Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Indirect data-driven predictive control and the state-space predictor

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trajectory predictive control with the state-space predictor is exactly linear MPC, so data-driven controllers inherit MPC's stability and feasibility theory.

desk verdict A genuinely useful unification: TPC with the state-space predictor is exactly linear MPC on the identified model; the inheritance claim for MPC guarantees is the one real overreach. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.10936 v2 pith:JD4V6CSQ submitted 2026-02-11 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC

Levi D. Reyes Premer , Arash J. Khabbazi , Kevin J. Kircher This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYmath.OC
keywords trajectorypredictivecontroldata-drivenstate-spacepredictormodelsystemidentificationoutputfeedbackrecursivefeasibilitysubspace
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper defines trajectory predictive control (TPC) as a family of indirect data-driven predictive controllers—encompassing subspace predictive control, γ-DDPC, transient predictive control, and related methods—in which future outputs are a linear function of recent inputs/outputs and planned inputs. It introduces the state-space predictor, which represents the same prediction using an LTI state-space model whose state is the recent input/output history. The paper proves that TPC with this predictor is a special case of linear MPC: the two optimization problems have identical optimal solutions. If correct, the entire established theory of linear MPC—stability conditions, recursive feasibility, and robust, stochastic, and scenario extensions—applies to this data-driven controller. Numerical experiments show the state-space predictor is the most data-efficient and performs best on small training sets.

What carries the argument

The state-space predictor: a trajectory predictor built from a one-step ARX model, lifted into an LTI state-space model (16) with the recent input/output history zp(t) as the state. The construction (Lemma 2, Algorithm 2) defines A, B, C, D, K so that iterative application of the one-step predictor exactly matches the state-space model; this bijection is what makes TPC an instance of MPC and carries the whole argument.

What would settle it

Simulate TPC with the state-space predictor on a constrained LTI plant using training data gathered under a fixed controller with weak excitation; if the closed loop violates constraints or diverges even though the equivalent MPC (24) is recursively feasible for the identified model, the transfer of guarantees to the real plant is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that TPC with the state-space predictor is not an approximation of MPC but an exact special case. Theorem 3 establishes an equivalence between the trajectory predictor (future outputs as linear functions of recent history and planned inputs) and an innovations-form LTI state-space model whose state is the recent input/output history. Corollary 4 states that the TPC optimization (4) and the equivalent MPC optimization (24) have identical optimal solutions. The paper therefore argues that all theoretical guarantees of linear MPC—conditions for stability, recursive feasibility, and extensions to robust, stochastic, and scenario formulations—apply to this data-driven control

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the one-step ARX model fitted from finite, noisy training data is an accurate description of the true plant, since the equivalence holds for the identified model and stability/feasibility guarantees only transfer to the real closed loop if that model is good.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TPC with the state-space predictor inherits linear MPC's stability conditions and recursive feasibility guarantees.
  • The same controller can be extended to robust, stochastic, or scenario MPC using established methods.
  • No state estimator is needed: the state is the perfectly observed recent input/output history, giving output-feedback control without estimation.
  • The state-space predictor requires the fewest parameters and fewest training examples of the predictors compared, making it the most data-efficient option.
  • Since TPC is equivalent to MPC, other linear control design tools—H2/H∞ synthesis, system-level synthesis—become available to data-driven controllers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication left implicit is that any existing linear MPC implementation can be repurposed as a TPC controller by fitting the one-step ARX model, so data-driven control can immediately use mature MPC software, tuning rules, and warm-starting.
  • The parameter-count advantage suggests the state-space predictor should be the default choice for adaptive or online learning settings where training data accumulate slowly; a testable prediction is that its edge over other predictors grows with system dimension and horizon length.
  • Because the equivalence is algebraic, the hard part of applying the inherited guarantees is the quality of the one-step ARX fit; the paper's own limitations section notes that formal stability and feasibility certificates are not actually derived, so a follow-up could quantify how model error degrades those guarantees.
  • The same state-space structure could be extended to nonlinear or time-varying plants by replacing the linear ARX fit with a nonlinear predictor while keeping the MPC-equivalent optimization form.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines trajectory predictive control (TPC) as a class of indirect data-driven predictive control methods whose output predictor is linear in past inputs/outputs and future inputs, and shows that several DDPC variants (SPC, γ-DDPC, causal-γ-DDPC, transient predictive control, closed-loop SPC) are instances of TPC with specific predictors. The main theoretical contribution is a new 'state-space predictor' constructed from a one-step ARX fit, which the authors claim makes TPC exactly equivalent to linear MPC with a state-space model whose state is the recent input/output history. Corollary 4 states that the TPC and MPC optimizations have identical optimal solutions. The paper further claims that TPC therefore inherits the stability and recursive-feasibility guarantees of linear MPC. Numerical experiments on a double-integrator example compare the predictors and show that the state-space predictor is competitive, particularly with small training datasets.

