Data-Driven Structured Controller Design Using the Matrix S-Procedure

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2503.14949
• Title: Data-Driven Structured Controller Design Using the Matrix S-Procedure
• Authors: Zhaohua Yang, Yuxing Zhong, Nachuan Yang, Xiaoxu Lyu, Ling Shi
• Classification: math.OC (Mathematical Optimization and Control)
• Submission Date: October 14, 2025 (Preprint submitted to Automatica)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14949

Abstract

This paper focuses on data-driven optimal structured controller design for discrete-time linear time-invariant (LTI) systems considering both $H_2$ and $H_\infty$ performance. Three scenarios are investigated: (i) model-based structured control, (ii) data-driven unstructured control, and (iii) data-driven structured control. For $H_2$ performance, scenarios (ii) and (iii) are primarily studied, as scenario (i) has been extensively researched in the literature. For $H_\infty$ performance, all three scenarios are considered. For structured control, a linearization technique is introduced that transforms the original non-convex problem into a semidefinite programming (SDP) problem, based on which an iterative linear matrix inequality (ILMI) algorithm is developed.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

1. Challenges in Networked Control Systems: In large-scale networked control systems, centralized control strategies impose substantial communication burdens, necessitating the design of controllers with sparse structures.
2. Difficulties in Structured Controller Design: Controller design with structural constraints exhibits NP-hard complexity, with existing methods primarily divided into LMI-based and gradient-based approaches.
3. Demand for Data-Driven Control: In practical applications, the dynamics of many systems are often unavailable, motivating research into data-driven control methodologies.

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Traditional Methods Rely on Known Models: Existing structured controller design methods assume the system model is known.
2. Conservatism in Data-Driven Methods: Existing data-driven approaches such as Miller et al. 15 suffer from:
   • Over-approximation of instantaneous bounded noise as energy-bounded noise sequences, introducing additional conservatism
   • Designing structured controllers only within convex subsets of non-convex feasible regions
   • Lack of performance monotonicity guarantees

Core Contributions

1. Improved Data-Driven Framework:
   • Represents the set of all possible system matrices as the intersection of sets from each data point, which is smaller than the set in 15
   • Employs the matrix S-procedure to handle all possible system matrices, proving that the feasible region contains that of 15
   • Establishes monotonic non-decreasing performance with respect to data length
2. Novel Linearization Technique:
   • Develops a linearization technique that transforms the original non-convex problem into an SDP problem
   • Proposes the ILMI algorithm for computing structured controllers
   • Enables exploration of larger feasible regions compared to 15
3. Comprehensive $H_\infty$ Control Study:
   • Provides the first comprehensive investigation of model-based structured control, data-driven unstructured control, and data-driven structured control

Methodology Details

Problem Formulation

Consider a discrete-time LTI system:

x_{k+1} = Ax_k + Bu_k + Gd_k
y_k = Cx_k + Du_k + Hd_k

where $x_k \in \mathbb{R}^{n_x}$ is the system state, $u_k \in \mathbb{R}^{n_u}$ is the control input, $y_k \in \mathbb{R}^{n_y}$ is the controlled output, and $d_k \in \mathbb{R}^{n_d}$ is the external disturbance.

A state feedback controller $u_k = Kx_k$ is employed, where $K \in \mathbb{R}^{n_u \times n_x}$ must satisfy structural constraints $K \in S$.

Data Collection Mechanism

Assuming matrices $A, B$ are unknown but deterministic, while matrices $C, D, G, H$ are known. The collected data includes:

X = [x_0, x_1, ..., x_T] ∈ ℝ^{n×(T+1)}
U = [u_0, u_1, ..., u_{T-1}] ∈ ℝ^{m×T}

Key Assumption: Process noise is bounded, i.e., $\|w_k\|_2 \leq \epsilon$.

Core Technical Innovations

1. Improved System Matrix Set Representation

Based on data $(x_i, u_i, x_{i+1})$ at the $i$-th time step, define:

Σ_i = {(A,B) | x_{i+1} = Ax_i + Bu_i + w_i, w_i w_i^T ⪯ ε²I}

The set of all system matrices consistent with the data is:

Σ = ∩_{i=0}^{T-1} Σ_i

This is more precise than the set in 15, reducing conservatism.

