A novel perspective on the design of robust model predictive control (MPC) methods is presented, whereby closed-loop constraint satisfaction is ensured using recursive feasibility of the MPC optimization. Necessary and sufficient conditions are derived for recursive feasibility, based on the effects of model perturbations and disturbances occurring at one time step. Using these conditions and Farkas’ lemma, sufficient conditions suitable for design are formulated. The proposed method is called a closed-loop design, as only the existence of feasible inputs at the next time step is enforced by design. This is in contrast to most existing formulations, which compute control policies that are feasible under the worst-case realizations of all model perturbations and exogenous disturbances in the MPC prediction horizon. The proposed method has an online computational complexity similar to nominal MPC methods while preserving guarantees of constraint satisfaction, recursive feasibility and stability. Numerical simulations demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed approach.
An MPC controller is recursively feasible if, for any state x_k such that the MPC optimization is feasible, the optimal control input computed by MPC when applied to the system results in a state x_{k+1} which is also feasible for the MPC optimization problem.
For any state x_k such that (?) is feasible at time k\ge 0, under the dynamics (?) and the MPC control law u_k = \pi(x_k), MPC (?) is also feasible at time k+1 for any w_k \in \mathcal{W} and \Delta_k \in \mathcal{P}.
An MPC controller is strongly recursively feasible if, for any state x_k such that MPC optimization is feasible, any feasible control input computed by MPC when applied to the system results in a state x_{k+1} which is also feasible for the MPC optimization problem.
For any state x_k such that (?) is feasible at time k\ge 0, under the dynamics (?) and any control input u_k \in \mathcal{U}_0(x_k), the optimization (?) is also feasible at time k+1 for any w_k \in \mathcal{W} and \Delta_k \in \mathcal{P}.
Let the optimization (?) be recursively feasible and also be feasible at time k=0. In addition, let t_0 \ge 0. Then, the closed-loop trajectories resulting from the dynamics (?) and MPC control policy \pi(x_k)=\hat{u}_{0|0}^* never violate the constraints (?).
Because the optimization (?) is feasible at time step k{=}0 and t_0 {\ge} 0, the applied input u_0 = \hat{u}_{0|0}^* satisfies
Therefore, (?) is satisfied at time k{=}0. Moreover, because RF is satisfied, the optimization (?) always remains feasible under the MPC control law \pi(x). By using a similar argument as the one presented above for k{=}0, (?) is satisfied for all k{\ge} 0.
Let Assumption 1 be satisfied. Let t_0 \ge 0 and (?) be feasible at time k=0. Then, the closed loop trajectories resulting from the dynamics (?) and MPC control policy \pi(x) never violate the constraints (?).
Because the optimization (?) is feasible at time step k=0 and t_0 \ge 0, there exists \hat{u}_{0,0} such that
Therefore, (?) is satisfied at time k=0. Moreover, because Assumption 1 is satisfied, optimization (?) always remains feasible under the MPC control law \pi(x). Therefore, (?) is satisfied for all k\ge 0.
Theorem 1 relies only on the feasibility of the solutions to (?) and not on their optimality. As a consequence, a straightforward corollary is that Theorem 1 also holds under SRF. Hence, SRF of the closed loop (?)-(?) will guarantee constraint satisfaction under any control input u_k \in \mathcal{U}_0(x_k). That is, even if problem (?) cannot be solved to optimality, constraint satisfaction is guaranteed by SRF.
Note that Theorem 1 relies only on the feasibility of the solutions to MPC (?) and not on their optimality. As a consequence, a straightforward corollary is that Theorem 1 also holds under Assumption 2. Hence, recursive feasibility of (?) will guarantee constraint satisfaction under any control input u_k \in \hat{\Pi}(x_k). That is, even if problem (?) cannot be solved to optimality, constraint satisfaction can be guaranteed using recursive feasibility.
