1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{eufrak}
6: \usepackage{amsmath}
7: \usepackage{mathrsfs}
8: \usepackage{color}
9:
10: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0pt} \setlength{\marginparsep}{0pt}
11: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.4in} \setlength{\textheight}{8.8in}
12: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.2in} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
13: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.2in}
14:
15: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2} % can be reduced
16:
17: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
18: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
19: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
20: \newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
21: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
22:
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25:
26: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
27: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
28: \newcommand{\bee}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
29: \newcommand{\eee}{\end{eqnarray*}}
30: \newcommand{\bel}{\begin{eqnarray}}
31: \newcommand{\eel}{\end{eqnarray}}
32: \newcommand{\bec}{\begin{cases}}
33: \newcommand{\eec}{\end{cases}}
34: \newcommand{\bem}{\begin{bmatrix}}
35: \newcommand{\eem}{\end{bmatrix}}
36:
37: \newcommand{\la}{\label}
38: \newcommand{\li}{\left}
39: \newcommand{\ri}{\right}
40:
41: \newcommand{\DEF}{\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}}
42:
43: \newcommand{\ovl}{\overline}
44: \newcommand{\udl}{\underline}
45:
46:
47: \newcommand{\lc}{\lceil}
48: \newcommand{\rc}{\rceil}
49: \newcommand{\lf}{\lfloor}
50: \newcommand{\rf}{\rfloor}
51:
52: \newcommand{\vol}{\mathrm{vol}}
53: \newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}
54: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}
55: \newcommand{\lm}{\lambda}
56: \newcommand{\Lm}{\Lambda}
57: \newcommand{\Up}{\Upsilon}
58: \newcommand{\up}{\upsilon}
59: \newcommand{\si}{\sigma}
60: \newcommand{\Si}{\Sigma}
61: \newcommand{\vsi}{\varsigma}
62: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}
63: \newcommand{\De}{\Delta}
64: \newcommand{\vDe}{\varDelta}
65: \newcommand{\vfi}{\varphi}
66: \newcommand{\vpi}{\varpi}
67: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}
68: \newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}
69: \newcommand{\vse}{\vartheta}
70: \newcommand{\se}{\theta}
71: \newcommand{\Se}{\Theta}
72: \newcommand{\vSe}{\varTheta}
73: \newcommand{\ze}{\zeta}
74: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
75: \newcommand{\ba}{\beta}
76: \newcommand{\io}{\iota}
77: \newcommand{\vro}{\varrho}
78: \newcommand{\ro}{\rho}
79: \newcommand{\ka}{\kappa}
80: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}
81: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}
82:
83: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}
84: \newcommand{\sq}{\sqrt}
85: \newcommand{\cd}{\cdots}
86: \newcommand{\ld}{\ldots}
87: \newcommand{\qu}{\quad}
88: \newcommand{\qqu}{\qquad}
89: \newcommand{\fa}{\forall}
90:
91: \newcommand{\mscr}{\mathscr}
92: \newcommand{\mcal}{\mathcal}
93: \newcommand{\mbf}{\mathbf}
94: \newcommand{\bb}{\mathbb}
95: \newcommand{\fra}{\mathfrak}
96:
97: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat}
98: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
99: \newcommand{\mrm}{\mathrm}
100: \newcommand{\bs}{\boldsymbol}
101: \newcommand{\bcu}{\bigcup}
102: \newcommand{\bca}{\bigcap}
103: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathrm{tr}}
104: \newcommand{\Prob}{\mathrm{Prob}}
105: \newcommand{\ap}{\approx}
106:
107: \newcommand{\arl}{\leftarrow}
108: \newcommand{\arr}{\rightarrow}
109: \newcommand{\Lra}{\Longrightarrow}
110: \newcommand{\lra}{\longrightarrow}
111: \newcommand{\Lla}{\Longleftarrow}
112: \newcommand{\lla}{\longleftarrow}
113: \newcommand{\LRA}{\Longleftrightarrow}
114: \newcommand{\sh}{\slash}
115: \newcommand{\T}{\intercal}
116: \newcommand{\tx}{\text}
117:
118: \newcommand{\iy}{\infty}
119: \newcommand{\lu}{\subset}
120: \newcommand{\leu}{\subseteq}
121: \newcommand{\gu}{\supset}
122: \newcommand{\geu}{\supseteq}
123: \newcommand{\im}{\imath}
124: \newcommand{\jm}{\jmath}
125: \newcommand{\pa}{\partial}
126: \newcommand{\es}{\emptyset}
127: \newcommand{\pr}{\prime}
128: \newcommand{\sm}{\setminus}
129: \newcommand{\bed}{\begin{description}}
130: \newcommand{\eed}{\end{description}}
131: \newcommand{\bei}{\begin{itemize}}
