Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Certainty-equivalent adaptive MPC for uncertain nonlinear systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A certainty-equivalent adaptive MPC proves that cumulative tracking error and constraint violation scale linearly with noise, disturbance, and parameter-drift energy, for open-loop stable nonlinear systems with large parametric uncertainty.

desk verdict The adaptive MPC machinery is novel and mostly careful, but Theorem 4 is false as stated: the proof silently treats y_k as h(x_k) while the system defines y_k = h(x_k,u_k,θ_k), and a simple scalar counterexample satisfies every stated assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.17843 v2 pith:R27ZE45N submitted 2026-03-18 math.OC cs.SYeess.SY

Johannes Köhler This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcs.SYeess.SY MSC 93B4593C4093D2593D3093C55
keywords adaptivemodelpredictivecontrolcertaintyequivalenceleast-mean-squareparameteradaptationnonlinearuncertainsystemstrackingMPCwithartificialreferencesinherentrobustnessconstraintviolationboundsopen-loopstable
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 sets out to show that an adaptive model predictive controller can track uncertain nonlinear systems without an offline-designed Lyapunov function: it couples a certainty-equivalent tracking MPC—one that trusts the current parameter estimate—with a projected least-mean-square update. For open-loop exponentially stable systems, the result is a semi-global guarantee: cumulative tracking error and state-constraint violation grow at most linearly with noise energy, disturbance energy, and the path length of parameter variation, with initial parameter error entering only as a transient constant. For stabilizable but not necessarily open-loop stable systems, the same combination gives a regional guarantee inside a computable region of attraction, provided the uncertainty stays sufficiently small. The paper matters because classical nonlinear adaptive control typically requires system-specific control-Lyapunov or barrier functions, while robust MPC requires small uncertainty; this scheme promises large parametric uncertainty with only standard regularity assumptions and no system-specific offline design.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the optimal value function J_N^*(x,θ) of a certainty-equivalent tracking MPC. The MPC optimizes over an artificial steady state (x_s,u_s,y_s) in the feasible-setpoint set S(θ), adds a quadratic offset penalty toward the target y_d, uses a finite-horizon rollout of the steady-state input (or of a local stabilizing feedback in the regional case) as a terminal penalty, and softens state constraints with quadratic penalties. Because the target is assumed feasible for every parameter (Assumption 3c), the optimal offset is zero and J_N^* itself becomes a Lyapunov function; Theorem 3 shows it contracts robustly, with growth bounded by prediction error and parameter-estima

What would settle it

Take a linear open-loop stable system satisfying all of the paper's assumptions, set noise and disturbances to zero, keep the parameter constant, but choose a target y_d that is infeasible for one parameter value in Θ. Run the controller: if the cumulative tracking error grows linearly with the horizon K rather than staying bounded as Corollary 2 predicts, then Assumption 3c is load-bearing. Alternatively, run the same controller on a marginally stable (non-exponentially stable) linear system with persistent noise and check whether the right-hand side of inequality (7) is violated, which would

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4: given compact bound sets, an open-loop exponentially stable nonlinear system whose dynamics are linear in the unknown parameters, and a certainty-equivalent tracking MPC with a finite-horizon rollout terminal cost, the closed loop driven by the LMS parameter update satisfies, for all horizons K, sum_{k=0}^{K-1} (||y_k - y_{rd,θ_k}||^2 + ||x_k||_X^2) ≤ C1 sum_{k=0}^{K-1} (||w_k||^2 + ||v_k||^2 + ||Δθ_k||) + C2(||θ_0 - θhat_0||^2 + ||x_0 - x_{rd,θ_0}||^2), with uniform constants. In words: every unit of noise, disturbance, or parameter drift enters the tracking and constraint-violation budget linearly, and the initial parameter error matters only through a const

