Control and Estimation Co-Design via Envelope-Theorem Gradients

Equations (?) and (?), although appear to be optimizing over control only, they implicitly require optimal estimation as well. The control policies are feedback in the information state (state filtered density), which require careful filter design for their reduction, approximation and accurate tracking [kumar2015stochastic].

Problem 1 is stated for a single prior p_0. Multiple operating scenarios: initial densities, tracking trajectories/set-point, disturbance statistics, can be accommodated by replacing the second-stage value with the, say, a weighted average of the cost over the different scenarios.

Posing both halves as SDPs is not only convenient for the dual-based gradients: it also opens the formulation to constraints a plain Riccati recursion cannot express: LMI regularizers (e.g. trace or nuclear-norm penalties promoting sparse actuation/sensing), budget and \ell_1 sensor-selection constraints on \theta, or quadratic stability robustness constraints over a polytopic data set. Remark 5 in the next section shows every such convex ingredient is inherited by the exact-gradient machinery of Section ?.

On a neighborhood \Theta_0 of the design point \theta: (A.I) for each \theta\in\Theta_0, (?) is convex in z, its data (\phi,g,G) are jointly C^1 in (z,\theta), and Slater’s condition holds, so strong duality holds with an attained primal-dual solution; (A.II) the primal minimizer z^\star(\theta) is unique; (A.III) the primal–dual solution is nondegenerate and strictly complementary, so the dual (\mu^\star,S^\star) is unique [alizadeh1997complementarity, shapiro1997differentiability]; (A.IV) \theta enters (?) only through finitely many data objects D(\theta) (e.g. A_\theta,B_\theta,C_\theta) that are C^1 in \theta.

We can augment (?) with any finite family of additional convex, conic-representable ingredients: regularizers r_i(z,\theta) added to the objective J, and/or constraints G_i(z,\theta) \succeq 0, all data C^1 in (z,\theta). If the augmented program still satisfies Assumption 1, then J^\star remains differentiable at \theta.

The recipe of Remark 5 fails exactly when (A.III) does: at a degenerate active face (rank-deficient active supports), or when a constraint binds at its achievable floor (loss of strict complementarity: for instance the minimal-\gamma optimum of Section ?). The optimal dual is then set-valued and the exact identity (5.1) need not hold; the next proposition shows the framework degrades gracefully rather than breaking.

If the state evolution and the measurement operator f_\theta and h_\theta represent a linear system, then \mathcal{A}_\theta = \mathop{\mathrm{blkdiag}}\nolimits\,(A_\theta, \relax A _\theta) (the evolution of the error covariance is independent of the state estimate) and \mathcal{B}_\theta = [B_\theta^\top \, 0]^\top (the error covariance is independent of the input). This is a consequence of the separation principle between estimation and control for fixed \theta.

The MPC control (?) is feedback in the information state \mathcal{X}_k, instead of x_{k \mid k} only as in the SDP case. This is due to the fact that the separation principle does not hold in the nonlinear regime: the input and state estimate can have an effect on the evolution of the estimation error covariance. Hence, the resulting controller admits probing/caution effects, the characteristics of a dual control. It is possible to turn (?) into a function of x_{k \mid k} only by fixing the value of \Sigma_{k \mid k} to, for example, \lambda_{\mathrm{probing}} I, turning \lambda_{\mathrm{probing}} \geq 0 into a probing (excitation for data collection) knob an operator can choose based on the circumstances.

Theorem 5.1 applies verbatim to the SDPs, which are genuinely convex. In the nonlinear regime it applies to the convex program (?), not to the underlying stochastic control value (?). Three gaps separate the two: (i) Filtering approximation: the eKF is a finite-dimensional approximation to the exact Bayesian recursion (?) (?) by its first two moments, exact only for affine f_\theta,h_\theta [anderson2012optimal] (the Kalman filter case). (ii) the prediction-only mode of the eKF used along the MPC horizon, which drops the innovation feedback. (iii) Further linearization: \mathcal A_\theta, \mathcal B_\theta are taken about the current-time (k=0) information trajectory, so (?). Nevertheless, Section ? shows that in practice this approximate gradient can still be used effectively in design optimization.

Deciding which of the candidate sensors to deploy fits ContEst without disturbing the validity of its gradients. (a) Adding binary indicators b\in\{0,1\}^{\#\text{sensors}} and costs c to the upper level, \min_{\theta,b} J_{\mathrm{sc}}^\star(\theta,b)+c^\top b, leaves the inner problem, and hence the envelope gradients (?), (?), unchanged. The price is a (NP-hard) mixed-integer program [joshi2009sensor, tzoumas2016sensor]. (b) Relaxing b to continuous gains \alpha\ge0 (C_{\alpha,\theta}=\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}\nolimits(\alpha)\,C_{\mathrm{base},\theta}) with an \ell_1 penalty in the design cost,

promotes sparse sensing [dhingra2014admm, saraf2017h2, das2017sparse]. (c) The \ell_1 kink is removed by its epigraph lift [boyd2004convex], \lambda_\alpha \mathbf 1^\top t with \alpha\preceq t, keeping J differentiable so the BFGS guarantees of Remark 11 hold. Finally, a threshold on \alpha^\star recovers a binary deployment.

Since the design gradient is available, Problem 1 is solved by a first-order method, here a projected BFGS iteration on \theta over the box \Theta [nocedal2006numerical]. Because the gradients are exact (not finite-difference), the secant pairs driving the BFGS update are accurate. Under the usual smoothness and local strong-convexity assumptions the outer iteration attains the local superlinear rate of full BFGS [nocedal2006numerical]. When the inner value is only piecewise smooth (e.g. the \ell_1-selection or worst-case H_\infty regimes) and the returned gradient is a subgradient, a nonsmooth BFGS variant with a suitable line search still converges reliably in practice [lewis2013nonsmooth].

A caveat on interpretation: the baseline parameter values \theta_{\mathrm{nom}} above were chosen to be plausible rather than carefully hand-tuned, so the reported reductions should not be read as ContEst outperforming a state-of-the-art design. The contribution is not a competing tuning heuristic but the exact, dual-based design gradient that lets a first-order method search for the joint optimum.