132: \newcommand{\eei}{\end{itemize}}
133: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{enumerate}}
134: \newcommand{\een}{\end{enumerate}}
135: \newcommand{\bib}{\bibitem}
136: \newcommand{\beL}{\begin{lemma}}
137: \newcommand{\eeL}{\end{lemma}}
138: \newcommand{\beT}{\begin{theorem}}
139: \newcommand{\eeT}{\end{theorem}}
140: \newcommand{\sect}{\section}
141: \newcommand{\subs}{\subsection}
142: \newcommand{\bpf}{\begin{pf}}
143: \newcommand{\epf}{\end{pf}}
144: \newcommand{\bsk}{\bigskip}
145: \newcommand{\bi}{\binom}
146: \newcommand{\ex}{\exists}
147:
148: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
149:
150: \setcounter{page}{1}
151:
152: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
153:
154: \newcommand{\pfbox}{\hfill\mbox{$\Box$}}
155:
156: \newenvironment{pf}{\paragraph*{Proof{\rm.}}}{\pfbox\bigskip}
157:
158: \begin{document}
159:
160:
161: \title{{\bf Risk Analysis in Robust Control --- Making the Case for
162: Probabilistic Robust Control}
163: \thanks{This research is supported in part by the US Air Force.
164: \newline The authors are with
165: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Louisiana State
166: University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803; Email: \{chan,kemin,
167: aravena\}@ece.lsu.edu, Tel: (225)578-\{8961, 5533,5537\}, and Fax:
168: (225) 578-5200. }}
169:
170: \author{Xinjia Chen, Jorge L. Aravena and Kemin Zhou}
171:
172: \date{June 2007}
173:
174: \maketitle
175:
176:
177:
178:
179:
180: \begin{abstract}
181:
182: This paper offers a critical view of the ``worst-case" approach
183: that is the cornerstone of robust control design. It is our
184: contention that a blind acceptance of worst-case scenarios may
185: lead to designs that are actually more dangerous than designs
186: based on probabilistic techniques with a built-in risk factor. The
187: real issue is one of modeling. If one accepts that no
188: mathematical model of uncertainties is perfect then a
189: probabilistic approach can lead to more reliable control even if
190: it cannot guarantee stability for all possible cases. Our
191: presentation is based on case analysis. We first establish that
192: worst-case is not necessarily ``all-encompassing." In fact, we
193: show that for some uncertain control problems to have a
194: conventional robust control solution it is necessary to make
195: assumptions that leave out some feasible cases. Once we establish
196: that point, we argue that it is not uncommon for the risk of
197: unaccounted cases in worst-case design to be greater than that of
198: the accepted risk in a probabilistic approach. With an
199: example, we quantify the risks and show that worst-case can be
200: significantly more risky. Finally, we join our analysis with existing results
201: on computational complexity and probabilistic robustness to argue that the deterministic
202: worst-case analysis is not necessarily the better tool.
203: \end{abstract}
204:
205:
206: \bsk
207:
208: \section{Introduction}
209:
210: In recent years, a number of researchers have proposed probabilistic control
211: methods as alternatives for overcoming the computational
212: complexity and conservatism of deterministic
213: worst-case robust control framework (e.g.,
214: \cite{bai}--\cite{SB}, \cite{kov}--\cite{Wang2} and the references
215: therein). The philosophy of probabilistic control theory is to
216: sacrifice extreme cases of uncertainty. Such paradigm has lead to
217: the novel concepts of probabilistic robustness margin and
218: confidence degradation function (e.g., \cite{BLT}). Despite
219: the claimed advantages of probabilistic approach, the
220: deterministic worst-case approach remains dominating for design and analysis
221: purposes. It
222: is a common contention that a probabilistic design is more risky
223: than a worst-case design. Such a contention may have been the main
224: obstacle preventing the wide acceptance of the probabilistic
225: paradigm, especially in the development of highly reliable
226: systems. When
227: referring to the probabilistic approach, a cautious warning is
228: usually attached. Statements like ``if one is
229: willing to accept a small risk of performance violation'' can be found in a
230: number of robust control papers. A
231: typical argument is that the worst-case method takes every case of
232: ``uncertainty'' into account and is certainly the most safe,
233: while the probabilistic method considers only most of the
234: instances of ``uncertainty'' and, hence, is more risky.
