Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Suboptimal and Reduced-Order MPC via Timescale Separation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sampling fast enough converts both optimization error and model mismatch into fast transients, so a suboptimal, reduced-order MPC keeps recursive feasibility and exponential stability.

desk verdict Good idea, honest framework, but the proof of Theorem 1 has a real gap in applying the two-time-scale theorem, and the experiments don't verify the strong assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.24641 v2 pith:RQ6XZIWS submitted 2026-06-23 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Stefano Di Gregorio , Guido Carnevale , Giuseppe Notarstefano This is my paper
classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY MSC 93C7093D3093C55
keywords ModelPredictiveControlsuboptimalMPCreduced-ordertimescaleseparationsingularperturbationrecursivefeasibilityexponentialstabilityreal-timeiteration
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's aim is to prove that a model predictive controller can operate with two cost-saving shortcuts at once — solving the underlying optimal control problem only approximately, and predicting with a reduced-order model that ignores part of the plant — and still keep the closed loop recursively feasible and exponentially stable. The key move is to treat the sampling interval not as an implementation detail but as a design parameter that induces timescale separation: the ignored fast dynamics are scaled so that both they and the optimizer's internal iterations settle much faster than the slow target state moves. The main theorem says that for any certified sublevel set of the closed-loop Lyapunov function, fast enough sampling and a sufficiently contractive optimizer give forward invariance (so feasibility never breaks) and exponential convergence to the combined equilibrium. The practical message is that model fidelity and optimization accuracy can be traded for sampling speed, with explicit constants describing how fast the sampling must be. Virtual experiments on an underactuated two-link arm support the predicted threshold behavior: fast sampling matches ideal benchmarks, slow sampling degrades into oscillations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite Lyapunov function V(x,ξ,z)=W(x)+G(ξ−ξ_eq(x,Π(z)))+κL(z−z⋆(x)), where W certifies stability of the reduced-order MPC closed loop, G certifies exponential contraction of the neglected dynamics to its equilibrium manifold, and L certifies contraction of the optimizer iterations to their fixed point; κ balances the fast and slow parts. Lemma 2 shows this combination is a Lyapunov function for the boundary-layer system, Lemma 3 gives a δ-scaled Lyapunov decrease for the reduced system, and a packaged two-timescale stability theorem in the appendix assembles them into a decrease of V along the full closed loop. The role of δ as a tunable small parameter is

