equity in traffic flow man- agement and its application to mitigating exemption bias in ground delay programs,

    T. Vossen, M. Ball, R. Hoffman, and M. Wambsganss, “A general approach to equity in traffic flow man- agement and its application to mitigating exemption bias in ground delay programs,”Air Traffic Control Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 277–292, 2003

    2003

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Equality of what?

    A. Sen, “Equality of what?” InThe Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 1, S. M. McMurrin, Ed., Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, pp. 195– 220

    1980

  2. [10]

    Moulin,Fair Division and Collective Welfare

    H. Moulin,Fair Division and Collective Welfare. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003

    2003

  3. [11]

    Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and com- munity fairness framework to increase social accep- tance,

    C. Gross, “Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and com- munity fairness framework to increase social accep- tance,”Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 2727–2736, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance,

    I. Almås, A. W. Cappelen, E. Ø. Sørensen, and B. Tungodden, “Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance,”Science, vol. 328, no. 5982, pp. 1176–1178, 2010

    2010

  5. [13]

    Reconsidering the role of procedures for de- cision acceptance,

    P . Esaiasson, M. Persson, M. Gilljam, and T. Lind- holm, “Reconsidering the role of procedures for de- cision acceptance,”British Journal of Political Science, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 291–314, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential,

    R. Hollander-Blumoff and T. R. Tyler, “Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential,”Law & Social Inquiry, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 473–500, 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    A. M. Okun,Equality and efficiency REV: The big tradeoff. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics,

    A. Bergson, “A reformulation of certain aspects of welfare economics,”The Quarterly Journal of Eco- nomics, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 310–334, Feb. 1938

    1938

  9. [17]

    P . A. Samuelson,Foundations of Economic Analy- sis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1947

    1947

  10. [18]

    K. J. Arrow,Social Choice and Individual Values. Wiley, 1951

    1951

  11. [19]

    Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility,

    J. C. Harsanyi, “Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 309–321, 1955

    1955

  12. [20]

    A. K. Sen,Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970

    1970

  13. [21]

    Bentham,An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

    J. Bentham,An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne and Son, 1789

  14. [22]

    J. S. Mill,Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1863

  15. [23]

    Rawls,A Theory of Justice

    J. Rawls,A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971

    1971

  16. [24]

    Welfare and cost aggregation for multi- agent control: When to choose which social cost function, and why?

    I. Shilov, E. Elokda, S. Hall, H. H. Nax, and S. Bolognani, “Welfare and cost aggregation for multi- agent control: When to choose which social cost function, and why?”IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems, vol. 5, pp. 80–90, 2026

    2026

  17. [25]

    Control for societal-scale challenges: Road map 2030,

    “Control for societal-scale challenges: Road map 2030,”IEEE Control Systems Society Publication, A. M. Annaswamy, K. H. Johansson, and G. J. Pappas, Eds., 2023

  18. [26]

    Estimates of the marginal curtailment rates for solar and wind generation,

    K. Novan and Y. Wang, “Estimates of the marginal curtailment rates for solar and wind generation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 124, p. 102 930, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Too much of a good thing? Global trends in the curtailment of solar PV,

    E. O’Shaughnessy, J. R. Cruce, and K. Xu, “Too much of a good thing? Global trends in the curtailment of solar PV,”Solar Energy, vol. 208, pp. 1068–1077, Sep. 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    A wel- farist perspective on fair generation curtailment,

    J. G. Matt, I. Shilov, and S. Bolognani, “A wel- farist perspective on fair generation curtailment,” in PowerUp Conference, 2026

    2026

  21. [29]

    Fair coordination of distributed energy resources with volt-var control and PV curtailment,

    D. Gebbran, S. Mhanna, Y. Ma, A. C. Chapman, and G. Verbiˇ c, “Fair coordination of distributed energy resources with volt-var control and PV curtailment,” Applied Energy, vol. 286, p. 116 546, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Reducing the unfairness of coordi- nated inverter dispatch in PV-rich distribution net- works,

    P . Lusis, L. L. Andrew, S. Chakraborty, A. Liebman, and G. Tack, “Reducing the unfairness of coordi- nated inverter dispatch in PV-rich distribution net- works,” inIEEE PowerTech, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    On the fairness of PV curtailment schemes in residential distribution networks,

