Data-Driven Stabilization Using Prior Knowledge on Stabilizability and Controllability

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.25452
• Title: Data-Driven Stabilization Using Prior Knowledge on Stabilizability and Controllability
• Authors: Amir Shakouri, Henk J. van Waarde, Tren M.J.T. Baltussen, W.P.M.H. (Maurice) Heemels
• Affiliations: University of Groningen (Shakouri, van Waarde), Eindhoven University of Technology (Baltussen, Heemels)
• Classification: math.OC (Optimization and Control), cs.SY, eess.SY (Systems and Control)
• Publication Date: arXiv v2, October 30, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25452v2

Abstract

This paper investigates the data-driven stabilization problem for linear time-invariant systems by leveraging system-theoretic properties—specifically stabilizability and controllability—as prior knowledge. The authors extend the concept of data informativity to require the existence of a controller that stabilizes all systems consistent with both the data and prior knowledge. The main findings are: (1) If the system is controllable, using this as prior knowledge does not relax the conditions for data-driven stabilization; (2) If the system is stabilizable, using this prior knowledge yields weaker necessary and sufficient conditions compared to the case without prior knowledge. In other words, if the underlying system is known to be stabilizable, data-driven stabilization becomes more achievable. The paper also provides a novel linear matrix inequality (LMI)-based data-driven control design method.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problem to Be Addressed

This paper addresses: How can one design a stabilizing controller under limited data conditions by incorporating prior knowledge about system stabilizability or controllability?

Traditional data-driven control assumes system parameters are completely unknown, but this assumption is overly conservative for most physical systems. In practice, we often possess prior knowledge (such as ranges of physical quantities like mass and spring constants, or controllability/stabilizability that can be inferred from system structure).

Importance of the Problem

1. Reduced Data Requirements: Designing controllers directly from data may require substantial data to satisfy persistent excitation conditions, but incorporating prior knowledge may enable stabilization with less data.
2. Practical Feasibility: In some cases, controller design from data alone is infeasible (e.g., when state data is rank-deficient), but adding prior knowledge may make design possible.
3. Theoretical Completeness: System-theoretic properties (controllability, stabilizability) are fundamental concepts in control theory, but have not been sufficiently studied within the data-driven framework.

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Data-Driven Control: Existing work (e.g., De Persis & Tesi 2019, van Waarde et al. 2020) primarily addresses the case without prior knowledge, requiring strict data conditions (e.g., persistent excitation, full-rank state data).
2. Prior Knowledge Integration: Existing research is limited to parameter bound constraints 12-14 or partially known parameters 15, without addressing system-theoretic properties.
3. Non-Convexity Challenge: The sets of stabilizable and controllable systems are non-convex, unlike the convex system sets considered in existing work.

Research Motivation

In many practical applications, controllability or stabilizability can be inferred from system structure (structural controllability theory), but such prior knowledge has not been exploited in data-driven control. This paper fills this theoretical gap.

Core Contributions

The main contributions of this paper include:

1. Theoretical Framework Extension: Extends the concept of data informativity to include prior knowledge, proposing the Σ_pk-informativity definition (Definition 3).
2. Equivalence Theorem for Controllability Prior (Theorem 5): Proves that using controllability as prior knowledge is equivalent to the case without prior knowledge, i.e., controllability prior cannot relax data conditions.
3. Advantage Theorems for Stabilizability Prior (Theorems 14, 15):
   • When state data is full-rank (rank X⁻ = n), stabilizability prior provides no additional benefit.
   • When state data is rank-deficient (rank X⁻ < n), stabilizability prior significantly relaxes conditions, yielding necessary and sufficient conditions.
4. Computable Design Method (Proposition 16): Provides an LMI-based method for computing stabilizing controllers directly from Σ_stab-informative data.
5. Theoretical Insights: Reveals the seemingly paradoxical phenomenon that a stronger property (controllability) cannot help relax conditions, while a weaker property (stabilizability) can, because in certain cases all data-consistent systems are uncontrollable.

Detailed Methodology

Problem Formulation

System Model: Consider a discrete-time LTI system

x(t+1) = A_true x(t) + B_true u(t)

where x(t)∈ℝⁿ is the state, u(t)∈ℝᵐ is the input, and the system matrices (A_true, B_true) are unknown.