What would settle it

Run the closed loop on the two-link arm with a fixed inductance L (so ε is fixed by hardware) while decreasing δ: if recursive feasibility and exponential stability continue to hold with no lower bound on δ, then the asserted ε=rδ mechanism is not necessary. Conversely, measure the one-step Lyapunov decrease of the optimizer alone on the nonconvex swing-up problem; if for some state in the claimed invariant set the function L(A(z,x)−z⋆(x))−L(z−z⋆(x)) is not negative, Assumption 3 fails and Theorem 1 cannot be the explanation for any observed stability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: under four assumptions — Lipschitz plant, a globally stable equilibrium manifold for the neglected dynamics, a globally contractive optimizer with a known Lyapunov function, and a Lyapunov function for the reduced-model closed loop — for every r>0 and every sublevel set inside the feasible region there exist δ̄ and κ̄ such that with sampling period δ<δ̄, fast scale ε=rδ, and optimizer Lyapunov weight κ≥κ̄, the closed loop retains recursive feasibility and the equilibrium (target setpoint, optimizer fixed point, ignored state on its manifold) is exponentially stable. The proof works by writing the sampled-data closed loop as a two-timescale system in which the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the generic optimization algorithm has a globally exponentially stable fixed point with a known Lyapunov function satisfying a fixed quadratic decay (Assumption 3); for the experiments this is merely assumed for a single SQP iteration on a nonconvex problem, and the proof also needs the specific scaling ε=rδ rather than a fixed fast time constant.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A controller that runs only one cheap optimizer iteration per sample and predicts with a model that ignores the motor/electrical dynamics can be certified stable provided the optimizer is contractive, by choosing the sampling period small enough; the experiments show parity with fully optimal MPC at δ=0.005 s.
  • Recursive feasibility becomes a provable property of the sampling rate: once the closed loop starts inside the certified sublevel set, the reduced MPC problem never becomes infeasible, even though the optimizer never solves the problem exactly.
  • The scaling ε=rδ gives an explicit design relation: the neglected physical dynamics must be at least as fast as the sampling mechanism for the guarantees to hold; when the fast time constant is fixed, there is an upper bound on δ before stability is lost.
  • The proof yields concrete Lyapunov-decrease inequalities that could be checked numerically offline, giving a certificate for a specific controller-plant pair before deployment.
  • For plants with genuinely slow parasitic dynamics, the theorem predicts — and the Monte Carlo results illustrate — that stability degrades gradually into oscillation rather than sudden failure, consistent with a shrinking boundary-layer margin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same boundary-layer argument suggests a practical 'fastness ratio' — actuator bandwidth times sampling period — as a single number that determines whether suboptimal reduced-order MPC is safe; the paper does not phrase it this way, but it is a direct corollary of ε=rδ.
  • Editorial inference: Assumption 3 asks for a global Lyapunov contraction of the optimizer, but the proof only ever uses it along trajectories inside the certified invariant set; a local contraction in that set, verified numerically for the RTI/SQP scheme, would likely close the gap between theorem and experiment.
  • Editorial inference: the result could be turned into a self-testing MPC: the optimizer can estimate its own one-step contraction and the plant can estimate the fast dynamics' decay rate online, then adjust δ or κ to satisfy the key inequality, yielding an adaptive version of the scheme.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SMART-MPC, a framework for suboptimal and reduced-order nonlinear model predictive control of continuous-time interconnected systems. The plant is a two-timescale system (1) with target state x and fast extra state ξ; the MPC optimizer is modeled as a discrete-time dynamical system (12) that performs a generic optimization algorithm for a finite number of iterations. The controller uses a reduced-order prediction model that constrains the extra dynamics to its equilibrium manifold. The main result, Theorem 1, claims that under Assumptions 1–4, for every r>0 and γ∈(0,γmax), there exist δ̄,κ̄ such that for all sufficiently small sampling intervals δ with ε=rδ and κ≥κ̄, the closed-loop system (13) is recursively feasible and exponentially stable at (x⋆, ξ_eq(x⋆,Π(z⋆(x⋆))), z⋆(x⋆)). The proof uses a singular-perturbation decomposition: Lemma 1 establishes Lipschitz and sampling bounds, Lemma 2 treats the boundary-layer system, Lemma 3 treats the reduced system, and Theorem 2 from Appendix A is invoked to combine them. The theoretical claims are complemented by MuJoCo experiments on an underactuated PenduBot.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a useful unifying framework for two practically important MPC approximations—suboptimal optimization and reduced-order prediction—by treating the sampling time as a tunable parameter and the optimizer as part of the closed-loop dynamics. The proof strategy is conceptually appealing and the assumptions are stated explicitly rather than hidden. The paper also benefits from a disclosed preliminary version [36], a re-proved and generalized prior result [41], and extensive virtual experiments. However, several load-bearing gaps in the current manuscript prevent the theorem from being accepted as proven. The most serious is a coordinate mismatch in the application of Theorem 2: Lemma 2 proves decrease in coordinates relative to the z-dependent equilibrium ξ_eq(x,Π(z)), while Theorem 2 requires a boundary-layer deviation from the manifold h(x)=(ξ_eq(x,Π(z⋆(x))), z⋆(x)). There is also an unstated identification between the MPC internal prediction model F^R_MPC and the exact sampled reduced map f^R, and a locality gap in the verification of condition (A.8). These issues are substantial but appear repairable, so the manuscript is not beyond the scope o