Significance. If the central equivalence is correct, the paper provides a clean bridge between indirect DDPC and conventional linear MPC, which would be a valuable conceptual contribution: it would allow the application of a mature body of MPC theory to a broad family of data-driven controllers. The state-space predictor also appears to be genuinely simpler and more data-efficient than other unstructured predictors, and the unification of earlier DDPC variants is useful. The paper's algebraic derivations and the equivalence theorem are the strongest parts; the numerical experiments are reproducible in principle. However, the claimed inheritance of MPC guarantees is overstated for the real closed loop unless model-error conditions are stated and proved.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-A, after Corollary 4; §VI] The sentence 'TPC with the state-space predictor therefore inherits the theoretical guarantees that linear MPC enjoys, such as conditions for stability and recursive feasibility' is not supported by the results. The equivalence in Theorem 3 and Corollary 4 holds for the identified model, whose matrices A,B,C,D are least-squares estimates from finite noisy data (Algorithm 2). Classical MPC stability and feasibility theorems [18,19] assume the prediction model is exact or that a known uncertainty set is used. The paper's own Limitations section states that 'Certificates of stability and recursive feasibility could be formalized by reducing TPC to MPC', which concedes that these certificates are not actually proved. The claim should be qualified to the design model, or the authors should prove transfer conditions (e.g., robust MPC with an uncertainty set, or a stochastic framework) under wh
  2. [Theorem 3, Algorithm 2, Eq. (24)] There is a notation conflict that obscures the central theorem. Algorithm 2 first defines A and B from (18), then overwrites them via 'A = A - KC, B = B - KD'. Theorem 3 says it uses A,B 'according to Algorithm 2', but the MPC problem (24) explicitly uses 'A, B, C, and D defined by (18)', i.e., the original matrices. The proof's final sentence also refers to 'A,B,K defined as in (18)', contradicting the theorem statement. This makes it impossible for a reader to verify Corollary 4 without reconstructing the intended algebra. Use distinct symbols (e.g., Ā = A - KC, B̄ = B - KD) for the intermediate quantities and state explicitly whether (23) and (24) use A,B from (18) or the overwritten Ā,B̄.
  3. [Eq. (16) and Algorithm 2] The dimension statement before (16) says C ∈ R^{h ny × mnz} and D ∈ R^{h ny × h nu}, but y(t) is ny-dimensional and in Lemma 2 C = P1 ∈ R^{ny × mnz}, D = F11 ∈ R^{ny × nu}. This appears to be a typo, but it is confusing in a paper whose core is a state-space equivalence. Correct the dimensions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3 statement] The phrase 'For mA' appears to be a typo; should read 'For A, B, C, D, K, P, F, and Φy constructed according to Algorithm 2'.
  2. [§V-A, Fig. 2] In the top-left panel, the d=30 bars for predictors other than the state-space predictor extend off the vertical axis; the text mentions values up to 0.38. It would help to show these values or use a broken axis, since the comparison at small d is a key empirical claim.
  3. [§V-A, AIC discussion] The statement that the AIC 'usually suggests a memory of one or two time steps and rarely more than three' is a qualitative summary; consider reporting the selected m values or a small table for reproducibility.
  4. [§VI] The first paragraph repeats the unqualified inheritance claim from §IV-A; even if the earlier text is revised, ensure the summary and conclusion are consistent with the qualified statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the TPC–MPC equivalence is a proved algebraic identity constructed from a one-step ARX fit, though the 'inherits MPC guarantees' claim overreaches for estimated models.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Algorithm 2 fits C and D by a one-step least-squares ARX model, then constructs A, B, K and Phi_p, Phi_u, Phi_y explicitly from (18) and (22); Lemma 2 and Theorem 3 prove, rather than assume, that the resulting trajectory predictor (3) is equivalent to the innovations-form state-space model (23). Corollary 4 is then a direct bijection between the TPC optimization (4) and the MPC optimization (24). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise is imported from the authors' own prior work. The only flagged concern is the sentence after Corollary 4 claiming TPC 'inherits the theoretical guarantees that linear MPC enjoys, such as conditions for stability and recursive feasibility,' which is an overstatement because the A, B, C, D matrices are least-squares estimates from finite noisy data; the paper's own Limitations section concedes 'Certificates of stability and recursive feasibility could be formalized by reducing TPC to MPC,' indicating these certificates are not actually provided. That is a correctness/rigor gap, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the state-space predictor is a method, not a postulated object. The central algebraic result rests on standard linear algebra plus the domain assumption that an ARX model of memory m captures the plant. The main unproven premise is that MPC guarantees transfer to the estimated model.