Load-bearing premise

The strongest result assumes the desired output y_d is exactly a feasible steady-state output for every parameter in the known set (Assumption 3c), and that the system is globally open-loop exponentially stable for every parameter (Assumption 5); if either fails, the semi-global linear bound is not proven, and the paper's Appendix F notes that under only local Lipschitz continuity the semi-global claim additionally needs parameter drift to be sufficiently small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Theorem 4 is correct, adaptive MPC can accommodate arbitrarily large parametric uncertainty, noise, and disturbances for open-loop stable systems, with no offline design of a control-Lyapunov or barrier function.
  • In the disturbance-free, noise-free, constant-parameter case, the controller converges to the optimal feasible setpoint, and the cumulative tracking and constraint-violation error stays bounded even with a large initial parameter error.
  • The same controller directly handles input constraints, soft state constraints, and piecewise-constant reference changes, with computational cost only moderately above a standard MPC implementation.
  • For stabilizable systems, the regional version gives the same linear cumulative bound inside a specified region of attraction when noise, disturbance, and parameter uncertainty are small enough, using a local feedback such as an LQR as the terminal ingredient.
  • For linear systems, the assumptions reduce to Schur stability or stabilizability plus affine-in-θ parametrization, giving a broad generic class of linear problems to which the guarantee applies.
  • If the paper is right, it closes a practical gap: nonlinear adaptive control under constraints can be designed by choosing horizons and weights computationally, rather than by solving a symbolic Lyapunov design.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the guarantee is cumulative rather than pointwise, the scheme establishes performance under adaptation but not safety: pointwise state-constraint satisfaction would still require robust tubes or tightened constraints, which the paper explicitly does not claim.
  • The linear dependence on Δθ suggests time-varying parameters are tracked at a cost proportional to their total variation; a stress test would be to increase the drift bound in Lemma 9 until the contraction factor λ+c_θ||Δθ|| crosses 1 and observe where the stated guarantee breaks.
  • The quadrotor demonstration is presented as a simulation, not as a verification of the regional theorem's sufficient conditions; checking inequality (35) numerically would tell whether the guarantee, rather than only the simulation, drives the reported success.
  • If the feasible-target assumption fails, the Lyapunov argument would need an extra offset term; a natural extension is an output-offset estimator (as in offset-free MPC) to recover a modified bound with a persistent-offset constant.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a certainty-equivalent adaptive MPC scheme for discrete-time nonlinear systems with linearly parameterized dynamics. It combines a tracking MPC with artificial references, finite-horizon rollout terminal costs, soft state constraints, and a projected least-mean-square (LMS) parameter adaptation. The central claim is Theorem 4: for open-loop exponentially stable systems satisfying Assumptions 1–5, the closed loop satisfies the cumulative bound (7), in which tracking error and state-constraint violation are bounded linearly by disturbance/noise energy and parameter-variation path length, plus an initial-condition term. A regional variant for stabilizable systems is stated in Theorem 7. The paper also contains nominal stability and inherent-robustness theorems, a discussion of the special linear case, and two numerical studies with open-source code.