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Appendix A] The application of Theorem 2 uses the wrong boundary-layer coordinate. Theorem 2 (Appendix A) requires the equilibrium manifold h(x)=(ξ_eq(x,Π(z⋆(x))), z⋆(x)) and the boundary-layer variable ψ=y−h(x); condition (A.6) must hold for U(ψ). However, Lemma 2 proves decrease of U(ξ̃,z̃) with ξ̃=ξ−ξ_eq(x,Π(z)) (Eqs. (25), (28)), i.e., the deviation from a z-dependent equilibrium, not from ξ_eq(x,Π(z⋆(x))). These two deviations differ whenever z−z⋆(x)≠0. Consequently, the claimed decrease of V in Eq. (19), stated in Eq. (34), does not follow from Theorem 2 as written. This is the central step of the proof of Theorem 1 and must be repaired, for example by carrying out the singular-perturbation argument in coordinates (x, ξ̃, z̃) with the equilibrium at the origin and re-deriving the cross-coupling bounds, or by proving a modified theorem with a state-dependent Lyapunov function.
  2. [Section 3.1 vs. Section 4.3] The paper identifies the MPC internal prediction model F^R_MPC in Eq. (11) with the exact sampled reduced dynamics f^R in Eq. (23), but these are different objects. The feasible set X_T in Eq. (14) is defined through F^R_MPC, a discrete-time approximation of the reduced continuous-time dynamics, while Lemma 3 and the reduced system (30) use f^R, the exact sample map. Since the optimizer state z⋆(x) and the algorithm A in Assumption 3 solve problem (11) using F^R_MPC, the reduced closed-loop dynamics are not f^R(x,Π(z⋆(x)),δ) unless F^R_MPC≡f^R. No consistency condition or approximation-error bound is provided. The simulations use RK4 with δ_MPC=0.07 s, so this is not merely a formal distinction. This gap must be addressed, either by assuming exact discretization or by including the discretization mismatch explicitly in the analysis.
  3. [Section 4.4, condition (A.8)] Condition (A.8) of Theorem 2 requires f(x,y,δ)∈X_0 for all (x,y)∈X_0×Y. In the paper, the verification in Eqs. (31)–(33) is performed only on Ω_V(γ), not on the full product X_T×Ξ×Z required by the theorem. The argument then invokes Theorem 2 to obtain forward invariance of Ω_V(γ), but forward invariance is exactly what is needed to justify restricting the verification to Ω_V(γ). As written, the proof is circular. A local version of Theorem 2 that establishes invariance and the Lyapunov decrease simultaneously on a sublevel set would be needed, or the condition (A.8) must be verified on the full domain.
  4. [Assumption 3 vs. Section 5] Assumption 3 requires a unique globally exponentially stable equilibrium z⋆(x) for the optimizer dynamics A(z,x) for every x∈X_T, with a known Lyapunov function L satisfying (16). This is a very strong property, especially for the nonconvex OCP (11). The experiments in Section 5 use a single SQP/RTI iteration per sampling instant, but the paper provides no verification—analytical or numerical—that this algorithm satisfies Assumption 3, nor even that the relevant fixed point and contraction exist over the operating region. Since real-time SQP schemes are typically only locally contractive, the experimental demonstration does not validate the theorem in the regime claimed. The paper should either prove or numerically check the contraction property for the RTI scheme, or state the experimental section as an illustration rather than a validation of Assumption 3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation, Eq. (23)] The notation f^R_MPC and f^R is easy to confuse. Consider renaming the exact sampled reduced map, e.g., f^R_exact, to emphasize that Eq. (23) is not the MPC prediction model used in Eq. (11).
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.4)] The statement 'we retain only the zeroth-order term in the Taylor expansion and bound the remainder linearly in δ' is imprecise. For a rigorous bound one should write the integral form of the remainder and give the explicit bound in terms of δ and the Lipschitz constants.
  3. [Theorem 1 statement] The recursive feasibility conclusion says Ω_V(γ) is forward invariant, implying x_t∈X_T. This is correct because V≥W and γ<γ_max, but the implication is not explicitly justified; a one-sentence clarification would help.
  4. [Figures 7–10] The experimental plots are informative, but the figures do not show the sampling instants or the actual MPC update times. Given that the paper emphasizes the sampling time δ as a design parameter, indicating the discretization grid would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is proven from Assumptions 1–4 via a self-contained two-timescale theorem; the only self-citations are disclosed and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Assumptions 1–4 supply Lipschitz continuity, a Lyapunov function for the extra dynamics, a Lyapunov function for the optimizer algorithm, and a Lyapunov function for the reduced-order plant. Lemma 1 turns these into δ-scaled bounds; Lemma 2 proves a boundary-layer decrease using only Assumptions 2–3 and the scaling ε=rδ; Lemma 3 proves a reduced-system decrease using Assumption 4; Theorem 2 (fully proven in Appendix A with explicit constants and a positive-definite Q(δ) criterion) composes these to obtain the closed-loop decrease (34) and recursive feasibility. No parameter is fitted to the conclusion, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the measured outcome. The references to the authors' prior work are not load-bearing: [36] is an explicitly disclosed preliminary version used only to describe differences, and [41] is the base theorem that Theorem 2 generalizes and re-proves in the appendix. The scaling ε=rδ is a hypothesis, not a fitted constant. The skeptic's boundary-layer coordinate-mismatch concern is a possible proof-completeness issue, not circularity: it does not make the claimed stability result an input of the derivation. The experiments are external validation and do not enter the proof.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem rests on four explicit assumptions plus one unstated identification. Assumptions 2-4 are strong structural conditions: the extra dynamics must admit an exponentially attracting equilibrium manifold with a known Lyapunov function; the optimizer iteration must be globally exponentially stable for every feasible x with a known Lyapunov function; and the reduced model under the optimal policy must be exponentially stabilizable. The unstated assumption is that the MPC internal model F^R_MPC exactly equals the sampled reduced dynamics f^R used in the proofs; in experiments an RK4 approximation with δ_MPC=0.07 s is used, and its error never enters the bounds. The scaling ε=rδ is explicit but is a design restriction: the theorem does not apply to fixed-ε systems. No free parameters are fitted to data; δ, ε, κ and the experimental δ_MPC/cost weights are user choices.