2. Application of Matrix S-Procedure

For $H_2$ control, utilizing the matrix S-procedure, a sufficient condition for condition (5a) to hold for all $(A,B) \in Σ$ is the existence of non-negative $α_0, α_1, ..., α_{T-1}$ and $β > 0$ such that:

$\begin{bmatrix} P - GG^T - βI & 0 \\ 0 & -\begin{bmatrix} I \\ K \end{bmatrix} P \begin{bmatrix} I \\ K \end{bmatrix}^T \end{bmatrix} - \sum_{i=0}^{T-1} α_i Ψ_i ⪰ 0$

3. Linearization Technique

For structured control, the key challenge is the non-convexity of the constraint $Y ⪯ P^{-1}$. By linearizing $P^{-1}$ in the neighborhood of a given point $\tilde{P}$:

Y ⪯ P̃^{-1} - P̃^{-1}(P - P̃)P̃^{-1}

Algorithm Framework

Algorithm 1: Unstructured Optimal Controller Design

Input: Data X, U, noise bound ε
Output: Controller K*, performance bound γ*
1. Select the appropriate SDP problem based on problem type
2. Solve SDP to obtain L*, P*, γ*
3. Return K* = L*P*^{-1}, γ*

Algorithm 2: Structured Optimal Controller Design

Input: Data X, U, structural constraints I_S
Output: Controller K*, performance bound γ*
1. Initialize λ, μ, δ, ε, P_0 = I, k = 0
2. Repeat:
   a. Solve SDP with P̃ = P_k and λ
   b. Update K_{k+1}, P_{k+1}, γ_{k+1}
   c. If λ < δ then λ = μλ
   d. k = k + 1
3. Until convergence
4. Return K_k, γ_k

Experimental Setup

$H_2$ Control Case

System Parameters:

A = [-0.4095  0.4036 -0.0874
      0.5154 -0.0815  0.1069
      1.6715  0.7718 -0.3376]

B = [ 0      0
     -0.6359 -0.1098
     -0.0325  2.2795]

Structural Constraint: I_S = [1 1 0
                               0 1 1]

$H_\infty$ Control Case

System Parameters:

A = [0.8  0.2  0.1
     0.1  0.7 -0.3
    -0.3  0.5  0.9]

B = [1 0
     0 1
     1 1]

Structural Constraint: I_S = [1 1 0
                               1 1 0]

Evaluation Metrics

• $H_2$/$H_\infty$ performance bounds
• Computational time
• Performance comparison with benchmark methods

Experimental Results

$H_2$ Control Results

Performance Comparison Under Different Noise Levels (T=20)

Performance Comparison Under Different Data Lengths (ε=0.1)

$H_\infty$ Control Results

Performance Comparison Under Different Noise Levels (T=50)

Key Findings

1. Performance Advantage: The proposed method significantly outperforms the benchmark method 15 across all test scenarios
2. Monotonicity: The proposed method guarantees monotonic non-increasing performance bounds with respect to data length T, which 15 does not possess
3. Computational Cost: Computational time increases due to the iterative process and additional optimization variables

Related Work

Structured Controller Design

• LMI Methods: Works by Polyak et al. 2, Fardad et al. 5
• Gradient Methods: Augmented Lagrangian method by Lin et al. 3
• Interior Point Methods: Novel algorithm by Yang et al. 6

Data-Driven Control

• Foundational Theory: Fundamental lemma by Willems et al. 7
• Robust Stabilization: Works by De Persis and Tesi 8, Berberich et al. 9
• Matrix S-Lemma Applications: Research by van Waarde et al. 11, Bisoffi et al. 12,13

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. A more precise system matrix set representation is proposed, reducing conservatism
2. An effective linearization technique is developed to handle structural constraints
3. Theoretical advantages of the method are established and validated through numerical experiments

Limitations

1. Computational Complexity: The iterative algorithm and additional variables increase computational burden
2. Convergence Guarantees: Theoretical convergence guarantees for the algorithm are not provided
3. Structural Constraint Limitations: The method's effectiveness depends on reasonable structural constraints

Future Directions

1. Theoretical analysis of algorithm convergence
2. Further optimization of computational efficiency
3. Handling of more complex structural constraints

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Solid Theoretical Contributions: The improved system set representation and matrix S-procedure application have theoretical value
2. Strong Method Innovation: The linearization technique cleverly addresses non-convex constraints
3. Sufficient Experimental Validation: The method's effectiveness is verified across multiple scenarios
4. Significant Performance Improvement: Notable performance gains compared to existing methods

Weaknesses

1. Large Computational Overhead: The computational cost of the iterative algorithm is an obstacle to practical applications
2. Lack of Convergence Guarantees: Theoretical analysis is incomplete
3. Limited Applicability: The method requires reasonable structural constraints

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides a new theoretical framework for data-driven structured control
2. Practical Value: Significant application prospects in networked control systems
3. Reproducibility: Clear algorithm descriptions facilitate reproduction

Applicable Scenarios

• Large-scale networked control systems
• Distributed control with communication constraints
• Scenarios with unknown system models but available historical data
• Applications with high control performance requirements

References

The paper cites 42 relevant references covering important works in structured control, data-driven control, robust control, and other related fields, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.