Significance. If Theorem 4 were correct, the paper would be a substantial contribution: it would give an implementable adaptive MPC for nonlinear systems without a control Lyapunov function, with a strong worst-case cumulative performance guarantee. The manuscript is well organized, contains detailed appendices, and the simulation code is a useful asset. However, the main theorem is false under the stated assumptions. The proof of Theorem 4 relates the output error to the state error using a Lipschitz condition on y=h(x), whereas the paper defines y_k=h(x_k,u_k,θ_k) and later explicitly allows h to depend on u and θ. A simple counterexample satisfying Assumptions 1–5 shows that the LMS estimator cannot identify parameters that appear only in the output map, producing a permanent tracking offset and violating (7). This flaw is load-bearing: it invalidates the paper's principal advertised contribution, and it also propagates to the regional result Theorem 7.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D.11); Theorem 4] The proof bounds the output tracking error using "Lipschitz continuity of y=h(x)", i.e., it treats the output as state-dependent only. But Eq. (4) defines y_k=h(x_k,u_k,θ_k), and Sec. 6.2 explicitly allows h=C_θ x + D_θ u + f_θ. This gap is fatal. Counterexample: n_x=n_u=n_y=n_θ=1, U=[-1,1], Θ=[0.5,2], W=V={0}, f=0.5x+u (so G≡0 in Assumption 2), h=θu, y_d=0.5. Then S(θ)={(2u,u,θu)} and y_rd,θ=0.5, so Assumptions 1, 3, and 5 hold. For true θ=2, θhat_0=1, x_0=1, the LMS regressor is zero, so θhat_k=1 forever; the MPC with θhat=1 selects the setpoint (1,0.5,0.5) and keeps x_k=1. The true output is y_k=2·0.5=1, hence ||y_k-y_rd,θ||^2=0.25 for all k, while the RHS of (7) is bounded. Inequality (7) therefore fails as K→∞. The structural cause is that the LMS update (10) only uses state-prediction error; parameters appearing only in h cannot be estimated.
  2. [Appendix E / Theorem 7] The regional result inherits the same output-map gap. Its proof concludes with "The remainder of the proof is analogous to Theorem 4", and the invalid Part I of the proof of Theorem 4 is exactly the step that relates y_k to the state error. Unless the output map is restricted (e.g., h independent of u and θ), or the adaptation is changed to use output prediction error, the regional claim is unsupported for the same reason. A revision cannot be limited to patching Eq. (D.11); it must either narrow the class of output maps or alter the performance bound to include an unavoidable output-identification offset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6.2] The text says "Assumption 3c) follows from linear independence constraint qualification and second order sufficient conditions ... Assumption 3d) requires a feasible target y_d." The labels appear swapped: Assumption 3c is the feasible-target condition, while Assumption 3d is the setpoint-regularity condition.
  2. [Abstract / Sec. 5] The abstract claims the approach "requires no system-specific offline design," but Section 5 relies on a locally stabilizing feedback κ (e.g., LQR), which is a system-specific design choice. The claim should be qualified to the open-loop stable setting of Section 4.
  3. [Sec. 7.2] The paper states that the quadrotor example does not verify the sufficient conditions of Theorem 7. The example should be presented explicitly as an illustration of practical behavior, not as numerical validation of the regional theorem.
  4. [Appendix B, Theorem 2] The key nominal-stability condition (B.3) is imported from [25, Thm. 6–7] via the phrase "adapts the worst-case linear programming analysis." Since this condition is load-bearing for the later robustness and adaptation results, a more self-contained statement of the imported LP result would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the adaptive bound is an analytic telescoping of the MPC Lyapunov decrease and LMS prediction-error decrease; same-author citations are external support, not inputs.

full rationale

The main result (Theorem 4) is not obtained by fitting parameters, renaming an input, or defining quantities in terms of the conclusion. Its proof combines two independent inequalities: the LMS decrease (Theorem 1, Eq. (11a)–(11b)) and the robust MPC decrease (Theorem 3, Eq. (26)). Telescoping these, as in Eqs. (D.13)–(D.15), yields the cumulative bound (7) with constants depending on the stated assumptions, not on the data or on the desired inequality. The nominal stability analysis invokes same-author prior theorems—e.g., in the proof of Theorem 2: "This problem has been analysed in [25, Thm. 6–7] using an LP analysis"—and Theorem 5 similarly cites [22, Thm. 4.37]. These are load-bearing citations, but they are previously published results with stated assumptions that do not include the adaptive cumulative bound, and they are used as lemmas rather than as a uniqueness or ansatz claim. Assumption 3c (y_rd,theta = y_d) is an explicit and restrictive feasibility assumption, not an identification of the theorem's conclusion with the problem definition. The paper itself flags that the quadrotor example does not verify Theorem 7's sufficient conditions (Sec. 7.2), and the proof of Theorem 4, Part I uses "Lipschitz continuity of y=h(x)" at Eq. (D.11) although the output in Eq. (4) also depends on u and theta; that is a correctness gap in the stated theorem, not a circular step. No specific circular reduction can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central bound is analytic and not obtained by fitting constants to data. The main 'cost' is a set of restrictive domain assumptions (compact known parameter set, linear parametrization, feasible target, open-loop exponential stability or local stabilizability), rather than free parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Prediction horizon N = N=6 (mass-spring), N=5 (quadrotor)
    Chosen sufficiently large per Thm. 2/5 to ensure α>0; not fitted to data.
  • Rollout/tail horizon M = M=22 (mass-spring), M=10 (quadrotor)
    Finite-tail terminal cost; chosen so that Cℓρ^M<1, yielding an approximate CLF.
  • Terminal weight ω = ω=5 (mass-spring); not stated for quadrotor
    Scaling of finite-tail cost; must satisfy ω≥1/(1−Cℓρ^M) for ϵf=0.
  • LMS gain Γ = Computed via SDP (D.8); no numeric value in text
    Chosen to satisfy Assumption 4 (ΦΓΦ^T⪯I) over the a-priori state bound; design parameter, not fitted to the tracking bound.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1 (compact known Θ and U, feasible steady-states, global Lipschitz f,h)
    Used throughout; restricts applicability to systems with known bounded uncertainty and uniform regularity.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2 (linear parametrization f linear in θ)
    Needed for LMS adaptation; excludes general nonlinear-in-parameter models.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3 (unique setpoints, convex output projection, feasible target y_rd,θ=y_d, Lipschitz setpoint map)
    Load-bearing: Assumption 3c zeroes the offset in the Lyapunov function; 3a-b enable Prop. 4.
  • domain assumption Assumption 5 (global open-loop exponential stability for all θ) for Objective 1
    Semi-global result requires contracting open-loop rollouts; not satisfied by unstable or marginally stable systems.
  • domain assumption Assumption 6 (local exponentially stabilizing feedback κ) for Objective 2
    Regional result replaces global stability with local stabilizability, but only small uncertainty.
  • standard math Theorem 6-7 of Köhler et al. [25] (LP stability condition)
    Used as a black box in the proof of Thm. 2 (Appendix B) to guarantee α>0; not re-derived here.
  • standard math Hoffman's lemma and implicit function theorem
    Used to relate soft-constraint penalties to point-to-set distance (App. D) and to define steady-state maps (Lemma 8).
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new physical entities, mediators, or forces are introduced.
    The artificial reference/setpoint is an optimization variable, not a postulated entity with independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Certainty-equivalent adaptive MPC for uncertain nonlinear systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R27ZE45N