free parameters (6)
  • δ (sampling interval)
    The tunable design parameter of the theorem; the guarantees hold for δ∈(0,δ̄) with δ̄ unspecified.
  • ε (fast-dynamics timescale) = ε=L, 0.005 or 0.05 H in experiments
    Set to rδ in Theorem 1; in the PenduBot it is the armature inductance L.
  • r = ε/δ
    Arbitrary positive constant in Theorem 1; controls the boundary-layer contraction rate via a5=1-exp(-a3/(r a2)) (Eq. C.8).
  • κ (Lyapunov weight)
    Required to be ≥ κ̄ (Lemma 2, Theorem 1) to dominate the cross-term between optimizer error and extra-dynamics drift; not numerically tuned in experiments.
  • δ_MPC (MPC internal discretization step) = 0.07 s
    Experimental choice for RK4 discretization of the reduced model; not present in the theory.
  • Q, Q_f, R cost weights = diag(100,100,0.1,0.1), 0.1
    Hand-chosen in Section 5.1; not fitted.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: f_c and g_c are Lipschitz continuous.
    Standard regularity used throughout Lemma 1's Gronwall bounds and the sampled-data expansions; restricts the plant class.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: extra dynamics admits equilibrium manifold ξ_eq(x,u) and a Lyapunov function G with quadratic bounds (5).
    Enables freezing fast dynamics at manifold; verified for the DC motor but assumed for the general class.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3: optimizer dynamics A(z,·) has a unique globally exponentially stable equilibrium z⋆(x) with Lyapunov L and Lipschitz z⋆, A, Π.
    Strongest and least justified premise for generic optimization algorithms; global contraction is not verified for the single SQP iteration in experiments.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4: reduced model under optimal policy Π(z⋆(x)) is exponentially stable with Lyapunov W.
    Assumes the MPC design objective is met on the reduced subsystem; Remark 2 only gives qualitative sufficient conditions, not constructive verification.
  • ad hoc to paper Unstated identity F^R_MPC ≡ f^R between the MPC internal prediction model and the exact sampled reduced dynamics.
    Proofs use exact sampled reduced dynamics f^R (Eq. 23) while the OCP (11) and X_T use F^R_MPC; the RK4 discretization error in experiments is never bounded.
  • domain assumption Timescale scaling ε = rδ.
    Required to make the boundary-layer contraction per sample independent of δ (Eq. C.8); excludes the fixed-ε fast-sampling regime.
  • domain assumption Forward invariance of X×Ξ for system (1).
    Stated in Section 2 without proof; needed for sampled trajectories to remain in the domain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Suboptimal and Reduced-Order MPC via Timescale Separation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQ6XZIWS