The closed loop system (?)-(?) satisfies SRF if, and only if, for all \mathbf{s}_k {\in} \mathbb{P}_0, w_k{\in}\mathcal{W}, and j{\in} \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}, there exist \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j such that
where \mathbf{C}^j_{\mathbf{s}} = \mathbf{L} + \mathbf{S}_x B_p \Delta^j D_{xu}, and \mathbf{C}^j_{\mathbf{w}} = \mathbf{S}_x (B_w + B_p \Delta^j D_w).
The idea of the proof is briefly described first. By definition, SRF requires that for every \mathbf{s}_k {\in} \mathbb{P}_0, w_k {\in} \mathcal{W} and \Delta_k {\in} \mathcal{P}, there exists an input sequence \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1} satisfying (?). Note that the qualifier for all \Delta_k \in \mathcal{P} can be rewritten as for all j {\in} \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}, with \Delta_k{=}\Delta^j. Thus, existence of independent input sequences \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j, each corresponding to \Delta_k{=}\Delta^j, ensures SRF. Using (?) and (?), this condition can be written as (2). The detailed proof follows.
Sufficiency:
Let there exist inputs \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j such that (2) is satisfied for all \mathbf{s}_k {\in} \mathbb{P}_0, w_k{\in}\mathcal{W}, and j{\in} \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}. Moreover, let the true perturbation \Delta_k be given as
where \sum_{j=1}^{n_\Delta} \tau_j = 1 and \tau_j \ge 0. Such a representation is possible as \Delta_k lies inside \mathcal{P} defined in (?). Consider the input candidate sequence \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1} = \sum_{j=1}^{n_\Delta} \tau_j \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j for verifying (?). Then, using (?),
Therefore, using (2) and (Proof),
where the inequality is obtained as (2) is satisfied by the inputs \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j. Thus, (?) is satisfied for all \Delta_k{\in} \mathcal{P}, \mathbf{s}_k {\in }\mathbb{P}_0, and w_k {\in} \mathcal{W}, and the closed-loop satisfies SRF.
Necessity:
Let the closed-loop (?)-(?) satisfy SRF. That is, for all \mathbf{s}_k {\in} \mathbb{P}_0, \Delta_k{\in} \mathcal{P} and w_k {\in} \mathcal{W}, there exists \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1} satisfying (?). Then, consider that for each j \in \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}, \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j represents the feasible input sequences for (?) when \Delta_k{=}\Delta^j, and for \mathbf{s}_k{\in }\mathbb{P}_0, w_k {\in} \mathcal{W}. Using (?) and (?), one obtains
proving that (2) is satisfied for all j {\in} \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}.
Let \mathbb{P}_1 be a polytope defined as
Then, SRF is satisfied if, and only if, \forall \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{s}_k ^\intercal & w_k^\intercal \end{bmatrix}^\intercal \in \mathbb{P}_1 and \forall j\in \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}, there exist \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j such that
where \mathbf{C}^{\Delta^j}_{\mathbf{s}} = \mathbf{L} + \mathbf{S}_x B_p \Delta^j D_{xu}, \mathbf{C}^{\Delta^j}_{\mathbf{w}} = \mathbf{S}_x (B_w + B_p \Delta^j D_w), and \Delta^j denote the vertices of \mathcal{P}.
Sufficiency:
Let \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j be the input trajectory such that (2) is satisfied for each j \in \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta} and \Big[\mathbf{s}_k ^\intercal ~ w_k^\intercal\Big] ^\intercal \in \mathbb{P}_1. Let the true perturbation \Delta_k and an input trajectory \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1} be given as
where \sum_{j=1}^{n_\Delta} \mu_j = 1, \mu_j \ge 0, and \tau_j\in\mathbb{R}. Note that a representation of \Delta_k as in (Proof) is possible as it lies inside the convex hull \mathcal{P} defined in (?). Upon substituting (Proof) in (?), it readily follows that,
and we obtain that
where the inequality in the last step is obtained because (2) is satisfied by the input sequences \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j. Thus, (?) admits a feasible solution and SRF holds true.
Necessity:
Let the online optimization problem (?) be recursively feasible. That is, let (?) admit a feasible solution whenever (?) admits one, for all realizations of \Delta_k\in \mathcal{P} and w_k \in \mathcal{W}.