@misc{pith2026260317843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Certainty-equivalent adaptive MPC for uncertain nonlinear systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R27ZE45N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.17843}
}
read the original abstract

We provide a method to design adaptive controllers for nonlinear systems using model predictive control (MPC). By combining a certainty-equivalent MPC formulation with least-mean-square parameter adaptation, we obtain an adaptive controller with strong robust performance guarantees: The cumulative tracking error and violation of state constraints scale linearly with noise energy, disturbance energy, and path length of parameter variation. A key technical contribution is developing the underlying certainty-equivalent MPC that tracks output references, accounts for actuator limitations and desired state constraints, requires no system-specific offline design, and provides strong inherent robustness properties. This is achieved by leveraging finite-horizon rollouts, artificial references, recent analysis techniques for optimization-based controllers, and relaxed soft state constraints. For open-loop stable systems, we derive a semi-global result that applies to arbitrarily large measurement noise, disturbances, and parametric uncertainty. For stabilizable systems, we derive a regional result that is valid within a given region of attraction and for sufficiently small uncertainty. Applicability and benefits are demonstrated with numerical simulations involving systems with large parametric uncertainty: a linear stable chain of mass-spring-dampers and a nonlinear unstable quadrotor navigating obstacles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Chain of masses connected by springs and dampers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation result for stable mass-spring-dampers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulation result for unstable nonlinear quadrotor. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Non-asymptotic Bounds of Learning-based Linear MPC With Input Constraints and Unbounded Stochastic Noise

    eess.SY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A certainty-equivalence MPC scheme with online least-squares identification and a deadbeat fallback attains a high-probability non-asymptotic practical stability bound for unknown input-constrained linear systems with...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [25]

    Stability and performance analysis of NMPC: Detectable stage costs and general terminal costs.IEEE Trans

    Johannes K¨ ohler, Melanie N Zeilinger, and Lars Gr¨ une. Stability and performance analysis of NMPC: Detectable stage costs and general terminal costs.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 68(10):6114–6129, 2023

    2023

  2. [1]

    Challenges of adaptive control–past, permanent and future.Annual reviews in control, 32(2):123–135, 2008

    Brian DO Anderson and Arvin Dehghani. Challenges of adaptive control–past, permanent and future.Annual reviews in control, 32(2):123–135, 2008

    2008

  3. [2]

    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

  4. [3]