free parameters (4)
  • memory m = selected per dataset via AIC; typically 1–3 in experiments
    The trajectory predictor depends on the memory length m, chosen by model selection (AIC) for each training set.
  • prediction horizon h = 10 in §V-A
    h is fixed to 10 for all predictors in the experiments; performance depends on this choice.
  • regularization weight lambda = 0.1 in §V-B
    Used in the relax-and-regularize variant; chosen by hand for the example and affects the reported 14% comparison.
  • one-step predictor coefficients (C,D) = estimated by least squares per training dataset
    Algorithm 2 fits C,D from training data; these identified coefficients drive the state-space predictor and all numerical results. They are model parameters fitted to data, not auxiliary constants.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The true plant is LTI and admits an exact finite-memory ARX representation with memory m.
    Proposition 1 and Algorithm 2 rely on the one-step ARX model (17) being a valid description of the system; the double-integrator experiment satisfies this, but general LTI systems may need m at least the state dimension.
  • domain assumption Training data matrices used for pseudoinverse have full row rank (persistent excitation).
    Least-squares solutions and subspace/multistep predictors require full row rank of Z,U blocks (mentioned around (8) and Table I).
  • ad hoc to paper Standard linear MPC stability and recursive-feasibility theorems apply to the identified model as if it were the true system.
    The 'inherits MPC theory' claim after Corollary 4 requires this; it is asserted without proof and acknowledged as future work in Limitations.
  • domain assumption Willems' fundamental lemma conditions hold when discussing DeePC connections.
    The motivational comparison to DeePC assumes deterministic LTI, controllable system and persistently exciting inputs; the TPC framework itself does not strictly depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indirect data-driven predictive control and the state-space predictor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JD4V6CSQ

@misc{pith2026260210936,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indirect data-driven predictive control and the state-space predictor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JD4V6CSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.10936}
}
read the original abstract

We define trajectory predictive control (TPC) as a class of indirect data-driven predictive control (DDPC) methods that represent future outputs as linear in past inputs/outputs and future inputs. TPC unifies many DDPC variants with different predictor structures. We introduce a predictor with a state-space representation and show that with it, TPC inherits the mature theory of linear model predictive control. In numerical experiments, the state-space predictor outperforms existing predictors, especially for small training datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10936 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Number of estimated parameters in each trajectory predictor. Formulas are general; curves use memory m = 20, prediction horizon h = 15, and input dimension nu = ny/2. Unlike most output-feedback MPC methods, TPC with the state-space predictor does not require a state estimator. This is because the controller has perfect knowledge of the state zp(t), which is just the recent inputs u(t − m), . . . , u(t − 1) interlea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean prediction RMSEs for each predictor on test data gathered in open (left column) and closed loop (center) with training data gathered in open (top row) and closed loop (bottom) over 1,000 Monte Carlo runs. Mean control costs (right) are normalized by the oracle LQG mean cost. A. Predictor generalization and closed-loop performance We evaluate TPC with the subspace, multistep, transient, fixed-length, and state-s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TPC output y1 (top row) and input u (bottom) with (left column) and without (right) relaxing the equality constraint in (4) and regularizing the slack variable ef (t). While the relax-and-regularize approach uses less control effort, it performs worse for tracking and worse overall. improvement comes from imposing causal structure on the subspace predictor, which produces the multistep predictor. Imposing further st… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The residual fits end at i = h with estimation of φu h and φy h−1