Then, consider that for each j \in \mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}, \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j represents the feasible input sequences for (?) when the perturbation \Delta_k takes the value \Delta^j, and for \mathbf{s}_k satisfying (?) and w_k \in \mathcal{W} . Then, using (?), (?) can be written as
proving that (2) is satisfied for all j\in\mathbb{N}_{1}^{n_\Delta}, and for s_k satisfying (?) and w_k \in \mathcal{W}, or compactly, \forall \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{s}_k ^\intercal & w_k^\intercal \end{bmatrix}^\intercal \in \mathbb{P}_1.
Consider the polytopes \mathbb{P}_1 and \{\mathbb{P}_2^j\}_{j=1}^{n_{\Delta}} proposed in (?). Then, the closed loop (?)-(?) satisfies SRF if there exist feedback gains \{K^j\}_{j=1}^{n_\Delta}, \{ \{M_i^j\}_{j=i}^{n_{\Delta}} \}_{i=0}^{N-1} and \{ \{ K_{i,\Delta}^j\}_{j=i}^{n_{\Delta}}\}_{i=0}^{N-1} such that
For (?) to be strongly recursively feasible, (?) must be satisfied for every \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{s}_k ^\intercal & w_k^\intercal \end{bmatrix}^\intercal \in \mathbb{P}_1 and \Delta_k \in \mathcal{P}.
Let \Delta_k be defined as in (Proof) and a candidate control input sequence be defined as \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1} = \sum_{j=1}^{n_\Delta} \tau_j \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j, where \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j are parameterized according to (?). Substituting the candidate sequence in (?),
In (?), (?) is obtained by substituting the control law (?) in (?) and using the definition of \mathbf{L}_K^j. Using (?), it can be seen that
where (?) is obtained because any \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{s}_k ^\intercal & w_k^\intercal \end{bmatrix}^\intercal inside \mathbb{P}_1 also lies inside \mathbb{P}_2^j from (3). Therefore, (?) is satisfied for all feasible realizations of \mathbf{s}_k, \Delta_k and w_k under the proposed feedback if (3) holds, and so the closed loop (?)-(?) satisfies SRF.
Theorem 2 explicitly captures the conditions under which SRF holds. Whereas Theorem 2 formulates it as an existence of input sequences, the criteria can be written as set inclusions using ideas from set-invariance [blanchini2008set, kerrigan2001Robust]. The early work [kerrigan2001Robust] presents necessary and sufficient conditions to achieve SRF for generic nonlinear systems with disturbances. However, the resulting conditions could only be used as tests for SRF, but not as design methods, even for LTI systems with additive disturbances. Recently, these tests were extended to the multiplicative uncertainty case in [abdelsalam2021synthesis], where polytope projections were used to certify SRF. However, this method also requires that the MPC parameters are known apriori, and has a much higher computational complexity compared to [kerrigan2001Robust] due to the projection operation.
Consider the polytopes \{\mathbb{P}_2^j\}_{j=1}^{n_{\Delta}} proposed in (?). Then, Assumption 2 is satisfied if there exist feedback gains K, \{ \{M_i^j\}_{j=i}^{n_{\Delta}} \}_{i=0}^{N-1} and \{ \{ K_{i,\Delta}^j\}_{j=i}^{n_{\Delta}}\}_{i=0}^{N-1} such that
In order for Assumption 2 to be satisfied, (?) must be feasible for every \mathbf{s}_k satisfying (?), w_k\in \mathcal{W} and \Delta_k \in \mathcal{P}.
Let \Delta_k be defined as in (Proof) and a candidate control input sequence be defined as \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1} = \sum_{j=1}^{n_\Delta} \tau_j \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j, where \tau_j\in\mathbb{R} and \hat{\mathbf{u}}_{k+1}^j are parameterized according to (?). Substituting this candidate sequence in (?) and using (?) we obtain that
Please see Appendix ? for algebraic details. Further, using (?), it can be seen that
where (?) is obtained because any \begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{s}_k ^\intercal & w_k^\intercal \end{bmatrix}^\intercal inside \mathbb{P}_1 also lies inside \mathbb{P}_2^j from (3). Therefore, (?) is satisfied for all feasible realizations of s_k, \Delta_k and w_k under the proposed feedback if (3) holds, and Assumption 2 is satisfied.