    M. Z. Liu et al., “On the fairness of PV curtailment schemes in residential distribution networks,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 4502– 4512, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Sharing the short- fall: Algorithmic solutions for fair demand curtail- ment in zonal power markets,

    T. Borbáth and D. Van Hertem, “Sharing the short- fall: Algorithmic solutions for fair demand curtail- ment in zonal power markets,”SSRN, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Allocation of dynamic operating envelopes in distribution networks: Tech- nical and equitable perspectives,

    M. R. Alam, P . T. H. Nguyen, L. Naranpanawe, T. K. Saha, and G. Lankeshwara, “Allocation of dynamic operating envelopes in distribution networks: Tech- nical and equitable perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 173–186, Jan. 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Ensuring distribution network integrity using dynamic operating limits for pro- sumers,

    K. Petrou et al., “Ensuring distribution network integrity using dynamic operating limits for pro- sumers,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 3877–3888, Sep. 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Renew- able energy curtailment: A case study on today’s and 20Working paper» tomorrow’s congestion management,

    H. Schermeyer, C. Vergara, and W. Fichtner, “Renew- able energy curtailment: A case study on today’s and 20Working paper» tomorrow’s congestion management,”Energy Policy, vol. 112, pp. 427–436, Jan. 2018

    2018

  28. [36]

    Deutscher Bundestag,Gesetz für den Ausbau erneuer- barer Energien (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz - EEG 2017), 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    125–199, L 158 Jun

    “Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parlia- ment and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on com- mon rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (recast),”Official Journal of the European Union, pp. 125–199, L 158 Jun. 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    In- equitable access to distributed energy resources due to grid infrastructure limits in california,

    A. M. Brockway, J. Conde, and D. Callaway, “In- equitable access to distributed energy resources due to grid infrastructure limits in california,”Nature Energy, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 892–903, Sep. 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Sharing the grid: The key to equitable access for small- scale energy generation,

    J. J. Cuenca, H. E. Daly, and B. P . Hayes, “Sharing the grid: The key to equitable access for small- scale energy generation,”Applied Energy, vol. 349, p. 121 641, Nov. 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    The Gini index and measures of inequality,

    F. A. Farris, “The Gini index and measures of inequality,”The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 117, no. 10, pp. 851–864, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    A guide to formu- lating fairness in an optimization model,

    X. V . Chen and J. N. Hooker, “A guide to formu- lating fairness in an optimization model,”Annals of Operations Research, vol. 326, no. 1, pp. 581–619, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Fair-MPC: A framework for just decision-making,

    E. Villa, V . Breschi, and M. Tanelli, “Fair-MPC: A framework for just decision-making,”IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control, pp. 1–16, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Social welfare func- tionals and interpersonal comparability,

    C. d’Aspremont and L. Gevers, “Social welfare func- tionals and interpersonal comparability,” inHand- book of Social Choice and Welfare, K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura, Eds., vol. 1, 2002, ch. 10, pp. 459–541

    2002

  36. [44]

    Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory,

    K. W. S. Roberts, “Interpersonal comparability and social choice theory,”The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 421–439, 1980

    1980

  37. [45]

    Roberts’ weak welfarism theorem: A minor correction,

    P . J. Hammond, “Roberts’ weak welfarism theorem: A minor correction,”Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60, pp. 121–134, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Interpersonal aggregation and partial com- parability,

    A. Sen, “Interpersonal aggregation and partial com- parability,”Econometrica, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 393–409, 1970

    1970

  39. [47]

    An axiomatization of the mixed utilitarian–maximin social welfare order- ings,

    W. Bossert and K. Kamaga, “An axiomatization of the mixed utilitarian–maximin social welfare order- ings,”Economic Theory, vol. 69, pp. 451–473, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Utilitarianism and welfarism,

    A. Sen, “Utilitarianism and welfarism,”The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 76, no. 9, pp. 463–489, 1979

    1979

  41. [49]

    The bargaining problem,

    J. F. Nash, “The bargaining problem,”Econometrica, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 155–162, 1950

    1950

  42. [50]

