arXiv reader

Defense Filters for Robust Learning of Partially Observed Dynamical Systems

Jihun Kim and Javad Lavaei

arXiv
2610.21935v1 · PDF · 15 October 2026
Categories
math.OC, cs.SY, eess.SY
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Robust estimation of unknown system dynamics from partial observations under attack is a core challenge in learning for control, increasingly critical in multi-agent networks subject to adversarial data poisoning. Existing methods either require highly restrictive assumptions on the adversary or yield weak error bounds. In this paper, we consider identifying partially observed linear dynamical systems subject to adversarial attacks with an attack probability p < 0.5 at each time. We propose a defense-filtering framework in which a system designer leverages knowledge of the observation matrix to construct a defense filter satisfying full column rank and subspace separability conditions, which enables the evaluation of a single-attack scenario against observed data. Using this framework, we analyze the constrained \ell_2-norm estimator and establish finite-sample error bounds for recovering the Markov parameter matrix G^*. This is the first approach to provide provable system identification guarantees via a defense filter for partially observed systems subject to harsh attack environments where the attack probability approaches 0.5.

Items 24

Notation

Notation

E4UM

Given functions u and v, u(x) = \mathcal{O}(v(x)) implies u(x) \le c_1 v(x) for some c_1>0, and u(x) = \Omega(v(x)) implies u(x) \ge c_2 v(x) for some c_2>0. The notations \tilde{\mathcal{O}} and \tilde{\Omega} hide logarithmic factors in \mathcal{O} and \Omega, respectively. Let \mathcal{N}(\mu,\Sigma) denote the Gaussian distribution with mean \mu and covariance \Sigma. For a matrix A, let \|A\|_F denote its Frobenius norm and \|A\|_2 denote its spectral norm. I_n denotes the n \times n identity matrix and \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits(\cdot) denotes the column space of a matrix.

Definition

Definition 1 (Markov parameter matrix of order k)

36HB

  From the true system (A,B,C,D), the Markov parameter matrix required to recover the input-output mapping is denoted as G^* and defined by

G^* = [D~CB~ CAB~ \dots ~ CA^{k-2}B].

Note that the size of G^* depends on k; however, we omit the explicit dependence on k in the notation for simplicity.

Uses Assumption 1
Assumption

Assumption 2 (System Stability)

TJ2T

There exist constants \psi > 0 and \rho \in [0, 1) such that \|A^t\|_2 \le \psi \cdot \rho^t for all t \ge 0.

Used by Lemma 1, Lemma 2, Proof
Assumption

Assumption 3 (Sub-Gaussian norm)

CF1H

Define a filtration \mathcal{F}_t = \bm{\sigma}\{x_0, x_1, \dots, x_t\}. There exists \eta >0 such that x_0 = (x_{0,i})_{i=1}^n and w_t = (w_{t,i})_{i=1}^e satisfies \max_{i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}\|x_{0,i}\|_{\psi_2} \leq \eta and \max_{i\in\{1,\dots,e\}}\|w_{t,i}\;|\;\mathcal{F}_t\|_{\psi_2} \leq \eta for all t \geq 0.

Used by Lemma 1, Lemma 2, Proof
Assumption

Assumption 4 (Probabilistic Attack)

1PAZ

w_t is an attack at each time t with probability p<0.5 conditioned on \mathcal{F}_t; i.e., there exists a sequence (\xi_t)_{t\geq 0} of independent \text{Bernoulli}(p) variables such that \{\xi_t = 0\} \subseteq \{w_t=0\} for all t\geq 0. Under this restriction on attack times, w_t can be chosen arbitrarily by an adversary with access to \mathcal{F}_t at every attack time t\ge 0.

Used by Lemma 1, Lemma 2
Lemma

Lemma 1

9PXA

Suppose that Assumptions 2 and 3 hold. Let the control inputs \{u_t\}_{t=0}^{T+k-2} be independent with u_t\sim N(0, \sigma^2 I_m). Then, given \delta\in(0,1], when T= \Omega(\log(\frac{1}{\delta })),

\begin{aligned} \sum_{t\in \mathcal{T}} \|\alpha_t^{(s)}\|_2 +\|\beta_t\|_2 \le \mathcal{O}\Bigr({\rho^{s}}\|C\|_2 MT\Bigr) \end{aligned}

holds with probability at least 1-\delta, where M:= \frac{\eta {\sqrt{n}}+ \eta\sqrt{e}\|E\|_2+\sigma \sqrt{m} \|B\|_2}{1-\rho}.