[kouvaritakis2015model, Lemma 5.6] Let \mathbb{X}_i = \Set{x}{H_i x \le h_i} for i=1,2 be two polytopes. Then, \mathbb{X}_1 \subseteq \mathbb{X}_2 is satisfied if, and only if, there exists a matrix \Lambda such that
The set inclusions (3) are satisfied if, and only if, there exist matrices \{ \Lambda^j\}_{j=1}^{n_{\Delta}} such that
[kouvaritakis2015model, Lemma 5.6] Let \mathbb{X}_i = \Set{x}{H_i x \le h_i} for i=1,2 be two polytopes. Then, \mathbb{X}_1 \subseteq \mathbb{X}_2 is satisfied if, and only if, there exists a matrix \Lambda such that
The set inlcusions (3) are satisfied if, and only if, there exist matrices \{ \Lambda^j\}_{j=1}^{n_{\Delta}} such that
It can be difficult to compute a feasible initial guess for the tightenings \mathbf{t} in (?), as the tightenings are problem dependent. In practice, one strategy which produced good results was to use an existing constraint tightening technique, such as [chisci2001systems] or [parsi2022computationally] to guess \mathbf{t}. Note that these techniques were designed for systems affected by additive disturbances alone, and may not always result in feasible initial guesses for \mathbf{t}.
Given a system with dynamics (?)-(?) and a compact set \mathbb{X}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n_x} including the origin as an interior point, the system is said to be regionally ISS in \mathbb{X} with respect to w_k if \mathbb{X} is a robust positively invariant set and if there exist a \mathcal{KL} function \beta(\cdot, \cdot) and a \mathcal{K} function \lambda_1(\cdot) such that, for all x_0 \in \mathbb{X} and k \ge 0
where \left\| \mathbf{w}_{[0:k-1]} \right\| = \sup_{i\in\mathbb{N}_{0}^{k-1}} \left\| w_i \right\|.
It can be difficult to compute a feasible initial guesses for the tightenings \mathbf{t} in (?), as the tightenings are problem dependent. In practice, one strategy which produced good results was to use an existing constraint tightening technique, such as [chisci2001systems] or [parsi2022computationally] to guess \mathbf{t}. Note that these techniques were designed for systems affected by additive disturbances alone, and may not always result in feasible initial guesses for \mathbf{t}.
Consider the system (?)-(?) and a compact set \mathbb{X}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n_x} including the origin as an interior point. A function V:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} is called an ISS Lyapunov function in \mathbb{X} with respect to w_k if there exist \mathcal{K}_{\infty} functions \sigma_1 (\cdot),\sigma_2(\cdot),\sigma_3(\cdot) and a \mathcal{K} function \lambda_2(\cdot) such that \forall x_k \in \mathbb{X}
Given a system whose dynamics can be described by (?)-(?), and a compact set \mathbb{X}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n_x} including the origin as an interior point, the system is said to be ISpS (input-to-state practically stable) in \mathbb{X} with respect to w_k if \mathbb{X} is a robust positively invariant set and if there exist a \mathcal{KL} function \beta(\cdot, \cdot), a \mathcal{K} function \lambda(\cdot) and a constant c \ge 0 such that, for all x_0 \in \mathbb{X} and k \ge 0
where \mathbf{w} = \{w_0, w_1, \ldots, w_{k-1} \}.
Let the offline optimization problem (?) be feasible, the cost function satisfy (?), and the online optimization (?) have a feasible solution at time k=0. Moreover, let \mathbb{P}_{0,x} be the projection of \mathbb{P}_0 on the first n_x elements of \mathbf{s}_k, and let the origin be an interior point of \mathbb{P}_{0,x}. Then, the closed loop formed by a system with dynamics (?)-(?) and the robust MPC controller in Algorithm ? satisfies the following properties:
The problem (?) remains feasible for all k > 0.