    Interpersonally comparable utility,

    M. Fleurbaey and P . J. Hammond, “Interpersonally comparable utility,” inHandbook of Utility Theory, Volume 2: Extensions, S. Barberà, P . J. Hammond, and C. Seidl, Eds., Dordrecht: Springer, 2004, pp. 1179– 1285

    2004

  43. [51]

    Utility in social choice,

    W. Bossert and J. A. Weymark, “Utility in social choice,” inHandbook of Utility Theory, Volume 2: Ex- tensions, S. Barberà, P . J. Hammond, and C. Seidl, Eds., Dordrecht: Springer, 2004, pp. 1099–1177

    2004

  44. [52]

    Interpersonal comparisons of util- ity: Why and how they are and should be made,

    P . J. Hammond, “Interpersonal comparisons of util- ity: Why and how they are and should be made,” in Interpersonal Comparisons of Well-Being, J. Elster and J. E. Roemer, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 200–254

    1991

  45. [53]

    Util- itarianism and the theory of justice,

    C. Blackorby, W. Bossert, and D. Donaldson, “Util- itarianism and the theory of justice,” inHandbook of Social Choice and Welfare, K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, and K. Suzumura, Eds., vol. 1, Elsevier, 2002, ch. 11, pp. 543–596

    2002

  46. [54]

    Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem,

    E. Kalai and M. Smorodinsky, “Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem,”Econometrica, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 513–518, 1975

    1975

  47. [55]

    Utility comparison and the theory of games,

    L. S. Shapley, “Utility comparison and the theory of games,” inLa Décision: Agrégation et Dynamique des Ordres de Préférence, G.-T. Guilbaud, Ed., Reprinted inThe Shapley Value, edited by Alvin E. Roth, Cam- bridge University Press, 1988, pp. 307–320, Paris: Éditions du CNRS, ...

    1988

  48. [56]

    On the axiomatic theory of bargain- ing: A survey of recent results,

    W. Thomson, “On the axiomatic theory of bargain- ing: A survey of recent results,”Review of Economic Design, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 491–542, 2022

    2022

  49. [57]

    Social evaluation un- der risk and uncertainty,

    P . Mongin and M. Pivato, “Social evaluation un- der risk and uncertainty,” inThe Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy, M. D. Adler and M. Fleurbaey, Eds., Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 711–744

    2016

  50. [58]

    Multi-profile in- tertemporal social choice: A survey,

    W. Bossert and K. Suzumura, “Multi-profile in- tertemporal social choice: A survey,” inIndividual and Collective Choice and Social Welfare, C. Binder, G. Codognato, M. Teschl, and Y. Xu, Eds., Springer, 2015, pp. 109–126

    2015

  51. [59]

    Intergenerational eq- uity and infinite-population ethics: A survey,

    M. Pivato and M. Fleurbaey, “Intergenerational eq- uity and infinite-population ethics: A survey,”Jour- nal of Mathematical Economics, vol. 113, p. 103 021, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Rate control for communication networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability,

    F. P . Kelly, A. K. Maulloo, and D. K. H. Tan, “Rate control for communication networks: Shadow prices, proportional fairness and stability,”Journal of the Op- erational Research Society, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 237–252, 1998

    1998

  53. [61]

    Optimization algorithms as robust feed- back controllers,

    A. Hauswirth, Z. He, S. Bolognani, G. Hug, and F. Dörfler, “Optimization algorithms as robust feed- back controllers,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 57, p. 100 941, 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    On- line optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking,

    M. Colombino, E. Dall’Anese, and A. Bernstein, “On- line optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 422–432, 2020. «Working paper21

    2020

  55. [63]

    Timescale separation in autonomous optimization,

    A. Hauswirth, S. Bolognani, G. Hug, and F. Dorfler, “Timescale separation in autonomous optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 611–624, Feb. 2021

    2021

  56. [64]

    Removing time-scale separation in feedback-based optimiza- tion via estimators,

    N. Yousefi and J. W. Simpson-Porco, “Removing time-scale separation in feedback-based optimiza- tion via estimators,”arXiv:2511.03903 [eess.SY], Nov. 2025

    2025

  57. [65]

    Online feedback opti- mization for monotone systems without timescale separation,