Uses Assumption 1, Assumption 2, Assumption 3, Assumption 4 · Used by Proof
Assumption

Assumption 5 (Subspace separability)

VLN1

Suppose that

\begin{aligned} \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits(CE)\cap \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits([CAE\ \dots\ CA^{s-1}E]) =\{0\}. \end{aligned}
Used by Lemma 2, Proof, Proof
Lemma

Lemma 3

6LH3

Let the control inputs \{u_t\}_{t=0}^{T+k-2} be independent with u_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I_m). Consider a fixed matrix K \in \mathbb{R}^{e \times mk}. Then, given \delta \in (0,1], when

\begin{aligned} T = \Omega\left( \frac{k}{(1-p)^{s-1}} \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right) \right), \end{aligned}

it holds that

\begin{aligned} \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2 \ge \frac{(1-p)^{s-1}\sigma}{4} \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \|K\|_F T \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\delta.

Used by Proof
Remark

Remark 1 (Generalization of Control inputs)

OTOO

Our formulation accommodates a broader class of control input distributions beyond standard Gaussian signals. Following [kim2026sharp], the requirements on the input vectors can be relaxed to satisfy only sub-Gaussianity along with an expected persistence of excitation condition. Consequently, the control inputs need not be strictly Gaussian, making the proposed defense framework applicable to a wider range of practical excitation signals.

Lemma

Lemma 4 (Minimum-Norm Bound)

ET7D

Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 5 hold. Then, the minimum spectral-norm solution satisfying

H^*\cdot [CE~ CAE ~ \dots ~ CA^{s-1}E] = [I_e ~0~\dots ~0]

satisfies the geometric bound \[ H^*_2 1_(CE) (), \hfil \egroup \end{trivlist} \else \@badmath \fi where_(CE) > 0is the smallest singular value ofCE, and(0, /2]is the minimal principal angle betweenIm(CE)andIm([CAE   …   CA^s-1E])$.

Lemma

Lemma 5

PT4C

Let the control inputs \{u_t\}_{t=0}^{T+k-2} be independent with u_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I_m). For K \in \mathbb{R}^{e \times mk} and \tilde Q_s \in \mathbb{R}^{e\times e(s-1)}, consider a function

\begin{split} f_T(K,\tilde Q_s):= &\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s\mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2\\&\hspace{0mm}-2 \min\Bigl\{\|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s\mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2,\|w_{t-1}\|_2\Bigr\} \end{split}

where \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)} := [w_{t-2}^T ~ \dots ~ w_{t-s}^T]^T. Given h>0 and \delta \in (0, 1], when

\begin{split} T = \Omega\biggr(& \frac{k}{(1-p)^{s-1}} \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right) \\&+ \frac{\eta^2 e \log(1/\delta)}{ h^2 \rho^{2s}} \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta} \cdot\frac{\eta^2 e \log(1/\delta)}{ \rho^{2s} h^2} \right) \biggr), \end{split}

the infimum \Psi_T(K) := \inf_{\tilde Q_s} f_T(K, \tilde Q_s) satisfies

\begin{aligned} \Psi_T(K) \ge \frac{(1-2p)(1-p)^{s-1}\sigma}{4} \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \|K\|_F T - \rho^s h T. \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\delta.

Used by Proof, Proof
Lemma

Lemma 6

VP00

Let the control inputs \{u_t\}_{t=0}^{T+k-2} be independent with u_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I_m). Define c_* := \frac{(1-2p)(1-p)^{s-1}\sigma}{4} \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} and R:= \frac{4\rho^s h}{c_*} for h>0. Let \mathcal{S}_R := \{K \in \mathbb{R}^{e \times mk} : \|K\|_F = R\} denote the Frobenius sphere of radius R. Given \delta\in(0,1], when

\begin{aligned} &T=\tilde \Omega\left(\frac{e m k^2s }{(1-p)^{s-1}} +\frac{\eta^2 e \cdot (emks)^2 }{ \rho^{2s}h^2 } \right), \end{aligned}

we have

\begin{aligned} \Psi_T(K) \ge \frac{c_*}{4} RT,\quad \forall K\in \mathcal{S}_R \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\delta.