    Adaptive control in the presence of saturation non-linearity.Int

    AM Annaswamy and Jo-Ey Wong. Adaptive control in the presence of saturation non-linearity.Int. J. Adaptive Control and Signal processing, 11(1):3–19, 1997

    1997

  5. [4]

    A historical perspective of adaptive control and learning

    Anuradha M Annaswamy and Alexander L Fradkov. A historical perspective of adaptive control and learning. Annual Reviews in Control, 52:18–41, 2021

    2021

  6. [5]

    Immersion and invariance: A new tool for stabilization and adaptive control of nonlinear systems.IEEE Trans

    Alessandro Astolfi and Romeo Ortega. Immersion and invariance: A new tool for stabilization and adaptive control of nonlinear systems.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 48(4):590–606, 2003

    2003

  7. [6]

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

    Julian Berberich, Johannes K¨ ohler, Matthias A M¨ uller, and Frank Allg¨ ower. Linear tracking mpc for nonlinear systems—part i: The model-based case.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 67(9):4390–4405, 2022

    2022

  8. [7]

    Athena Scientific, 2022

    Dimitri Bertsekas.Lessons from alphazero for optimal, model predictive, and adaptive control. Athena Scientific, 2022

    2022

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Adaptive optimal control: The thinking man ’s GPC

    Robert R Bitmead, Michel Gevers, and Vincent Wertz. Adaptive optimal control: The thinking man ’s GPC. Prentice Hall, 1990

    1990

  2. [9]

    Nonlinear MPC design for incrementally ISS systems with application to gru networks.Automatica, 159:111381, 2024

    Fabio Bonassi, Alessio La Bella, Marcello Farina, and Riccardo Scattolini. Nonlinear MPC design for incrementally ISS systems with application to gru networks.Automatica, 159:111381, 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    Indirect adaptive state feedback control of linearly parametrized non-linear systems

    Guy Campion and Georges Bastin. Indirect adaptive state feedback control of linearly parametrized non-linear systems. Int. J. Adaptive Control and Signal processing, 4(5):345–358, 1990

    1990

  4. [11]

    Adaptive tracking with saturating input and controller integral action.IEEE Trans

    Fatima-Zahra Chaoui, Fouad Giri, Luc Dugard, Jean-Michel Dion, and Mohammed M’saad. Adaptive tracking with saturating input and controller integral action.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 43(11):1638–1643, 1998. 12

    1998

  5. [12]

    Adaptive control of input-constrained type-1 plants stabilization and tracking.Automatica, 37(2):197–203, 2001

    FZ Chaoui, Fouad Giri, and Mohammed M’Saad. Adaptive control of input-constrained type-1 plants stabilization and tracking.Automatica, 37(2):197–203, 2001

    2001

  6. [13]

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

    H Chen and F Allg¨ ower. A quasi-infinite horizon nonlinear model predictive control scheme with guaranteed stability. Automatica, 34:1205–1217, 1998

    1998

  7. [14]

    Adaptive economic model predictive control: Performance guarantees for nonlinear systems.IEEE Trans

    Maximilian Degner, Raffaele Soloperto, Melanie N Zeilinger, John Lygeros, and Johannes K¨ ohler. Adaptive economic model predictive control: Performance guarantees for nonlinear systems.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 2026

    2026

  8. [15]

    A robust and adaptive MPC formulation for gaussian process models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02098, 2025

    Mathieu Dubied, Amon Lahr, Melanie N Zeilinger, and Johannes K¨ ohler. A robust and adaptive MPC formulation for gaussian process models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02098, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Robust discrete- time set-based adaptive predictive control for nonlinear systems.J

    Guilherme AA Gon¸ calves and Martin Guay. Robust discrete- time set-based adaptive predictive control for nonlinear systems.J. Proc. Contr., 39:111–122, 2016

    2016

  10. [17]

    Courier Corporation, 2014

    Graham C Goodwin and Kwai Sang Sin.Adaptive filtering prediction and control. Courier Corporation, 2014

    2014

  11. [18]

    Springer, 2017

    Lars Gr¨ une and J¨ urgen Pannek.Nonlinear Model Predictive Control. Springer, 2017

    2017

  12. [19]