Data: Input-state data collected from time 0 to T:

D := ([u(0),...,u(T-1)], [x(0),...,x(T)])

Define data matrices:

• U⁻ = u(0),...,u(T-1)
• X⁻ = x(0),...,x(T-1)
• X⁺ = x(1),...,x(T)

Data-Consistent System Set:

Σ_D := {(A,B) | X⁺ = AX⁻ + BU⁻}

Objective: Find feedback gain K such that A+BK is Schur stable (all eigenvalues have modulus < 1) for all (A,B)∈Σ_D∩Σ_pk.

Core Concepts

Definition 3 (Σ_pk-informativity for stabilization): Data D is called Σ_pk-informative for stabilization if there exists K∈ℝᵐˣⁿ such that A+BK is Schur stable for all (A,B)∈Σ_D∩Σ_pk.

Prior Knowledge Sets:

• Σ_cont: Set of all controllable system pairs
• Σ_stab: Set of all stabilizable system pairs

Controllability as Prior Knowledge (Section III)

Theorem 5 (Core Result): Assume (A_true, B_true)∈Σ_cont. Then the following are equivalent:

• (a) Data D is Σ_cont-informative for stabilization
• (b) Data D is informative for stabilization (without prior knowledge)

Proof Sketch:

1. (b)⇒(a) is obvious
2. For (a)⇒(b), the key steps are:
   • If Σ_D⊆Σ_cont, the conclusion follows trivially
   • If there exists an uncontrollable (Ā,B̄)∈Σ_D, use Lemma 7 (parametric system families are controllable almost everywhere) and Lemma 9 (matrix pencil stability) to show that the stabilizing K also stabilizes (Ā,B̄)

Key Lemmas:

• Lemma 7: If (M,N) is controllable, then (M+αM₀, N+αN₀) is controllable for all α except at most n² values
• Lemma 9: If M+δN is Schur for all δ∈[ε,∞)\F (F finite), then N is nilpotent and M+δN is Schur for all δ∈ℝ

Stabilizability as Prior Knowledge (Section IV)

A. Necessary Conditions (Theorem 10)

If data is Σ_stab-informative with stabilizing gain K, then:

• (a) (A₀+B₀K)R(A,B) = {0} for all (A,B)∈Σ_D∩Σ_stab and (A₀,B₀)∈Σ⁰_D
• (b) If rank X⁻ < n, then imX⁻;U⁻ = im X⁻ × ℝᵐ
• (c) im X⁺ ⊆ im X⁻
• (d) im X⁻ is A-invariant and contains im B

Remark 11: Condition (a) is a relaxation of A₀+B₀K=0 from the case without prior knowledge; conditions (b)-(d) are automatically satisfied when rank X⁻ = n but are non-trivial when rank-deficient.

B. Full-Rank Case (Theorem 14)

Theorem 14: If (A_true,B_true)∈Σ_stab and rank X⁻ = n, then:

• Σ_stab-informativity ⟺ informativity (without prior knowledge)

Proof Sketch:

1. If the true system is controllable, Theorem 5 gives the result
2. If the true system is uncontrollable, construct K̂ such that A+BK̂ = A_true+B_true K̂ for all (A,B)∈Σ_D, then prove the latter is Schur

C. Rank-Deficient Case (Theorem 15, Core Result)

Theorem 15: If (A_true,B_true)∈Σ_stab and rank X⁻ < n, then data D is Σ_stab-informative if and only if:

• (a) im X⁺ ⊆ im X⁻
• (b) imX⁻;U⁻ = im X⁻ × ℝᵐ

Key Lemma (Lemma 17): If conditions (a)(b) hold, then for all (A,B)∈Σ_D∩Σ_stab, there exists a transformation matrix S such that:

SAS⁻¹ = [A₁₁  A₁₂]    SB = [B₁]
         [0    A₂₂]          [0]

where (A₁₁,B₁) is stabilizable, A₂₂ is Schur, and A₁₁ B₁ = X̂⁺X̂⁻;U⁻†

This provides a data-driven Kalman-like decomposition.