@misc{pith2026260624641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Suboptimal and Reduced-Order MPC via Timescale Separation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQ6XZIWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.24641}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a generalized framework for the design and analysis of suboptimal and reduced-order nonlinear Model Predictive Control (MPC) architectures. The proposed framework manages real-time operation of MPC schemes by (i) computing the control action suboptimally, i.e., by running a generic optimal control algorithm for a finite number of iterations, and (ii) relying on a reduced-order model that neglects part of the plant dynamics (accounting for, e.g., unmodeled dynamics or a low-level compensator). To rigorously handle the interplay between optimization error and model mismatch, we treat the sampling time as a tunable design parameter. We analyze the resulting closed-loop system, comprising the full-order physical plant interconnected with the iterative optimization algorithm (treated as a dynamical system), by leveraging tools from timescale separation. We prove that operating at a sufficiently fast sampling rate ensures that the closed-loop system maintains recursive feasibility and achieves an exponentially stable equilibrium point. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is validated on an underactuated two-link robotic arm through virtual experiments in the high-fidelity MuJoCo physics engine.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24641 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Block diagram representation of the closed-loop system resulting from the interconnection of the full plant dynamics (2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Phase-portrait of the toy example showing the maximum forward invariant set Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Block diagram representation of the interconnected system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Block diagram representation of the boundary layer system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Block diagram representation of the reduced system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sequential snapshots of the PenduBot swing-up maneuver controlled via SMART-MPC in MuJoCo. Previous states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Closed-loop trajectories of the target states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Closed-loop trajectories of the target states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Closed-loop trajectories of the target states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Closed-loop trajectories of the target states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Timescale Separation Through the Lens of Operator Theory

    math.OC 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Two-timescale discrete-time fixed-point iterations converge linearly whenever the timescale parameter δ stays below an explicit bound δ̄ = c_S(1−c_F)/(L_FIX·L_S·(c_S+L_R)) built from operator contraction and Lipschitz...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [36]

    Nonlinear MPC for Feedback-Interconnected Systems: a Suboptimal and Reduced-Order Model Approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19336, 2025

    Stefano Di Gregorio, Guido Carnevale, and Giuseppe Notarstefano. Nonlinear MPC for Feedback-Interconnected Systems: a Suboptimal and Reduced-Order Model Approach.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19336, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [41]

    Tracking-based distributed equilibrium seeking for aggregative games.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 69(9):6026–6041, 2024

    Guido Carnevale, Filippo Fabiani, Filiberto Fele, Kostas Margellos, and Giuseppe Notarstefano. Tracking-based distributed equilibrium seeking for aggregative games.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 69(9):6026–6041, 2024

    2024

  3. [1]

    Model predictive control design: New trends and tools

    Alberto Bemporad. Model predictive control design: New trends and tools. InProceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 6678–6683. IEEE, 2006

    2006

  4. [2]

    Model predictive control.Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 38(13-56):7, 2016

    Basil Kouvaritakis and Mark Cannon. Model predictive control.Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 38(13-56):7, 2016

    2016

  5. [3]

    Nob Hill Publishing Madison, WI, 2020

    James Blake Rawlings, David Q Mayne, Moritz Diehl, et al.Model predictive control: theory, computation, and design, volume 2. Nob Hill Publishing Madison, WI, 2020. 25

    2020

  6. [4]

    Review on model predictive control: An engineering perspective.The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 117(5):1327–1349, 2021

    Max Schwenzer, Muzaffer Ay, Thomas Bergs, and Dirk Abel. Review on model predictive control: An engineering perspective.The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 117(5):1327–1349, 2021

    2021

  7. [5]

    Multi-rate control design leveraging control barrier functions and model predictive control policies

    Ugo Rosolia and Aaron D Ames. Multi-rate control design leveraging control barrier functions and model predictive control policies. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 5(3):1007–1012, 2020

    2020

  8. [6]

    Multi-rate planning and control of uncertain nonlinear systems: Model predictive control and control Lyapunov functions

    Noel Csomay-Shanklin, Andrew J Taylor, Ugo Rosolia, and Aaron D Ames. Multi-rate planning and control of uncertain nonlinear systems: Model predictive control and control Lyapunov functions. In2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 3732–3739. IEEE, 2022

    2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    Unified multirate control: From low-level actuation to high-level planning

    Ugo Rosolia, Andrew Singletary, and Aaron D Ames. Unified multirate control: From low-level actuation to high-level planning. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 67(12):6627–6640, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    An MPC approach to the design of two-layer hierarchical control systems.Automatica, 46(5):823–831, 2010

    Bruno Picasso, Daniele De Vito, Riccardo Scattolini, and Patrizio Colaneri. An MPC approach to the design of two-layer hierarchical control systems.Automatica, 46(5):823–831, 2010

    2010

  3. [9]

    A dual-level model predictive control scheme for multitimescale dynamical systems.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 53(3):1630–1643, 2022

    Xinglong Zhang, Wei Jiang, Shuyou Yu, Xin Xu, and Zhizhong Li. A dual-level model predictive control scheme for multitimescale dynamical systems.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 53(3):1630–1643, 2022

    2022

  4. [10]