    On approximate solutions of systems of linear inequalities

    Alan J Hoffman. On approximate solutions of systems of linear inequalities. InSelected Papers Of Alan J Hoffman: With Commentary, pages 174–176. World Scientific, 2003

    2003

  13. [20]

    Closed-loop finite-time analysis of suboptimal online control.IEEE Trans

    Aren Karapetyan, Efe C Balta, Andrea Iannelli, and John Lygeros. Closed-loop finite-time analysis of suboptimal online control.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 70(8):5270–5285, 2025

    2025

  14. [21]

    Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1996

    Islam SM Khalil, JC Doyle, and K Glover.Robust and optimal control. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1996

    1996

  15. [22]

    PhD thesis, Universit¨ at Stuttgart, 2021

    Johannes K¨ ohler.Analysis and design of MPC frameworks for dynamic operation of nonlinear constrained systems. PhD thesis, Universit¨ at Stuttgart, 2021. doi:0.18419/opus-11742

    2021

  16. [23]

    Stability and performance in MPC using a finite-tail cost

    Johannes K¨ ohler and Frank Allg¨ ower. Stability and performance in MPC using a finite-tail cost. InProc. IF AC Conf. Nonlinear Model Predictive Control, pages 166–171, 2021

    2021

  17. [24]

    A robust adaptive model predictive control framework for nonlinear uncertain systems

    Johannes K¨ ohler, Peter K¨ otting, Raffaele Soloperto, Frank Allg¨ ower, and Matthias A M¨ uller. A robust adaptive model predictive control framework for nonlinear uncertain systems. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, 31:8725–8749, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Adaptive nonlinear control without overparametrization

    M Krsti´ c, Ioannis Kanellakopoulos, and PV Kokotovi´ c. Adaptive nonlinear control without overparametrization. Systems & Control Letters, 19(3):177–185, 1992

    1992

  19. [27]

    Control lyapunov functions for adaptive nonlinear stabilization.Systems & Control Letters, 26(1):17–23, 1995

    Miroslav Krsti´ c and Peter V Kokotovi´ c. Control lyapunov functions for adaptive nonlinear stabilization.Systems & Control Letters, 26(1):17–23, 1995

    1995

  20. [28]

    Model predictive control for tracking using artificial references: Fundamentals, recent results and practical implementation

    Pablo Krupa, Johannes K¨ ohler, Antonio Ferramosca, Ignacio Alvarado, Melanie N Zeilinger, Teodoro Alamo, and Daniel Limon. Model predictive control for tracking using artificial references: Fundamentals, recent results and practical implementation. InProc. 63rd IEEE Conferenc...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Nonlinear MPC for tracking piece-wise constant reference signals.IEEE Trans

    Daniel Limon, Antonio Ferramosca, Ignacio Alvarado, and Teodoro Alamo. Nonlinear MPC for tracking piece-wise constant reference signals.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 63:3735–3750, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Barrier Lyapunov functions-based adaptive control for a class of nonlinear pure- feedback systems with full state constraints.Automatica, 64:70–75, 2016

    Yan-Jun Liu and Shaocheng Tong. Barrier Lyapunov functions-based adaptive control for a class of nonlinear pure- feedback systems with full state constraints.Automatica, 64:70–75, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Universal adaptive control of nonlinear systems.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 6:1826–1830, 2021

    Brett T Lopez and Jean-Jacques E Slotine. Universal adaptive control of nonlinear systems.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 6:1826–1830, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Adaptive variants of optimal feedback policies

    Brett T Lopez and Jean-Jacques E Slotine. Adaptive variants of optimal feedback policies. InProc. Learning for Dynamics and Control Conf., pages 1125–1136, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2019

    Brett Thomas Lopez.Adaptive robust model predictive control for nonlinear systems. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Robust MPC with recursive model update.Automatica, 103:461–471, 2019

    Matthias Lorenzen, Mark Cannon, and Frank Allg¨ ower. Robust MPC with recursive model update.Automatica, 103:461–471, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    A stabilizing model-based predictive control algorithm for nonlinear systems.Automatica, 37(9):1351–1362, 2001

    Lalo Magni, Giuseppe De Nicolao, Lorenza Magnani, and Riccardo Scattolini. A stabilizing model-based predictive control algorithm for nonlinear systems.Automatica, 37(9):1351–1362, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Robust learning-based MPC for nonlinear constrained systems.Automatica, 117:108948, 2020

