discounted-mpc-robustness

name: discounted-mpc-robustness description: "Robustness analysis for MPC and infinite-horizon optimal control under plant-model mismatch with quadratic costs. Covers discounted and undiscounted scenarios, stability guarantees, and suboptimality bounds. Use when: (1) MPC robustness analysis, (2) plant-model mismatch effects, (3) discounted infinite-horizon control, (4) model uncertainty in optimal control, (5) stability under model errors, (6) data-driven surrogate models."

Discounted MPC Robustness Analysis

Comprehensive framework for analyzing stability and suboptimality of MPC and infinite-horizon optimal control under plant-model mismatch.

Core Problem

Design optimal controls using surrogate model f instead of true plant dynamics g. Characterize:

• Stability of closed-loop system
• Suboptimality of closed-loop cost
• Interaction with horizon length and discount factor

System Setup

Plant vs Surrogate

True plant dynamics:

x+ = g(x, u), g(0,0) = 0

Surrogate model (used for control design):

x+ = f(x, u), f continuous, f(0,0) = 0

Proportional Mismatch

Key measure: Proportional plant-model mismatch

|f - g|_S := inf{p ≥ 0 : |f(x,u) - g(x,u)| ≤ p(|x| + |u|) ∀x ∈ S, u ∈ U}

Properties:

• Bounds mismatch proportional to state and control magnitude
• Origin equilibrium preserved: f(0,0) = g(0,0) = 0
• Valid in region S (model assumptions hold / data available)

Additional Assumptions

L-Lipschitz continuity:

|f(x,u) - f(y,u)| ≤ L|x - y| ∀x,y ∈ R^n, ∀u ∈ U

Control set:

• U closed, contains 0
• Ensures existence of optimal controls

Optimal Control Problem

Cost Function

General form (finite/infinite horizon, discounted/undiscounted):

J_{γ,N}^f(x, u_N) = ∑_{k=0}^{N-1} γ^k ℓ(φ_f(k,x,u_k), u_k)

where:

• N ∈ N ∪ {∞}: Horizon length
• γ ∈ (0,1]: Discount factor
• ℓ(x,u) = x^T Q x + u^T R u: Quadratic stage cost

Quadratic stage cost:

Q ∈ R^{n×n}, symmetric positive definite
R ∈ R^{m×m}, symmetric positive definite
ℓ(x,u) = ||x||_Q^2 + ||u||_R^2

Value Function

Optimal value function:

V_{γ,N}^f(x) := min_{u_N ∈ U^N} J_{γ,N}^f(x, u_N)

Bellman equation (Proposition 1):

V_{γ,N}^f(x) = min_{u ∈ U} [ℓ(x,u) + γ V_{γ,N-1}^f(f(x,u))]

Optimal Feedback Policy

Set-valued policy:

U_{γ,N}^f(x) := {u ∈ U : ℓ(x,u) + γ V_{γ,N-1}^f(f(x,u)) = V_{γ,N}^f(x)}

Closed-Loop Dynamics

Plant under Surrogate-Based Control

Closed-loop system:

x+ = g(x, κ(x)) where κ(x) ∈ U_{γ,N}^f(x)

Key issue: Control designed for f, applied to g

Closed-loop cost:

J_{γ,N}^g(x_0) = ∑_{k=0}^{N-1} γ^k ℓ(φ_g(k,x_0,u_k), u_k)

where u_k from surrogate-based policy.

Cost Controllability

Assumption (Cost Controllability)

Key requirement:

∃α_c > 0: V_{γ,N}^f(x) ≤ α_c ℓ(x, κ(x)) ∀x ∈ R^n

Interpretation: Optimal value function bounded proportional to stage cost

Consequences:

• Exponential stability for sufficiently long horizons [18]
• Enables Lyapunov-based stability analysis
• Bounds computational complexity

Main Results

Stability Guarantee

Theorem (Stability under Mismatch):

Under:

• f continuous, L-Lipschitz
• Cost controllability (α_c)
• Horizon N sufficiently long (or γ sufficiently close to 1)
• Mismatch |f-g|_S sufficiently small

Result: Closed-loop system exponentially stable about origin.

Lyapunov function: V_{γ,N}^f serves as Lyapunov function

Suboptimality Bound

Theorem (Suboptimality):

Closed-loop cost approaches infinite-horizon optimal cost of surrogate model:

J_{γ,∞}^g(x_0) - V_{γ,∞}^f(x_0) ≤ δ(α_c, L, γ, |f-g|_S)

where δ quantifies performance degradation due to mismatch.