    Model predictive control of nonlinear singularly perturbed systems: Application to a large-scale process network.Journal of Process Control, 21(9):1296–1305, 2011

    Xianzhong Chen, Mohsen Heidarinejad, Jinfeng Liu, David Munoz De La Pena, and Panagiotis D Christofides. Model predictive control of nonlinear singularly perturbed systems: Application to a large-scale process network.Journal of Process Control, 21(9):1296–1305, 2011

    2011

  5. [11]

    Towards a theory of control architecture: A quantitative framework for layered multi-rate control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15185, 2024

    Nikolai Matni, Aaron D Ames, and John C Doyle. Towards a theory of control architecture: A quantitative framework for layered multi-rate control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15185, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Model predictive control using reduced order models: Guaranteed stability for constrained linear systems.Journal of Process Control, 24(11):1647–1659, 2014

    Martin Loehning, Marcus Reble, Jan Hasenauer, Shuyou Yu, and Frank Allgoewer. Model predictive control using reduced order models: Guaranteed stability for constrained linear systems.Journal of Process Control, 24(11):1647–1659, 2014

    2014

  7. [13]

    Reduced order model predictive control for setpoint tracking

    Joseph Lorenzetti, Benoit Landry, Sumeet Singh, and Marco Pavone. Reduced order model predictive control for setpoint tracking. In2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC), pages 299–306. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  8. [14]

    Error bounds for reduced order model predictive control

    Joseph Lorenzetti and Marco Pavone. Error bounds for reduced order model predictive control. In2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2521–2528. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  9. [15]

    Certified model predictive control for switched evolution equations using model order reduction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12930, 2024

    Michael Kartmann, Mattia Manucci, Benjamin Unger, and Stefan Volkwein. Certified model predictive control for switched evolution equations using model order reduction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12930, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Tube-based robust MPC for two-timescale systems using reduced-order models.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7:799–804, 2022

    Wenqing Wang and Justin P Koeln. Tube-based robust MPC for two-timescale systems using reduced-order models.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7:799–804, 2022

    2022

  11. [17]

    Data-driven spectral submanifold reduction for nonlinear optimal control of high-dimensional robots

    John Irvin Alora, Mattia Cenedese, Edward Schmerling, George Haller, and Marco Pavone. Data-driven spectral submanifold reduction for nonlinear optimal control of high-dimensional robots. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2627–2633. ...

    2023

  12. [18]

    Model predictive control with non-uniformly spaced optimization horizon for multi-timescale processes.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 84:162–170, 2016

    Chee Keong Tan, Michael James Tippett, and Jie Bao. Model predictive control with non-uniformly spaced optimization horizon for multi-timescale processes.Computers & Chemical Engineering, 84:162–170, 2016

    2016

  13. [19]

    Multi-timescale model predictive control for slow-fast systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14311, 2025

    Lukas Schroth, Daniel Morton, Amon Lahr, Daniele Gammelli, Andrea Carron, and Marco Pavone. Multi-timescale model predictive control for slow-fast systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14311, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  14. [20]

    A real-time iteration scheme for nonlinear optimization in optimal feedback control.SIAM Journal on control and optimization, 43(5):1714–1736, 2005

    Moritz Diehl, Hans Georg Bock, and Johannes P Schl¨ oder. A real-time iteration scheme for nonlinear optimization in optimal feedback control.SIAM Journal on control and optimization, 43(5):1714–1736, 2005

    2005

  15. [21]

    From linear to nonlinear MPC: bridging the gap via the real-time iteration.International Journal of Control, 93(1):62–80, 2020

    S´ ebastien Gros, Mario Zanon, Rien Quirynen, Alberto Bemporad, and Moritz Diehl. From linear to nonlinear MPC: bridging the gap via the real-time iteration.International Journal of Control, 93(1):62–80, 2020

    2020

  16. [22]

    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, 2002

    2002

  17. [23]

    Stability and incremental improvement of suboptimal MPC without terminal constraints.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 55(11):2576–2580, 2010

    Knut Graichen and Andreas Kugi. Stability and incremental improvement of suboptimal MPC without terminal constraints.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 55(11):2576–2580, 2010

    2010

  18. [24]

    Stabilizing linear model predictive control under inexact numerical optimization.IEEE Trans

    Matteo Rubagotti, Panagiotis Patrinos, and Alberto Bemporad. Stabilizing linear model predictive control under inexact numerical optimization.IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 59(6):1660–1666, 2014