    Jos´ e Mar ´ ıa Manzano, Daniel Limon, David Mu˜ noz de la Pe˜ na, and Jan-Peter Calliess. Robust learning-based MPC for nonlinear constrained systems.Automatica, 117:108948, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise.Automatica, 50(12):2967– 2986, 2014

    David Q Mayne. Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise.Automatica, 50(12):2967– 2986, 2014

    2014

  30. [38]

    Design issues in adaptive control.IEEE Trans

    Richard H Middleton, Graham C Goodwin, David J Hill, and David Q Mayne. Design issues in adaptive control.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 33(1):50–58, 1988

    1988

  31. [39]

    Nonlinear offset-free model predictive control.Automatica, 48(9):2059–2067, 2012

    Manfred Morari and Urban Maeder. Nonlinear offset-free model predictive control.Automatica, 48(9):2059–2067, 2012

  32. [40]

    Online convex optimization for constrained control of nonlinear systems.Automatica, 2026

    Marko Nonhoff, Johannes K¨ ohler, and Matthias A M¨ uller. Online convex optimization for constrained control of nonlinear systems.Automatica, 2026

    2026

  33. [41]

    Control of unknown nonlinear systems with linear time- varying MPC

    Dimitris Papadimitriou, Ugo Rosolia, and Francesco Borrelli. Control of unknown nonlinear systems with linear time- varying MPC. InProc. 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2258–2263, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Robust adaptive model predictive control for guaranteed fast and accurate stabilization in the presence of model errors

    Karime Pereida, Lukas Brunke, and Angela P Schoellig. Robust adaptive model predictive control for guaranteed fast and accurate stabilization in the presence of model errors. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, 31(18):8750–8784, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Robust adaptive tube tracking model predictive control forpiece-wise constant reference signals.Int

    Tobias Peschke and Daniel G¨ orges. Robust adaptive tube tracking model predictive control forpiece-wise constant reference signals.Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control, 33(14):8158–8182, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Adaptive nonlinear regulation: Estimation from the Lyapunov equation.IEEE Trans

    Jean-Baptiste Pomet, Laurent Praly, et al. Adaptive nonlinear regulation: Estimation from the Lyapunov equation.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 37(6):729–740, 1992

    1992

  37. [45]

    Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design

    James Blake Rawlings, David Q Mayne, and Moritz Diehl. Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design. Nob Hill Publishing, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    AC4MPC: Actor-critic reinforcement learning for nonlinear model predictive control.IEEE Trans

    Rudolf Reiter, Andrea Ghezzi, Katrin Baumg¨ artner, Jasper Hoffmann, Robert D McAllister, and Moritz Diehl. AC4MPC: Actor-critic reinforcement learning for nonlinear model predictive control.IEEE Trans. Control Systems Technology, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    Strongly regular generalized equations

    Stephen M Robinson. Strongly regular generalized equations. Mathematics of Operations Research, 5(1):43–62, 1980

    1980

  40. [48]

    Robustness of adaptive control algorithms in the 13 presence of unmodeled dynamics

    Charles E Rohrs, Lena Valavani, Michael Athans, and Gunter Stein. Robustness of adaptive control algorithms in the 13 presence of unmodeled dynamics. InProc. 21st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 3–11, 1982

    1982

  41. [49]

    On robustness of constrained discrete-time systems to state measurement errors.Automatica, 44(4):1161–1165, 2008

    BJP Roset, WPMH Heemels, Mircea Lazar, and Henk Nijmeijer. On robustness of constrained discrete-time systems to state measurement errors.Automatica, 44(4):1161–1165, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Robust adaptive MPC using control contraction metrics

    Andr´ as Sasfi, Melanie N Zeilinger, and Johannes K¨ ohler. Robust adaptive MPC using control contraction metrics. Automatica, 155:111169, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control.Annual Reviews in Control, 60:101034, 2025

    Anna Scampicchio, Elena Arcari, Amon Lahr, and Melanie N Zeilinger. Gaussian processes for dynamics learning in model predictive control.Annual Reviews in Control, 60:101034, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    Adaptive robust model predictive control with matched and unmatched uncertainty