    The residual fits proceed for each i-step-ahead predictor, subtracting the influence of all previously esti mated parameters from y(t + i − 1). The residual fits end at i = h with estimation of φu h and φy h−1. The full Φp, Φu, and Φy can then be formed and the fixed-length predictor matrices Pfxl, Ffxl defined as in (14). In [32], Dong et al. refer to TPC wit...

  2. [2]

    u⋆(h|t)    , y ⋆ f (t) =    y⋆(1|t)

    Then u⋆ f (t) =    u⋆(1|t) . . . u⋆(h|t)    , y ⋆ f (t) =    y⋆(1|t) . . . y⋆(h|t)    are optimal for the TPC problem (4) if and only if u⋆(1|t), . . . , u⋆(h|t), y⋆(1|t), . . . , y⋆(h|t), and x⋆(1|t), . . . , x⋆(h+1|t) are optimal for the MPC problem (24). Proof. The result follows from Theorem 3, which establishes a bijection between the var...

  3. [3]

    The matrix on the lefthand side is invertible if F has full column rank

    Elimi- nating yf (t) reduces (2) to an unconstrained convex quadratic program in (uf (t), ef (t)) with solution satisfying [ F ⊤QF F ⊤Q QF Q + λI ] [u⋆ f (t) e⋆ f (t) ] = [ F ⊤ I ] Q(P zp(t) − ˆyrf (t)). The matrix on the lefthand side is invertible if F has full column rank. We implement the ‘relax-and-regularize’ TPC policy with the state-space predicto...

  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. 4-5, pp. 667– 682, 1999

    1999

  5. [5]

    SPC: Subspace pre dictive control,

    W. Favoreel, B. De Moor, and M. Gevers, “SPC: Subspace pre dictive control,” IF AC Proceedings V olumes, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 4004–4009, 1999

    1999

  6. [6]

    An overview of systems-theoretic guaran- tees in data-driven model predictive control,

    J. Berberich and F. Allg¨ ower, “An overview of systems-theoretic guaran- tees in data-driven model predictive control,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 77–100, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    On direct vs indirect da ta-driven predictive control,

    V . Krishnan and F. Pasqualetti, “On direct vs indirect da ta-driven predictive control,” in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 736–741

    2021

  8. [8]

    Data-driven control: Part two of two: Hot ta ke: Why not go with models?

    F. D¨ orfler, “Data-driven control: Part two of two: Hot ta ke: Why not go with models?” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 27–31, 2023

    2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

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

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

    2019

  2. [10]

    The behavioral approach to open and inter connected systems,

    J. C. Willems, “The behavioral approach to open and inter connected systems,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 46–99, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

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

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

    2021

  4. [12]

    Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness gua rantees,

    J. Berberich, J. K¨ ohler, M. A. M¨ uller, and F. Allg¨ ower , “Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness gua rantees,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1702–1717, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Distributiona lly robust chance constrained data-enabled predictive control,

    J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D¨ orfler, “Distributiona lly robust chance constrained data-enabled predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3289–3304, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

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

    F. D¨ orfler, J. Coulson, and I. Markovsky, “Bridging dir ect and indirect data-driven control formulations via regularizations and relaxations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 883–897, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Robust da ta-enabled predictive control: Tractable formulations and performan ce guarantees,

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

    2023

  8. [16]

    Data-driven p redictive control in a stochastic setting: A unified framework,

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

    2023

  9. [17]

    Har nessing uncertainty for a separation principle in direct data-driv en predictive control,

    A. Chiuso, M. Fabris, V . Breschi, and S. Formentin, “Har nessing uncertainty for a separation principle in direct data-driv en predictive control,” Automatica, vol. 173, p. 112070, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    N4SID: Subspace algori thms for the identification of combined deterministic-stochast ic systems,