Used by Proof, Proof
Theorem

Theorem 1

AJQ0

Let the control inputs \{u_t\}_{t=0}^{T+k-2} be independent with u_t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I_m). Consider a minimizer (\hat H, \hat J) to the constrained \ell_2-norm estimator (?), and define \hat K := \hat H G^* - \hat J. Given \delta \in (0, 1], when

\begin{aligned} T = \tilde{\Omega}\bigg( \frac{e m k^2 s}{(1-p)^{s-1}} + \frac{\eta^2 e\cdot (e m k s)^2}{\rho^{2s} (\|\hat H\|_2+\|H^*\|_2)^2} \bigg), \end{aligned}

then the estimation error satisfies

\begin{aligned} \|\hat K\|_F = \mathcal{O}\bigg(\Big(\frac{\rho}{1-p}\Big)^s\frac{(1-p)(\|\hat H\|_2 + \|H^*\|_2)(1+\|C\|_2 M)}{(1-2p) \sigma} \bigg) \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\delta, where M is defined in Lemma 1.

Proof of Theorem 1

For any scalar \alpha \ge 1 and a, b \ge 0, we have \min\{\alpha a, b\} \le \alpha \min\{a, b\}. Applying this inequality to f_T yields f_T(\alpha K, \alpha Q) \ge \alpha f_T(K, Q) for all \alpha \ge 1. Taking the infimum over Q on both sides provides

\begin{split} \Psi_T (\alpha K ) &= \inf_{\tilde Q_s} f_T(\alpha K , \tilde Q_s)= \inf_{ Q} f_T(\alpha K , \alpha Q)\\& \ge \alpha \inf_Qf_T(K,Q) = \alpha \Psi_T(K) \end{split}

for all \alpha\ge 1. Setting h := \|\hat H\|_2 +\|H^*\|_2> 0 and R := \frac{4\rho^s (\|\hat H\|_2+\|H^*\|_2)}{c_*}, Lemma 6 guarantees that when T satisfies (1), the universal lower bound (6) holds with probability at least 1-\delta.

Now, for any matrix \relax K satisfying \|\relax K\|_F \ge R, consider the scaling parameter \alpha := \|\relax K\|_F / R \ge 1. Since \|\relax K / \alpha\|_F = R, sequentially applying (Proof) and (6) yields

\begin{aligned} \Psi_T(\relax K) = \Psi_T\Big( \alpha \frac{\relax K}{\alpha} \Big) \ge \alpha \Psi_T\Big( \frac{\relax K}{\alpha} \Big) \ge \alpha \frac{c_*}{4} RT = \frac{c_*}{4} \|\relax K\|_F T. \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\delta.

Now, we evaluate the norm of \hat K = \hat H G^*-\hat J under two exhaustive cases:

  • Case 1 (\|\hat K\|_F < R): By definition of R, we directly have

    \begin{aligned} \|\hat K\|_F < \frac{4\rho^s (\|\hat H\|_2+\|H^*\|_2)}{c_*} = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\rho^s(\|\hat H\|_2+\|H^*\|_2)}{(1-2p)(1-p)^{s-1} \sigma}\right). \end{aligned}

  • Case 2 (\|\hat K\|_F \ge R): By the equivalence between (?) and (?), there exist matrices \hat Q_s,\hat H, \hat J such that (\hat K, \hat Q_s, \hat H, \hat J) is a minimizer of (?). Furthermore, under Assumptions 1 and 5, there exist matrices H^*, J^* such that (0, Q_s^*, H^*, J^*) is feasible for (?) by Lemma 2. Applying the triangle inequality, we obtain

    \begin{aligned} & \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \left\| \hat K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} +\hat Q_s \mathbf{W}_t^{(s)}\right\|_2- \|\hat H\|_2 \bigg(\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\|\alpha_t^{(s)}\|_2 + \|\beta_t\|_2\bigg)\\ &\le\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \left\| \hat K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} +\hat Q_s \mathbf{W}_t^{(s)} + \hat H\alpha_t^{(s)} + \hat H\beta_t\right\|_2 \\&\le \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \left\| Q_s^* \mathbf{W}_t^{(s)} + H^*\alpha_t^{(s)} + H^*\beta_t\right\|_2 \\&\le \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\| Q_s^* \mathbf{W}_t^{(s)}\|_2 + \| H^*\|_2 \bigg(\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\|\alpha_t^{(s)}\|_2 + \|\beta_t\|_2\bigg), \end{aligned}

    which implies that

    \begin{aligned}\Psi_T(\hat K)&\le \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \| \hat K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} +\hat Q_s \mathbf{W}_t^{(s)}\|_2-\| Q_s^* \mathbf{W}_t^{(s)}\|_2\\&\le (\|\hat H\|_2 + \|H^*\|_2)\bigg(\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\|\alpha_t^{(s)}\|_2 + \|\beta_t\|_2\bigg).\end{aligned}