    Rohan Sinha, James Harrison, Spencer M Richards, and Marco Pavone. Adaptive robust model predictive control with matched and unmatched uncertainty. InProc. American Control Conf. (ACC), pages 906–913, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Adaptive sliding controller synthesis for non-linear systems.Int

    J-JE Slotine and JA Coetsee. Adaptive sliding controller synthesis for non-linear systems.Int. J. Control, 43(6):1631– 1651, 1986

    1986

  46. [54]

    A nonlinear MPC scheme for output tracking without terminal ingredients.IEEE Trans

    Raffaele Soloperto, Johannes K¨ ohler, and Frank Allg¨ ower. A nonlinear MPC scheme for output tracking without terminal ingredients.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 68(4):2368–2375, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Adaptive tracking MPC for nonlinear systems via online linear system identification

    Tatiana Strelnikova, Johannes K¨ ohler, and Julian Berberich. Adaptive tracking MPC for nonlinear systems via online linear system identification. InSystems Theory in Data and Optimization, pages 69–84, Cham, 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland

    2025

  48. [56]

    Adaptive receding horizon control for constrained MIMO systems.Automatica, 50(12):3019–3029, 2014

    Marko Tanaskovic, Lorenzo Fagiano, Roy Smith, and Manfred Morari. Adaptive receding horizon control for constrained MIMO systems.Automatica, 50(12):3019–3029, 2014

    2014

  49. [57]

    Multivariable adaptive control: A survey

    Gang Tao. Multivariable adaptive control: A survey. Automatica, 50(11):2737–2764, 2014

    2014

  50. [58]

    Robust adaptive MPC using uncertainty compensation

    Ran Tao, Pan Zhao, Ilya Kolmanovsky, and Naira Hovakimyan. Robust adaptive MPC using uncertainty compensation. InProc. American Control Conference (ACC), pages 1873–1878, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Adaptive safety with control barrier functions

    Andrew J Taylor and Aaron D Ames. Adaptive safety with control barrier functions. InProc. American Control Conf. (ACC), pages 1399–1405, 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    Robust adaptive control of uncertain nonlinear systems in the presence of input saturation and external disturbance

    Changyun Wen, Jing Zhou, Zhitao Liu, and Hongye Su. Robust adaptive control of uncertain nonlinear systems in the presence of input saturation and external disturbance. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 56(7):1672–1678, 2011

    2011

  53. [61]

    Adaptive predictive control of the benchmark plant.Automatica, 30(4):621–628, 1994

    Tae-Woong Yoon and David W Clarke. Adaptive predictive control of the benchmark plant.Automatica, 30(4):621–628, 1994

    1994

  54. [62]

    Soft constrained model predictive control with robust stability guarantees.IEEE Trans

    Melanie N Zeilinger, Manfred Morari, and Colin N Jones. Soft constrained model predictive control with robust stability guarantees.IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 59:1190–1202, 2014

    2014

  55. [63]

    Globally stable adaptive system design for minimum phase SISO plants with input saturation

    Y-S Zhong. Globally stable adaptive system design for minimum phase SISO plants with input saturation. Automatica, 41(9):1539–1547, 2005. A Proof of Section 3 Proof of Theorem 1:Assumptions 1a) and 1c) together with non-expansiveness of the projection operator en- sureV θ(ˆθk+...

    2005

  56. [64]

    Equation (B.1b) holds by choosing ˜ℓ0 = ˜ℓ⋆ 0 − δ Cℓ PM−1 k=1 ρk−M = ˜ℓ⋆ 0 − δ CℓρM−1 1−ρM−1 1−ρ

    Consider the candidate ˜ℓM = ˜ℓ⋆ M +δ, ˜ℓk = ˜ℓ⋆ k + δ CℓρM−k , k∈I [1,M−1] with someδ >0, which satisfies (B.1c) fork∈I [1,M−1] . Equation (B.1b) holds by choosing ˜ℓ0 = ˜ℓ⋆ 0 − δ Cℓ PM−1 k=1 ρk−M = ˜ℓ⋆ 0 − δ CℓρM−1 1−ρM−1 1−ρ . In- equality (B.1c) fork= 0 remains valid by ch...

Pith tools

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