Controller Design Method (Proposition 16)

Proposition 16: If data is Σ_stab-informative and rank X⁻ = r < n:

(a) There exists Θ∈ℝᵀˣʳ such that the LMI is feasible:

X̂⁻Θ = Θᵀ X̂⁻ᵀ
[X̂⁻Θ    X̂⁺Θ  ] > 0
[Θᵀ X̂⁺ᵀ  X̂⁻Θ  ]

(b) If Θ satisfies (11), set K = K₁ K₂S, where:

• K₁ = U⁻Θ(X̂⁻Θ)⁻¹
• K₂∈ℝᵐˣ⁽ⁿ⁻ʳ⁾ arbitrary Then A+BK is Schur for all (A,B)∈Σ_D∩Σ_stab

Design Steps:

1. Compute QR decomposition of X⁻ to obtain S and X̂⁻
2. Solve LMI (11) to obtain Θ
3. Compute K₁ = U⁻Θ(X̂⁻Θ)⁻¹
4. Choose K₂ arbitrarily and construct K = K₁ K₂S

Experimental Setup

Numerical Example: Three-Tank System

System Description (Figure 2):

• 3 tanks in series with fluid flowing from tank 3 to tank 2 to tank 1
• State: x_i is the liquid level in tank i (i=1,2,3)
• Control input: u is the flow rate between tank 2 and a reservoir
• Structural property: Due to unidirectional flow, x₃ is uncontrollable

Continuous-Time Model:

ẋ = A_c x + B_c u

where:

A_c = [-0.6  0.5   0  ]    B_c = [0  ]
      [0.5  -0.5  0.5 ]          [1  ]
      [0     0   -0.5 ]          [0  ]

Discretization (sampling time 0.1s):

A_true = [0.9429  0.0473  0.0012]    B_true = [0.0024]
         [0.0473  0.9524  0.0476]             [0.0976]
         [0      0       0.9512]              [0     ]

Experimental Data

Open-Loop Experiment (T=5):

Data Characteristics: rank X⁻ = 2 < 3 (rank-deficient)

Solution Process

1. Use MATLAB + YALMIP + MOSEK to solve LMI (11)
2. Obtain Θ (5×2 matrix)
3. Compute K₁ = -2.7728 -9.7123
4. Set K₂ = 0, obtaining K = -2.7728 -9.7123 0

Monte Carlo Experiment

Experimental Setup:

• 1000 random scenarios
• Each scenario: simulate system from t=0 to t=100
• Inputs and initial conditions independently sampled from Poisson distribution (λ=1)
• Analyze impact of different sample sizes T = 3, 4, 5, 10, 100 on data informativity

Evaluation Metrics:

• System identification informativity (rankX⁻ᵀ U⁻ᵀ = n+m)
• Stabilization informativity without prior knowledge
• Σ_stab-informativity

Experimental Results

Main Results (Table I)

Key Findings

1. Significant Advantage at T=3:
   • System identification is impossible (T < n+m)
   • Only 8.1% of data can be used for stabilization without prior knowledge
   • 42% of data can be used for Σ_stab-stabilization (5-fold improvement)
2. Convergence Behavior for T≥4:
   • System identification and stabilization informativity without prior knowledge stabilize at 63.2%
   • This is because approximately 36.8% of random data fails to satisfy necessary conditions
3. Complete Coverage for T≥10:
   • 100% of data is Σ_stab-informative
   • Dramatically demonstrates the power of stabilizability prior

Case Verification

For the given T=5 data:

• X⁻ is rank-deficient, Proposition 2 fails (cannot be used for stabilization without prior knowledge)
• But satisfies Theorem 15 conditions
• Successfully solves LMI to obtain stabilizing gain K

Related Work

Data-Driven Control

1. De Persis & Tesi (2019): First proposed LMI method for designing stabilizing feedback directly from data, requiring persistent excitation
2. van Waarde et al. (2020): Proposed data informativity framework with necessary and sufficient conditions, not requiring unique identification
3. Noisy Case: van Waarde et al. (2020), Li et al. (2026) studied controller synthesis under noisy data

Prior Knowledge in Data-Driven Control

1. Parameter Bound Constraints: Berberich et al. (2022) studied linear fractional representation priors
2. Partially Known Parameters: Huang et al. (2025) studied density function methods for polynomial systems
3. Paper's Innovation: First to study system-theoretic properties (controllability/stabilizability) as prior knowledge

Prior Knowledge in System Identification

1. Stability Constraints: van Gestel et al. (2002), Lacy & Bernstein (2003)
2. Eigenvalue Constraints: Miller & De Callafon (2013)
3. Positivity/Passivity: De Santis & Farina (2002), Goethals et al. (2003)
4. Paper's Distinction: Focuses on controller design rather than identification, and handles non-convex prior knowledge sets