    Applying Lemma 1 to the right-hand side, while using the lower bound (?) evaluated at \relax K = \hat K on the left-hand side, we arrive at

    \begin{aligned} \frac{c_*}{4} \|\hat K\|_F T \le \Psi_T(\hat K) = \mathcal{O}\big( (\|\hat H\|_2 + \|H^*\|_2) \cdot \rho^s \|C\|_2 M T \big), \end{aligned}

    which simplifies to

    \begin{aligned} \|\hat K\|_F = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\rho^s (\|\hat H\|_2 + \|H^*\|_2)}{(1-2p)(1-p)^{s-1} \sigma}\cdot \|C\|_2 M\right) \end{aligned}

    with probability at least 1-\delta.

Combining (?) and (?)

completes the proof.

Uses Lemma 6, Assumption 1, Assumption 5, Lemma 2, Lemma 1
Remark

Remark 2 (Attack Detection)

Y1OM

Equation (?) provides a principled metric for identifying attacked time steps. Given a solution (\hat H, \hat J), evaluating the filter residual \hat H y_t - \hat J \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} recovers the residual term \hat K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \hat H v_t^{(s)} + \hat H \alpha_t^{(s)} + \hat H \beta_t. Since the normalized terms \frac{\hat K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}}{\|\hat H\|_2}, \alpha_t^{(s)}, and \beta_t are bounded and small, unattacked periods yield small filter residuals. In contrast, during attacked periods, large magnitude of adversarial attacks v_t^{(s)} induce large residual spikes under clear separation between normal and corrupted data, enabling attack detection.

Remark

Remark 3 (Preventing Degeneracy)

WMTE

If \|\hat H\|_2 or \|H^*\|_2 is exceptionally small, the time bound T in (1) increases significantly. This issue can be readily mitigated by enforcing a lower-bound constraint \|H\|_2 \ge 1 in the optimization problem (?), which leaves the relative estimation error invariant. The only exception occurs when CE is square and invertible (s=1), where H = (CE)^{-1} is unique and imposing \|H\|_2 \ge 1 could induce infeasibility if \|(CE)^{-1}\|_2 < 1. In other cases where H is non-unique, the set of valid left-inverses is unbounded, guaranteeing the existence of a feasible H satisfying \|H\|_2 \ge 1. Imposing this lower-bound constraint prevents \|\hat H\|_2 + \|H^*\|_2 from approaching zero, effectively treating the \|\hat H\|_2 + \|H^*\|_2 factor in (1) as a constant bounded below by 2 to ensure a stable time bound.

Proof

Proof

8AVP

Note that \|\|x_0\|_2 \|_{\psi_2} \leq \eta{\sqrt{n}}, \|\|w_t\|_2\|_{\psi_2} \leq \eta{\sqrt{e}}, and \|\|u_t\|_2\|_{\psi_2} \leq \sigma\sqrt{m} follow from Assumption 3 and the Gaussianity of u_t. In turn, using the system dynamics (?) yields

\begin{aligned} & \|\|x_t\|_2\|_{\psi_2} = \Bigr\|\Bigr\|A^t x_0 + \sum_{i=0}^{t-1} (A^{t-1-i}Bu_i+A^{t-1-i}E w_{i})\Bigr\|_2 \Bigr\|_{\psi_2} \\& \leq \|A^t\|_2\cdot\|\|x_0\|_2\|_{\psi_2} \\&\hspace{5mm}+ \sum_{i=0}^{t-1} \|A^{t-1-i}\|_2 \bigr(\|B\|_2\cdot \|\|u_i\|_2\|_{\psi_2} +\|E\|_2 \|\|w_i\|_2\|_{\psi_2}\bigr) \\&\le \frac{\psi}{1-\rho} \cdot \left[\eta {\sqrt{n}}+ \eta\sqrt{e}\|E\|_2 + \sigma \sqrt{m} \|B\|_2\right]=\mathcal{O}(M) \addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\arabic{equation}} \end{aligned}

due to the triangle inequality and geometric sum with Assumption 2. We can sum up \|x_t\|_2 over t=0, \dots, T-1 to yield

\begin{aligned} &\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \|x_t\|_2 \le\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \|A^i\|_2 \Bigr[\|x_0\|_{2} + \sum_{t=0}^{T-2} (\|Ew_t\|_{2} + \|Bu_t\|_{2})\Bigr]\\&\hspace{2mm}\leq\frac{\psi}{1-\rho}\Bigr[\|x_0\|_{2} + \sum_{t=0}^{T-2} (\|E\|_2\|w_t\|_{2} + \|B\|_2\|u_t\|_{2})\Bigr]:= X. \end{aligned}