The constraints (?) are satisfied for all k > 0.
The closed-loop system is ISS in \mathbb{P}_{0,x} with respect to w_k.
In order to prove property ?, note that the constraints in Proposition 1 are satisfied because the offline optimization (?) is feasible. Therefore, the set inclusions (3) are satisfied, and Theorem 3 implies that the online MPC optimization (?) is strongly recursively feasible. Moreover, because (?) admits a feasible solution at time k=0, it remains feasible for all k > 0.
The property ? follows from Theorem 1. This is because the offline optimization (?) explicitly enforces t_0 \ge 0, and SRF implies RF.
The proof of ? can be seen as follows. Let the optimal MPC cost function be a candidate ISS Lyapunov function denoted by
In the following, it will be shown that V(x) satisfies (4). Consider \sigma_1(\left\| x \right\|) = \rho_{\min} (Q_x) \left\| x \right\|^2, which is guaranteed to be a lower bound of V(x). Moreover, V(x) is a continuous and piecewise quadratic function in \mathbb{P}_{0,x} as shown in [bemporad2002explicit]. Therefore, the existence of \sigma_2(\cdot) satisfying (4) is a direct consequence of [limon2009input, Lemma 4].
In order to show (4), let the perturbation \Delta_k be given as (Proof) and consider the candidate input sequences in (?). The cost function satisfies
where \mathbf{C}_K(\tau) := \sum_{j=1}^{n_\Delta} \tau_j\mathbf{C}_K^j and \mathbf{C}_M(\tau) := \sum_{j=1}^{n_\Delta} \tau_j\mathbf{C}_M^j, and (?) is obtained by applying Cauchy-Schwarz theorem and Fenchel’s inequality [boyd2004convex], by which, \left\| x+w \right\| \le (1+\epsilon)\left\| x \right\| + (1+\frac{1}{\epsilon}) \left\| w \right\| for any \epsilon>0. The function \lambda_2(w_k) in (?) can chosen as the first term in (?). Moreover, using (?), it can be seen that
where the Schur complement lemma [zhang2006schur] is used to obtain (?) and (?). Using (?) and (?),
Thus, V(x) satisfies (4), and is an ISS Lyapunov function of the system. Therefore, applying [jiang2001input, Lemma 3.5], the closed-loop system is ISS.
Let the offline optimization problem (?) be feasible, and the online optimization (?) have a feasible solution at time k=0. Moreover, let \mathbb{P}_{0,x} be the projection of \mathbb{P}_0 on the first n_x elements of \mathbf{s}_k. Then, the closed loop formed by a system with dynamics (?)-(?) and the robust MPC controller in Algorithm ? satisfies the following properties
The online optimization (?) remains feasible for all k > 0.
The constraints (?) are satisfied for all k > 0.
The closed loop system is regionally ISpS in \mathbb{P}_{0,x} with respect to w_k.
Property ? is satisfied as a consequence of Proposition 1. Because the offline optimization problem is feasible, Assumption 2 is satisfied. Therefore, the online optimization (?) is recursively feasible.
Moreover, ? follows from Theorem 1. This is because the offline optimization (?) explicitly enforces t_0 \ge 0, and Assumption 2 implies that Assumption 1 is satisfied.
Finally, the proof of ? can be seen as follows. For any state x\in \mathbb{P}_{0,x}, under the robust MPC controller, it is guaranteed that the state at the next time step is also inside \mathbb{P}_{0,x}. This is because the optimization (?) is recursively feasible by design. Therefore, the set \mathbb{P}_{0,x} is a robust positively invariant set of the closed loop system. Then, the constant c in (1) can be chosen as c = \max_{x\in \mathbb{P}_{0,x}} \left\| x \right\|, so that (1) always holds.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2303.11021v1 by Anilkumar Parsi, Marcell Bartos, Amber Srivastava, Sebastien Gros and Roy S. Smith, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2303/2303.11021.jsonl.