Key Innovation

Perturbation bounds independent of horizon length:

Unlike prior work [8,19,25]:

• Previous: Longer horizon → smaller mismatch needed
• This work: Bounds uniform over horizon length

Advantage: Can use longer horizons without requiring tighter model accuracy

Tradeoffs

Stability Conditions

Stability guaranteed when:

1. Horizon length: N ≥ N* sufficiently long (undiscounted)
2. Discount factor: γ ≥ γ* sufficiently close to 1 (infinite horizon)
3. Mismatch: |f-g|_S ≤ ε sufficiently small

Tradeoff: Can compensate larger mismatch with longer horizon or larger γ.

Suboptimality Degradation

Performance bound depends on:

• α_c: Cost controllability parameter
• L: Lipschitz constant
• γ: Discount factor
• |f-g|_S: Mismatch magnitude

Better model (smaller mismatch) → Better performance

Applications

Data-Driven Control

Surrogate from system identification:

• Kernel EDMD: Data-driven models with arbitrarily small mismatch [8]
• Koopman operator: Linear surrogates for nonlinear systems
• More data → More accurate surrogate → Smaller mismatch

Model Simplification

Using simplified models for tractability:

• Linear approximations for nonlinear systems
• Reduced-order models
• Discretization of continuous-time systems

Reinforcement Learning

Discounted costs common in RL:

• Mitigate prediction error accumulation
• Better numerical properties
• Stability requires γ close to 1

Implementation Considerations

Horizon Selection

Finite horizon (MPC):

N_min = compute_minimum_horizon(α_c, L, ε_mismatch)
# Use N ≥ N_min for stability

Infinite horizon:

γ_min = compute_minimum_discount(α_c, L, ε_mismatch)
# Use γ ≥ γ_min for stability (close to 1)

Mismatch Estimation

For data-driven surrogates:

# Kernel EDMD provides mismatch bound
|f - g|_S ≤ p(data_quality, system_class)
# More data → smaller p

For model simplification:

# Analytical mismatch bound
|f - g|_S ≤ p(model_complexity_reduction)

Lyapunov Verification

def verify_stability(x, V_f, κ, α_c, L, ε):
    """Check Lyapunov conditions under mismatch"""
    # Decrease condition
    ΔV = V_f(g(x, κ(x))) - V_f(x)
    
    # Stability if ΔV ≤ -α ℓ(x, κ(x))
    return ΔV ≤ -α * (||x||_Q^2 + ||κ(x)||_R^2)

Comparison to Prior Work

Key Differences

Advantages

1. Horizon-independent bounds: Use longer horizons freely
2. Discounted costs: RL applications
3. Infinite horizon: Direct optimal control (no MPC receding)
4. Unified theory: Single framework for all scenarios

Limitations

Assumption Requirements

1. Quadratic stage cost: May not apply to general costs
2. Proportional mismatch: Origin must be equilibrium of both systems
3. Lipschitz continuity: Required for surrogate
4. Cost controllability: May not hold for all systems

Practical Challenges

1. Estimating mismatch: |f-g|_S may be difficult to determine
2. Lipschitz constant: May be large for complex systems
3. Minimum horizon: May be impractically long for some systems
4. Region S: Valid only where model assumptions hold

Related Concepts

• Robust MPC: Terminal ingredients vs long horizon approaches
• Relaxed DP: Bellman inequality for stability
• Data-driven control: Kernel EDMD, Koopman operators
• Discounted optimal control: RL connections
• Lyapunov stability: Value function as Lyapunov function

References

1. Paper: Moldenhauer et al., "Discounted MPC and infinite-horizon optimal control under plant-model mismatch" (arXiv:2604.08521v1, April 2026)
2. Related: [8] Data-driven MPC with kernel EDMD
3. Related: [18] MPC stability via relaxed DP
4. Related: [22] Discounted optimal control stability

Open Questions

1. Non-quadratic costs: Extension to general stage costs?
2. Stochastic systems: Noise handling in framework?
3. State constraints: Incorporate constraint satisfaction?
4. Non-proportional mismatch: Other mismatch measures?
5. Adaptive horizon: Horizon adjustment based on mismatch?

Tools Used

• exec: Run stability verification scripts
• read: Load reference materials
• write: Save analysis results

Notes

• Horizon-independent bounds major practical improvement
• Discount factor γ close to 1 critical for stability
• More data → more accurate surrogate → better performance
• Framework applicable to MPC, value iteration, direct infinite-horizon control