Since the filtration \mathcal{F}_t can alternatively be written as \bm{\sigma}\{x_0, \{(u_\tau, w_\tau)\}_{\tau=0}^{t-1}\}, sequentially applying the tower rule using \mathcal{F}_t over T steps establishes that X-\mathbb{E}[X] is sub-Gaussian with norm \mathcal{O}(M\sqrt{T}). Then, Hoeffding’s inequality yields

\begin{aligned} &\mathbb{P}\bigr( X-\mathbb{E}[X] \leq MT \bigr) \geq 1-\exp(-\Omega(T)).\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\arabic{equation}} \end{aligned}

Then, considering \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \|x_t\|_2 \le X and the expectation bound \mathbb{E}\bigr[\sum_{t=0}^{T-1} \|x_t\|_2\bigr]=\mathcal{O}(MT) from (?) yields

\begin{aligned} \sum_{t=k-1}^{T+k-2} \|\beta_t\|_2= \sum_{t=0}^{T-1}\|CA^{k-1}x_t\|_2 = \mathcal{O}( \rho^{k-1} \|C\|_2MT )\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\arabic{equation}} \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\frac{\delta}{2}. Similarly, following the same filtration argument, we have

\begin{aligned} \sum_{t=k-1}^{T+k-2}\|\alpha_t^{(s)}\|_2& \le\mathcal{O}\Big( \rho^s\|C\|_2\frac{\sum_{t=0}^{T+k-4}\|E\|_2\|w_t\|_2}{1-\rho}\Big) \\& = \mathcal{O}\Big( \rho^s \|C\|_2\frac{\eta\sqrt{n}\|E\|_2}{1-\rho}T\Big)\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\arabic{equation}} \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\frac{\delta}{2}. We complete the proof by applying the union bound and summing up (?) and (?).

Uses Assumption 3, Assumption 2
Proof

Proof

C896

For simplicity, let L := [CAE ~ \dots ~ CA^{s-1}E].

(\Longrightarrow) Suppose such a matrix H \in \mathbb{R}^{e \times r} exists. First, H CE = I_e implies e = \mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits(I_e) = \mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits(H CE) \le \mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits(CE) \le e, so \mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits(CE) = e. Second, let y \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits(CE) \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits(L ). Then y = CE u = L v for some u \in \mathbb{R}^e and v \in \mathbb{R}^{e(s-1)}. Multiplying by H yields: \[ u = I_e u = H CE u = H y = H L v = 0 v = 0. \hfil \egroup \end{trivlist} \else \@badmath \fi Thusy = 0, provingIm(CE) Im(L ) = {0}. \medskip()Supposerank(CE) = eandIm(CE) Im(L) = {0}. LetV = {x+yR^r: xIm(CE), yIm(L) }. Any vectorz Vcan be expressed asz = CE u + L v. If \[ CE u_1 + L v_1 = CE u_2 + L v_2, \relax\ifmmode \egroup then CE(u_1 - u_2) = L (v_2 - v_1) \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits(CE) \cap \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits(L) = \{0\}. Hence CE(u_1 - u_2) = 0, and since \mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits(CE) = e, it follows that u_1 = u_2.

Therefore, the linear map H_0 : V \to \mathbb{R}^e given by \[ H_0(CE u + L v) = u \hfil \egroup \end{trivlist} \else \@badmath \fi is well-defined becauseuis uniquely determined for everyz V. Evaluation atv = 0andu = 0respectively givesH_0 CE = I_eandH_0 L = 0. Finally, extendH_0to all ofR^rby choosing a complementary subspaceWsuch thatR^r = V + WwithV W = {0}, and settingH(w) = 0for allw W. This yields the desired matrixHR^er$.

Proof

Proof

V1PT

For a fixed realization of \mathcal{T}_0, define f_K(\mathbf{U}) := \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2 for \mathbf{U} = [u_0^T ~ u_1^T ~\dots u_{T+k-2}^T]^T \in \mathbb{R}^{m(T+k-1)}.