    M. Bianchi and F. Dörfler, “Online feedback opti- mization for monotone systems without timescale separation,” inIEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec. 2025, pp. 3417–3422

    2025

  58. [66]

    Model-free nonlinear feedback optimization,

    Z. He, S. Bolognani, J. He, F. Dörfler, and X. Guan, “Model-free nonlinear feedback optimization,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 4554–4569, Jul. 2024

    2024

  59. [67]

    K. B. Ariyur and M. Krsti´ c,Real-Time Optimization by Extremum-Seeking Control. Wiley, Sep. 2003

    2003

  60. [68]

    Fairness-incorporated online feedback optimization for real-time distribution grid management,

    S. Zhan, J. Morren, W. van den Akker, A. van der Molen, N. G. Paterakis, and J. G. Slootweg, “Fairness-incorporated online feedback optimization for real-time distribution grid management,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1792– 1806, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Incorporating equity into the transit frequency-setting problem,

    E. M. Ferguson, J. Duthie, A. Unnikrishnan, and S. T. Waller, “Incorporating equity into the transit frequency-setting problem,”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 190–199, 2012

    2012

  62. [70]

    Fairness in multi-agent sequential decision-making,

    C. Zhang and J. A. Shah, “Fairness in multi-agent sequential decision-making,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, and K. Weinberger, Eds., vol. 27, Curran Associates, Inc., 2014

    2014

  63. [71]

    Algorithms for fairness in sequential decision making,

    M. Wen, O. Bastani, and U. Topcu, “Algorithms for fairness in sequential decision making,” in24th Inter- national Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statis- tics, A. Banerjee and K. Fukumizu, Eds., ser. Proceed- ings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 130, PMLR, Apr. 20...

    2021

  64. [72]

    Socially fair reinforcement learning,

    D. Mandal and J. Gan, “Socially fair reinforcement learning,”arXiv:2208.12584 [cs.LG], 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Achieving fairness in multi-agent mdp using reinforcement learning,

    P . Ju, A. Ghosh, and N. Shroff, “Achieving fairness in multi-agent mdp using reinforcement learning,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Welfare and fairness in multi-objective reinforcement learning,

    Z. Fan, N. Peng, M. Tian, and B. Fain, “Welfare and fairness in multi-objective reinforcement learning,” inInternational Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, ser. Aamas ’23, Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems,...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Dynamic Social Choice with Evolving Preferences,

    D. Parkes and A. Procaccia, “Dynamic Social Choice with Evolving Preferences,”AAAI Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 767–773, Jun. 2013

    2013

  68. [76]

    Social choice with chang- ing preferences: Representation theorems and long- run policies,

    K. Kulkarni and S. Neth, “Social choice with chang- ing preferences: Representation theorems and long- run policies,”arXiv:2011.02544 [cs.MA], 2020

    2011

  69. [77]

    Online Nash Social Welfare Maximization with Pre- dictions,

    S. Banerjee, V . Gkatzelis, A. Gorokh, and B. Jin, “Online Nash Social Welfare Maximization with Pre- dictions,” inAnnual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Dis- crete Algorithms (SODA), ser. Proceedings, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Jan. 2022, pp. 1–19

    2022

  70. [78]

    Online Nash Welfare Maximization Without Predictions,

    Z. Huang, M. Li, X. Shu, and T. Wei, “Online Nash Welfare Maximization Without Predictions,” inWeb and Internet Economics, J. Garg, M. Klimm, and Y. Kong, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 402–419

    2024

  71. [79]

    Online fair division: Analysing a food bank prob- lem,

    M. Aleksandrov, H. Aziz, S. Gaspers, and T. Walsh, “Online fair division: Analysing a food bank prob- lem,” in24th International Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, ser. IJCAI’15, Buenos Aires, Argentina: AAAI Press, 2015, pp. 2540–2546

    2015

  72. [80]

    No agent left behind: Dynamic fair division of multiple re- sources,

    I. Kash, A. D. Procaccia, and N. Shah, “No agent left behind: Dynamic fair division of multiple re- sources,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 51, pp. 579–603, 2014

    2014

  73. [81]