    2014

  19. [25]

    A Lyapunov function for the combined system-optimizer dynamics in inexact model predictive control.Automatica, 134:109901, 2021

    Andrea Zanelli, Quoc Tran-Dinh, and Moritz Diehl. A Lyapunov function for the combined system-optimizer dynamics in inexact model predictive control.Automatica, 134:109901, 2021

    2021

  20. [26]

    On the finite-time behavior of suboptimal linear model predictive control

    Aren Karapetyan, Efe C Balta, Andrea Iannelli, and John Lygeros. On the finite-time behavior of suboptimal linear model predictive control. In2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 5053–5058. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  21. [27]

    Closed-loop finite-time analysis of suboptimal online control

    Aren Karapetyan, Efe C Balta, Andrea Iannelli, and John Lygeros. Closed-loop finite-time analysis of suboptimal online control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  22. [28]

    Sampled-data systems: Stability, contractivity and single-iteration suboptimal MPC.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18336, 2025

    Yiting Chen, Francesco Bullo, and Emiliano Dall’Anese. Sampled-data systems: Stability, contractivity and single-iteration suboptimal MPC.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18336, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Optimization-based control by interconnection of nonlinear port-hamiltonian systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06670, 2026

    Till Preuster, Hannes Gernandt, and Manuel Schaller. Optimization-based control by interconnection of nonlinear port-hamiltonian systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06670, 2026

    2026

  24. [30]

    Coupling optimization algorithms and monotone control systems: Suboptimal model predictive control as an operator splitting scheme.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23581, 2026

    Till Preuster, Hannes Gernandt, and Manuel Schaller. Coupling optimization algorithms and monotone control systems: Suboptimal model predictive control as an operator splitting scheme.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23581, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Multi-time scale control and optimization via averaging and singular perturbation theory: From ODEs to hybrid dynamical systems.Annual Reviews in Control, 56:100926, 2023

    Mahmoud Abdelgalil, Daniel E Ochoa, and Jorge I Poveda. Multi-time scale control and optimization via averaging and singular perturbation theory: From ODEs to hybrid dynamical systems.Annual Reviews in Control, 56:100926, 2023. 26

    2023

  26. [32]

    Online optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking.IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 7(1):422–432, 2019

    Marcello Colombino, Emiliano Dall’Anese, and Andrey Bernstein. Online optimization as a feedback controller: Stability and tracking.IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 7(1):422–432, 2019

    2019

  27. [33]

    Timescale separation in autonomous optimization.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(2):611–624, 2020

    Adrian Hauswirth, Saverio Bolognani, Gabriela Hug, and Florian D¨ orfler. Timescale separation in autonomous optimization.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(2):611–624, 2020

    2020

  28. [34]

    Online feedback equilibrium seeking.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 70(1):203–218, 2024

    Giuseppe Belgioioso, Dominic Liao-McPherson, Mathias Hudoba de Badyn, Saverio Bolognani, Roy S Smith, John Lygeros, and Florian D¨ orfler. Online feedback equilibrium seeking.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 70(1):203–218, 2024

    2024

  29. [35]

    Nonconvex distributed feedback optimization for aggregative cooperative robotics.Automatica, 167:111767, 2024

    Guido Carnevale, Nicola Mimmo, and Giuseppe Notarstefano. Nonconvex distributed feedback optimization for aggregative cooperative robotics.Automatica, 167:111767, 2024

    2024

  30. [37]

    Hybrid control of the pendubot.IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, 7(1):79–86, 2002

    Mingjun Zhang and Tzyh-Jong Tarn. Hybrid control of the pendubot.IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, 7(1):79–86, 2002

    2002

  31. [38]

    Princeton University Press, 2008

    VijaySekhar Chellaboina and Wassim M Haddad.Nonlinear dynamical systems and control: A Lyapunov-based approach. Princeton University Press, 2008

    2008

  32. [39]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control

    Emanuel Todorov, Tom Erez, and Yuval Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 5026–5033. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  33. [40]

    CasADi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control.Mathematical Programming Computation, 11(1):1–36, 2019

    Joel AE Andersson, Joris Gillis, Greg Horn, James B Rawlings, and Moritz Diehl. CasADi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control.Mathematical Programming Computation, 11(1):1–36, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Elsevier, 1997

    William F Ames and BG Pachpatte.Inequalities for differential and integral equations, volume 197. Elsevier, 1997. 27

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.