First, we compute the Lipschitz constant of f_K. For any \mathbf{U}, \mathbf{U}' \in \mathbb{R}^{m(T+k-1)}, Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields

\begin{aligned} |f_{K}(\mathbf{U}) - f_{K}(\mathbf{U}')| &\le \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K (\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} - (\mathbf{U}_t')^{(k)})\|_2 \\ &\le \|K\|_F \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} - (\mathbf{U}_t')^{(k)}\|_2 \\ &\le \|K\|_F \sqrt{|\mathcal{T}_0|} \sqrt{\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} - (\mathbf{U}_t')^{(k)}\|_2^2} \\ &\le \|K\|_F \sqrt{|\mathcal{T}_0| k} \cdot \|\mathbf{U} - \mathbf{U}'\|_2.\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\arabic{equation}} \end{aligned}

Thus, f_K has a Lipschitz constant of \|K\|_F \sqrt{|\mathcal{T}_0| k}.

Gaussian concentration for Lipschitz functions (see Lemma 1 in [kim2025bridging]) implies that the sub-Gaussian norm of \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2-\mathbb{E}[\|K\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2] is bounded by \mathcal{O}(\sigma\|K\|_F\sqrt{|\mathcal{T}_0|k}). Thus, we can write

\begin{aligned} & \mathbb{P}\biggr( \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2-\mathbb{E}[\|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2] < -\frac{\sigma }{2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\|K\|_F|\mathcal{T}_0|\biggr)\\&\hspace{55mm}\le \exp\left(-\Omega\biggr(\frac{|\mathcal{T}_0| }{k}\right)\biggr). \end{aligned}

By \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0}\mathbb{E}[\|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2]\ge \sigma\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\|K\|_F |\mathcal{T}_0|, we arrive at

\begin{aligned} & \mathbb{P}\biggr( \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2< \frac{\sigma }{2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\|K\|_F|\mathcal{T}_0|\biggr)\le \exp\left(-\Omega\biggr(\frac{|\mathcal{T}_0| }{k}\right)\biggr). \end{aligned}

We now bound the success probability using a union bound over two failure events:

  1. E_1: The event that |\mathcal{T}_0| \ge \frac{(1-p)^{s-1}}{2} T. By Chernoff’s bound, \mathbb{P}(E_1^c) \le \exp\left( -\frac{1}{8}(1-p)^{s-1} T \right). Setting this bound to \le \delta/2 requires T = \Omega\big(\frac{1}{(1-p)^{s-1}} \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)\big).

  2. E_2: The event that \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2 \ge \frac{\sigma}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\|K\|_F |\mathcal{T}_0|. Conditioned on E_1, we have |\mathcal{T}_0| \ge \frac{(1-p)^{s-1}}{2} T, leading to \mathbb{P}(E_2^c \mid E_1) \le \exp\bigr( -\Omega\bigr(\frac{(1-p)^{s-1} T}{ k} \bigr)\bigr). Setting this bound to \le \delta/2 requires T =\Omega\big(\frac{ k}{(1-p)^{s-1}} \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)\big).

Since k\ge 1, by taking T =\Omega\big(\frac{ k}{(1-p)^{s-1}} \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)\big), the union bound guarantees that E_1 \cap E_2 holds with probability at least 1 - \mathbb{P}(E_1^c) - \mathbb{P}(E_2^c \mid E_1) \ge 1 - \delta.

Finally, on the event E_1 \cap E_2, we substitute the lower bound for |\mathcal{T}_0| in E_1 directly into the lower bound for \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}_0} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2 in E_2. This completes the proof.

Proof

Proof

5B2U

For simplicity, let L = \begin{bmatrix} CAE & \dots & CA^{s-1}E \end{bmatrix}. Also, let P_L^\perp = I_r - L L^+, where L^+ is the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of L. The constraint H^* L = 0 parameterizes H^* = X P_L^\perp, which reduces H^* CE = I_e to X (P_L^\perp CE) = I_e. Under Assumptions 1 and 5, P_L^\perp CE has full column rank e, yielding the unique minimum spectral-norm solution H^* = (P_L^\perp CE)^+ with \|H^*\|_2 = \frac{1}{\sigma_{\min}(P_L^\perp CE)}.

For any unit vector x \in \mathbb{R}^e, let y = CE x \in \mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits(CE). By the definitions of singular values and the minimal principal angle \theta: \[ P_L^CE x_2 = P_L^y_2 () y_2 () _(CE). \hfil \egroup \end{trivlist} \else \@badmath \fi Taking the infimum overx_2 = 1yields_(P_L^CE) _(CE) () > 0$. Taking the reciprocal completes the proof.