    P . V an Overschee and B. De Moor, “N4SID: Subspace algori thms for the identification of combined deterministic-stochast ic systems,” Automatica, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 75–93, 1994

    1994

  11. [19]

    Subspace model identifica tion part 2: Analysis of the elementary output-error state-space model identification algorithm,

    M. V erhaegen and P . Dewilde, “Subspace model identifica tion part 2: Analysis of the elementary output-error state-space model identification algorithm,” International Journal of Control , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1211– 1241, 1992

    1992

  12. [20]

    J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, M. Diehl et al., Model predictive control: Theory, computation, and design . Nob Hill Publishing Madison, WI, 2020, vol. 2

    2020

  13. [21]

    Con- strained model predictive control: Stability and optimali ty,

    D. Q. Mayne, J. B. Rawlings, C. V . Rao, and P . O. Scokaert, “Con- strained model predictive control: Stability and optimali ty,” Automatica, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 789–814, 2000

    2000

  14. [22]

    Oops! I cannot do it again: Testing for rec ursive feasibility in MPC,

    J. L ¨ ofberg, “Oops! I cannot do it again: Testing for rec ursive feasibility in MPC,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 550–555, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Robust model predictive con trol: A survey,

    A. Bemporad and M. Morari, “Robust model predictive con trol: A survey,” in Robustness in Identification and Control . Springer, 2007, pp. 207–226

    2007

  16. [24]

    Stochastic model predictive control: An ov erview and perspectives for future research,

    A. Mesbah, “Stochastic model predictive control: An ov erview and perspectives for future research,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 30–44, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Robust model predictive control via scenario optimization,

    G. C. Calafiore and L. Fagiano, “Robust model predictive control via scenario optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 219–224, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. V andenberghe, Convex optimization . Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    A note on persistency of excitation,

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

    2005

  20. [28]

    On the persistency of excitation,

    I. Markovsky, E. Prieto-Araujo, and F. D¨ orfler, “On the persistency of excitation,” Automatica, vol. 147, p. 110657, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    The bias of subspa ce-based data- driven predictive control,

    K. Moffat, F. D¨ orfler, and A. Chiuso, “The bias of subspa ce-based data- driven predictive control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02468 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Closed- loop aspects of data-enabled predictive control,

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

    2023

  23. [31]

    Regularized an d distributionally robust data-enabled predictive control,

    J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D¨ orfler, “Regularized an d distributionally robust data-enabled predictive control,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 2696–2701

    2019

  24. [32]

    The transient pre dictor,

    K. Moffat, F. D¨ orfler, and A. Chiuso, “The transient pre dictor,” in 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1871–1876

    2024

  25. [33]

    Caus ality- informed data-driven predictive control,

    M. Sader, Y . Wang, D. Huang, C. Shang, and B. Huang, “Caus ality- informed data-driven predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    D. S. Bernstein, Matrix mathematics: Theory, facts, and formulas . Princeton University Press, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Closed-loop subs pace predic- tive control for fault tolerant MPC design,

    J. Dong, M. V erhaegen, and E. Holweg, “Closed-loop subs pace predic- tive control for fault tolerant MPC design,” IF AC Proceedings V olumes, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 3216–3221, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Closed-loop consistent, causal data-driven predictive control via SSARX,

    A. Liu and M. Jansson, “Closed-loop consistent, causal data-driven predictive control via SSARX,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14510 , 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Subspace identification and ARX modeling,

    M. Jansson, “Subspace identification and ARX modeling, ” IF AC Pro- ceedings V olumes, vol. 36, no. 16, pp. 1585–1590, 2003

    2003

  30. [38]

    System level synthesis,

    J. Anderson, J. C. Doyle, S. H. Low, and N. Matni, “System level synthesis,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 47, pp. 364–393, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    A distributionally rob ust approach to regret optimal control using the Wasserstein distance,

    F. Al Taha, S. Y an, and E. Bitar, “A distributionally rob ust approach to regret optimal control using the Wasserstein distance,” in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 2768–2775

    2023

  32. [40]

    A new look at the statistical model identific ation,

    H. Akaike, “A new look at the statistical model identific ation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 716–723, 1974

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.