Structural Controllability

Jia et al. (2020) and others studied inferring controllability from system structure; this paper can be viewed as a bridge for applying such structural information to data-driven control.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Ineffectiveness of Controllability Prior: If the system is known to be controllable, this prior cannot relax the conditions for data-driven stabilization (Theorem 5)
2. Effectiveness of Stabilizability Prior:
   • No benefit when state data is full-rank (Theorem 14)
   • Significantly relaxes conditions when state data is rank-deficient (Theorem 15)
3. Counter-Intuitive Phenomenon: A stronger property (controllability) is unhelpful while a weaker property (stabilizability) is beneficial—the reason is that all data-consistent systems may be uncontrollable
4. Practical Design Method: Provides a computable LMI-based controller design method (Proposition 16)

Theoretical Insights

Insights from Example 4:

Σ_D = {([1 α], [1]) | α,β∈ℝ}
      ([0 β], [0])

• rank X⁻ = 1 < 2, data is not informative
• But all systems in Σ_D∩Σ_stab can be stabilized by K=-1 0
• Key: The autonomous part β of uncontrollable systems must be stable (|β|<1)

Significance of Lemma 17: Provides a data-driven system decomposition without knowing system matrices:

• Stabilizable part: (A₁₁,B₁) can be directly recovered from data
• Stable autonomous part: A₂₂ does not affect stabilizability

Limitations

1. Noiseless Assumption: Current theory applies only to noiseless data; extension to noisy case is an open problem
2. Offline Data: Requires pre-collected complete dataset, not suitable for online learning scenarios
3. Linear Systems: Only considers LTI systems; nonlinear system extensions are challenging
4. Binary Prior: Only considers "stabilizable" or "not stabilizable," not finer-grained priors like bounds on reachable subspace dimension
5. Schur Stability: Only addresses stability, not performance metrics (e.g., H∞ norm)

Future Directions

1. Noise Robustness: Extend to noisy data, possibly combining robust control techniques (e.g., S-lemma)
2. Reachable Subspace Dimension Bounds: Study "rank R(A,B) ≤ r" as prior knowledge
3. Performance Optimization: Design optimal controllers (e.g., LQR) incorporating stabilizability prior
4. Online Learning: Develop adaptive algorithms for online controller updates
5. Nonlinear Extensions: Study similar theory for bilinear or polynomial systems
6. Practical Applications: Validate methods in robotics, power systems, and other domains

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Deep Theoretical Contributions

• Non-Convex Prior Handling: First to handle non-convex prior knowledge sets in data-driven control (stabilizable/controllable system sets are non-convex), high technical difficulty
• Necessary and Sufficient Conditions: Theorem 15 provides necessary and sufficient conditions for rank-deficient case, theoretically complete
• Counter-Intuitive Results: Reveals that controllability is unhelpful but stabilizability is beneficial, providing deep insights

2. Sophisticated Proof Techniques

• Lemma 7 (Parametric Controllability): Uses polynomial properties of Kalman matrices to prove controllability holds "almost everywhere"
• Lemma 9 (Matrix Pencil Analysis): Derives nilpotency through trace polynomial properties, technically elegant
• Lemma 17 (Data-Driven Decomposition): Achieves decomposition without knowing system matrices, highly innovative

3. Strong Practical Applicability

• LMI Solvability: Proposition 16 provides standard convex optimization problems solvable with existing tools
• Design Flexibility: Arbitrariness of K₂ provides design flexibility
• Numerical Verification: Three-tank example clearly demonstrates method effectiveness

4. Reasonable Experimental Design

• Monte Carlo Analysis: 1000 scenarios provide sufficient statistics
• Multi-Sample Analysis: Systematically studies impact of T from 3 to 100
• Physical System: Three-tank system has practical relevance with clear structural controllability

5. Clear and Rigorous Writing

• Precise definitions, clear theorem statements
• Examples (Example 4, 6) aid understanding
• Consistent notation throughout

Weaknesses

1. Theoretical Limitations

• Remark 19's Issue: Σ_stab-informativity does not guarantee quadratic stabilization, potentially limiting practical applications
• Missing Conservatism Analysis: No quantification of data savings from stabilizability prior compared to no prior
• Incomplete Necessity Proof: Theorem 10(b)-(d) necessity proof depends on (a), whose necessity proof is complex

2. Insufficient Experiments

• Single Case Study: Only three-tank system, lacking diversity (e.g., high-dimensional systems, different structures)
• No Noise Comparison: Does not compare method robustness under noise
• Missing Complexity Analysis: Does not analyze LMI solution time scaling with n,T
• No Failure Cases: Does not show examples where Theorem 15 conditions are not satisfied