Uses Assumption 1, Assumption 5
Proof

Proof

UXVZ

Define the \sigma-algebra \mathcal{U} := \sigma(\{u_t\}_{t=0}^{T+k-2}) and the growing filtration

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{G}_{t-1} := \sigma\left( \mathcal{U}, \, \{w_{t-2}, w_{t-3}, \dots, w_0\} \right). \end{aligned}

Note that \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} \in \mathcal{G}_{t-1} and \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)} \in \mathcal{G}_{t-1}, which implies that \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2 is \mathcal{G}_{t-1}-measurable. Moreover, the indicator of new attack satisfies \mathbb{P}(\xi_{t-1}=1 \mid \mathcal{G}_{t-1}) = p.

Fix a threshold B > 0 and introduce the bounded, \mathcal{G}_{t-1}-measurable process r_t := \min\big\{ \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2, B \big\}. Define the high-probability noise-truncation event

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}_B := \left\{ \max_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|w_{t-1}\|_2 \le B \right\}. \end{aligned}

On event \mathcal{E}_B, we have \min\{\|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2, \|w_{t-1}\|_2\} \le \xi_{t-1} r_t since \xi_{t-1}=0 implies w_{t-1}=0. Substituting this into (5) and centering around p yields:

\begin{aligned} & f_T(K,\tilde Q_s) \ge \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s\mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2-2\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}}\xi_{t-1}r_t\\ &\ge (1-2p) \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s\mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2 - 2\sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}}(\xi_{t-1}-p) r_t.\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\arabic{equation}} \end{aligned}

Let X_t := 2(\xi_{t-1}-p)r_t. Then, since \mathbb{E}[X_t \mid \mathcal{G}_{t-1}] = 0, \{X_t\} forms a martingale difference sequence with respect to \{\mathcal{G}_{t-1}\}. Since X_t \in [-2pr_t, \, 2(1-p)r_t] conditioned on \mathcal{G}_{t-1}, its conditional range is bounded by 2r_t \le 2B. By Hoeffding’s lemma for bounded variables, \mathbb{E}\left[ e^{\lambda X_t} \mid \mathcal{G}_{t-1} \right] \le \exp\big( \frac{\lambda^2 B^2}{2} \big). Sequentially applying the tower rule using \mathcal{G}_{t-1} over T steps yields \mathbb{E}\left[ \exp\left(\lambda \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} X_t\right) \right] \le \exp\big( \frac{\lambda^2 T B^2}{2} \big). By Hoeffding’s inequality, we have

\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} X_t \ge B \sqrt{2T \log\Big(\frac{3}{\delta}\Big)} \right) \le \frac{\delta}{3}. \end{aligned}

Furthermore, since \|w_t\|_2 is sub-Gaussian with parameter \eta\sqrt{e}, there exists a constant c>0 such that \mathbb{P}(\|w_t\|_2 > B) \le 2\exp\big( -\frac{c B^2}{ \eta^2 e} \big). A union bound over all T steps gives \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_B^c) \le 2T \exp\left( -\frac{c B^2}{ \eta^2 e} \right). Choosing

\begin{aligned} B =\sqrt{\frac{\eta^2 e}{c} \log\left(\frac{6T}{\delta}\right) } \end{aligned}

ensures that \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_B) \ge 1 - \frac{\delta}{3}.

Finally, invoking Lemma 3, to guarantee that inequality (3) holds with probability at least 1-\frac{\delta}{3}, it suffices that T = \Omega\left( \frac{k}{(1-p)^{s-1}} \log\left(\frac{3}{\delta}\right) \right).

Substituting (3) and (?) into (?), we obtain

\begin{split} & f_T(K, \tilde Q_s) \\ &\ge \frac{(1-2p)(1-p)^{s-1}\sigma}{4} \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \|K\|_F T - B \sqrt{2T \log\Big(\frac{3}{\delta}\Big)}. \end{split}

We bound the last term as B \sqrt{2T \log(\frac{3}{\delta})}\le \rho^s h T, which translates to T \ge \frac{2 B^2 \log(3/\delta)}{ \rho^{2s} h^2}. Substituting (?) for B yields the sufficient condition on T in (5). By applying a union bound across all events, the lower bound (?) holds under (5) with probability at least 1-\delta.

Taking the infimum over \tilde Q_s on both sides of (?) yields (5), concluding the proof.