    Sequential Fair Allocation: Achieving the Opti- mal Envy-Efficiency Trade-off Curve,

    S. R. Sinclair, G. Jain, S. Banerjee, and C. L. Yu, “Sequential Fair Allocation: Achieving the Opti- mal Envy-Efficiency Trade-off Curve,”Operations Re- search, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 1689–1705, Sep. 2023

    2023

  74. [82]

    Altman,Constrained Markov Decision Processes

    E. Altman,Constrained Markov Decision Processes. CRC Press, 2021

    2021

  75. [83]

    Remembering to be fair: Non-Markovian fairness in sequential decision making,

    P . A. Alamdari, T. Q. Klassen, E. Creager, and S. A. McIlraith, “Remembering to be fair: Non-Markovian fairness in sequential decision making,” in41st Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning, ser. ICML’24, Vienna, Austria: JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  76. [84]

    Past-discounting is key for learning Markovian fairness with long horizons,

    A. Kumar and W. Yeoh, “Past-discounting is key for learning Markovian fairness with long horizons,” arXiv:2504.01154 [cs.AI], 2026

    2026

  77. [85]

    Optimization of conditional value-at-risk,

    R. T. Rockafellar, S. Uryasev, et al., “Optimization of conditional value-at-risk,”Journal of risk, vol. 2, pp. 21–42, 2000

    2000

  78. [86]

    Fairness- aware data-driven-based model predictive con- troller: A study on thermal energy storage in a res- idential building,

    Y. Sun, F. Haghighat, and B. C. Fung, “Fairness- aware data-driven-based model predictive con- troller: A study on thermal energy storage in a res- idential building,”Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 87, p. 111 402, May 2024

    2024

  79. [87]

    Online optimal dispatch based on combined robust and stochastic model predictive control for a microgrid including EV charging station,

    F. Jiao, Y. Zou, X. Zhang, and B. Zhang, “Online optimal dispatch based on combined robust and stochastic model predictive control for a microgrid including EV charging station,”Energy, vol. 247, p. 123 220, May 2022. 22Working paper»

    2022

  80. [88]

    Alpha-fair large-scale urban network control: A perimeter control based on a macroscopic fundamental diagram,

    N. Moshahedi and L. Kattan, “Alpha-fair large-scale urban network control: A perimeter control based on a macroscopic fundamental diagram,”Transporta- tion Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 146, p. 103 961, Jan. 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Grüne and J

    L. Grüne and J. Pannek,Nonlinear Model Predictive Control, A. Isidori, J. H. van Schuppen, E. D. Sontag, and M. Krstic, Eds. Springer International Publish- ing, 2017

    2017

  82. [90]

    Eco- nomic nonlinear model predictive control,

    T. Faulwasser, L. Grüne, and M. A. Müller, “Eco- nomic nonlinear model predictive control,”Founda- tions and Trends® in Systems and Control, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–98, 2018

    2018

  83. [91]

    Barrier function based model predictive control,

    A. G. Wills and W. P . Heath, “Barrier function based model predictive control,”Automatica, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1415–1422, Aug. 2004

    2004

  84. [92]

    Relaxed logarithmic barrier function based model predictive control of linear systems,

    C. Feller and C. Ebenbauer, “Relaxed logarithmic barrier function based model predictive control of linear systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1223–1238, 2017

    2017

  85. [93]

    Min-max model predictive control of nonlinear systems: A unifying overview on stability,

    D. M. Raimondo, D. Limon, M. Lazar, L. Magni, and E. F. ndez Camacho, “Min-max model predictive control of nonlinear systems: A unifying overview on stability,”European Journal of Control, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 5–21, Jan. 2009

    2009

  86. [94]

    Input to state stability of min–max mpc controllers for nonlinear systems with bounded uncertainties,

    D. Limon, T. Alamo, F. Salas, and E. Camacho, “Input to state stability of min–max mpc controllers for nonlinear systems with bounded uncertainties,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 797–803, May 2006

    2006

  87. [95]

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

    2017

  88. [96]

    On average performance and stability of economic model predic- tive control,

    D. Angeli, R. Amrit, and J. B. Rawlings, “On average performance and stability of economic model predic- tive control,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1615–1626, 2012. «Working paper23

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.