3. Method Limitations

• K₂ Selection: Proposition 16(b) leaves K₂ arbitrary without selection guidance (e.g., performance optimization)
• Data Efficiency: No comparison with model-based methods on data efficiency
• Scalability: Does not discuss special considerations for MIMO systems

4. Related Work Comparison

• No comparison with recent deep reinforcement learning methods
• Missing discussion of relationship with adaptive control
• Lacks connection to robust control (e.g., μ-synthesis)

5. Practical Considerations

• Prior Acquisition: Does not discuss how to verify system stabilizability in practice (may require partial identification)
• Failure Handling: What if LMI (11) is infeasible?
• Closed-Loop Data: Only considers open-loop data; closed-loop data case not addressed

Impact Assessment

Contribution to the Field

1. Theoretical Foundation: Establishes foundation for integrating system-theoretic properties into data-driven control, opening new research directions
2. Methodology: Techniques for handling non-convex priors can generalize to other system properties (e.g., passivity, positivity)
3. Bridge Role: Connects structural controllability theory with data-driven control

Practical Value

1. Reduced Data Requirements: Monte Carlo experiments show data requirements can reduce to 1/5 (T=3 case)
2. Rank-Deficient Case: Provides solution for rank-deficient data common in practice
3. Reproducibility: Provides GitHub code for reproducibility

Potential Applications

1. Robotics: Stabilization control when joints are uncontrollable
2. Power Systems: Grid stabilization when some generators are uncontrollable
3. Process Control: Multi-tank and heat exchanger systems in chemical processes
4. Aerospace: Satellite attitude control with certain uncontrollable modes

Limitations

1. High Theory Barrier: Requires deep control theory background, limiting dissemination
2. Insufficient Real-World Validation: Lacks experiments on real systems, industrial acceptance uncertain
3. Noise Sensitivity: Noiseless assumption limits direct application

Applicable Scenarios

Ideal Scenarios

1. Structured Known Systems: Controllability/stabilizability can be inferred from structure (e.g., networked systems)
2. Rank-Deficient Data: Initial conditions cause X⁻ rank-deficiency but system is stabilizable
3. Low Data Environments: Data collection is costly (e.g., aerospace, medical)
4. Safety-Critical Systems: Require theoretical stabilization guarantees

Inapplicable Scenarios

1. High-Noise Environments: Current theory does not apply
2. Nonlinear Systems: Requires different methods
3. Time-Varying Systems: LTI assumption violated
4. Strict Performance Requirements: Only guarantees stability, not performance

Improvement Suggestions

1. Combine with Robust Methods: Extend to bounded noise case
2. Performance Optimization: Optimize LQR cost under stabilization constraints
3. Online Updates: Develop recursive algorithms
4. Experimental Validation: Verify on real systems (e.g., UAVs, industrial processes)

Overall Assessment

This is a high-quality theoretical control paper making important contributions to data-driven control. Main highlights:

1. First systematic study of system-theoretic properties as prior knowledge
2. Reveals fundamental difference between controllability and stabilizability
3. Provides complete necessary and sufficient conditions with computable methods

Main weaknesses are insufficient experimental validation and unaddressed noise robustness.

Recommendation Index: ⭐⭐⭐⭐☆ (4/5)

• Theoretical Depth: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
• Practical Value: ⭐⭐⭐⭐
• Experimental Sufficiency: ⭐⭐⭐
• Writing Quality: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
• Novelty: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Suitable for publication in top-tier control journals (e.g., IEEE TAC, Automatica), with important reference value for researchers in data-driven control and systems theory.

Selected References

3 H. J. van Waarde et al., "Data informativity: A new perspective on data-driven analysis and control," IEEE TAC, 2020. (Foundational work on data informativity framework)

4 C. De Persis & P. Tesi, "Formulas for data-driven control: Stabilization, optimality, and robustness," IEEE TAC, 2019. (First LMI method for data-driven stabilization)

12 J. Berberich et al., "Combining prior knowledge and data for robust controller design," IEEE TAC, 2022. (Parameter bound prior knowledge)

25 J. Jia et al., "A unifying framework for strong structural controllability," IEEE TAC, 2020. (Structural controllability theory)

27 H. J. van Waarde & M. K. Camlibel, "A matrix Finsler's lemma with applications to data-driven control," CDC, 2021. (Quadratic stabilization theory)