Uses Lemma 5, Lemma 3
Proof

Proof

SKAR

We establish the uniform lower bound via an \epsilon-net discretization argument over \mathcal{S}_R. To this end, recall that f_T(K, \tilde Q_s) can be equivalently represented using the identity a - 2\min\{a, b\} = |a - b| - b:

\begin{aligned} &f_T(K, \tilde Q_s) \\&= \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \Big| \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2 - \|w_{t-1}\|_2 \Big| - \|w_{t-1}\|_2. \end{aligned}

For any K, \tilde K \in \mathcal{S}_R and any matrix \tilde Q_s, applying the reverse triangle inequality yields

\begin{aligned} &|f_T(K, \tilde Q_s) - f_T(\tilde K, \tilde Q_s)| \\&\le \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \left| \|K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2 - \|\tilde K \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} + \tilde Q_s \mathbf{\tilde W}_t^{(s)}\|_2 \right| \\ &\le \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|(K - \tilde K) \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2 \le \|K - \tilde K\|_F \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2. \end{aligned}

Rearranging and taking the infimum over \tilde Q_s on both sides gives

\begin{aligned} |\Psi_T(K) - \Psi_T(\tilde K)| \le \|K - \tilde K\|_F \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2. \end{aligned}

Similar to the relationship (?), the term \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2 is \sqrt{Tk}-Lipschitz. Since we have \mathbb{E}[\|\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2] \le \sigma \sqrt{mk} from \mathbf{U}_t^{(k)} \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I_{mk}), Gaussian concentration for Lipschitz functions again implies that

\begin{aligned} \mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{t\in\mathcal{T}} \|\mathbf{U}_t^{(k)}\|_2 \le 2 \sigma \sqrt{mk}\cdot T \right) \ge 1 - \exp(-\Omega(mT)). \end{aligned}

Thus, when T=\Omega\bigr( \frac{1}{m}\log\left(\frac{2}{\delta}\right)\bigr), the inequality (Proof) extends to

\begin{aligned} |\Psi_T(K) - \Psi_T(\tilde K)| \le 2 \sigma \sqrt{mk} \cdot T \|K - \tilde K\|_F \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1-\frac{\delta}{2}. To bound the right-hand side by \frac{c_*}{2} R T, we set the discretization grid resolution to

\begin{aligned} \epsilon := \frac{c_* R}{4 \sigma \sqrt{mk}}. \end{aligned}

The covering number N_\epsilon needed to cover \mathcal{S}_R with \epsilon-balls in Frobenius norm satisfies

\begin{aligned} N_\epsilon \le \left( 1 + \frac{2R}{\epsilon} \right)^{e m k} =\left( 1 + \frac{16\sqrt{2\pi}\cdot \sqrt{mk}}{(1-2p)(1-p)^{s-1}} \right)^{e m k}. \end{aligned}

For each fixed grid point \tilde K in the \epsilon-net, applying Lemma 5 with failure probability \frac{\delta}{2N_\epsilon} ensures that \Psi_T(\tilde K) \ge c_* R T - \rho^s h T with probability at least 1 - \frac{\delta}{2N_\epsilon}.

By a union bound over all N_\epsilon grid points in the \epsilon-net, the pointwise lower bound holds simultaneously across the entire net with probability at least 1 - \frac{\delta}{2}. Combining this with the event in (?) (which holds with probability at least 1 - \frac{\delta}{2}), for any K \in \mathcal{S}_R, choosing a net point \tilde K such that \|K - \tilde K\|_F \le \epsilon yields

\begin{aligned} \Psi_T(K) &\ge \Psi_T(\tilde K) - 2 T \sigma \sqrt{mk} \, \epsilon \\ &\ge \left( c_* R T - \rho^s h T \right) - \frac{c_*}{2} R T = \frac{c_*}{4} R T \end{aligned}

with probability at least 1 - \delta, where the last equality is from the definition of R.

To guarantee the union bound, we replace \delta in (5) with \frac{\delta}{2N_\epsilon}. Expanding the logarithm yields \log(\frac{2N_\epsilon}{\delta}) = \mathcal{O}\big( e m k \log\big( \frac{mk}{(1-2p)(1-p)^{s-1}} \big) + \log(\frac{1}{\delta}) \big)=\mathcal{\tilde O}(emks), which leads to the final time bound in (6), hiding logarithmic factors. Note that T=\Omega\bigr( \frac{1}{m}\log\left(\frac{2}{\delta}\right)\bigr) required for (?) is dominated by (6). This completes the proof.

Uses Lemma 5, Lemma 6

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2610.21935v1 by Jihun Kim and Javad Lavaei, 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/2610/2610.21935.jsonl.