235:
236: We illustrate
237: with two very simple cases that a worst case design may not necessarily
238: consider all possible cases. Our purpose here is to make the point that
239: the basic issue is one of modeling and as such it is
240: never perfect. Worst-case scenario may mean ``the worst case that
241: we can imagine," or ``the
242: worst-case that we can afford to consider to have a robust
243: solution."
244:
245: In practice, the coefficients of a linear model are complex
246: functions of physical parameters. Even if the physical parameters
247: are bounded in a narrow interval, the variations of the
248: coefficients can be fairly large. A simple example is provided by the
249: process of discharge of a cylindrical tank. The basic nonlinear model is of the
250: form
251: \[
252: A\frac{dH}{dt}+\rho\sqrt{H}=Q_i
253: \]
254: where $A$ is the tank cross section, $H$ the height of liquid inside the
255: tank, $Q_i$ the
256: volumetric input flow rate
257: and $\rho$ the hydraulic resistance in the discharge. Linearizing in the
258: neighborhood of a steady
259: state operating point, ($\overline{H},\overline{Q}_i$), satisfying $\rho
260: \sqrt{\overline{H}}
261: =\overline{Q_i}$ one
262: obtains the linear model
263: \[
264: \frac{dh}{dt}+\frac{\rho}{2A\sqrt{\overline{H}}}h = \frac{q_i}{A}
265: \]
266: with $h=H-\overline{H}, q_i=Q_i-\overline{Q}_i$. Clearly, the parameter $a=
267: \frac{\rho}{2A\sqrt{\overline{H}}}$ takes values
268: in the interval
269: ($0,~\infty$). Hence, any design assuming bounded uncertainties for the
270: parameter, $a$, cannot
271: include all possible heights for the liquid.
272:
273: For the second case consider a first order system of the form
274: \[
275: G(s) = \f{q}{s - p}
276: \]
277: with uncertain parameters $q$ and $p$. Assuming a unity feedback and
278: controller of the form
279: \[
280: C(s)=\frac{K}{s+a}, \qu K > 0, \qu a > 0
281: \]
282: the closed loop system becomes
283: \[
284: T(s)=\frac{K q}{s^2+(a-p)s+K q - a p}.
285: \]
286: The controller will robustly stabilize the plant if
287: \[
288: p < a, \qqu q > \frac{a p}{K}.
289: \]
290: It is clear that for any finite controller gain $K$, there
291: exist a range of
292: values of $q$ where the closed-loop system
293: is unstable. The designer of a worst-case controller would be faced with the
294: choice of selecting
295: a different controller
296: structure or assuming, based on other considerations, that a neighborhood
297: of $q = 0$ can be
298: excluded from the design. With the next result we develop this point in a
299: more
300: general form.
301:
302:
303:
304:
305: \subsection{Uncertainties in Modeling Uncertainties}
306:
307: In many practical situations of worst-case design one models
308: uncertainties as bounded random variables. The issue of selecting
309: the bounds is not trivial and is, oftentimes, not addressed in detail. The
310: following theorem
311: shows that, regardless of the assumed size of the uncertainty
312: set, a worst-case robust controller actually can always fail.
313: Hence, if there are ``uncertainties in modeling the uncertainties"
314: it may be better to model them as random variables varying from
315: $-\infty$ to $\infty$ in order to pursue ``worst-case'' in a
316: strict sense.
317:
318:
319: \beT Let the transfer function of the uncertain plant be
320: \[
321: G(s) = \f{ \sum_{i=0}^\ell \ba_i s^{\ell- i} } { \sum_{i=0}^\ka
322: \al_i s^{\ka- i} }, \qqu \al_0 = 1, \qqu \ell \leq \ka.
323: \]
324: Assume that for a given finite uncertainty range in the parameters
325: $\al_i, \; i = 1 , \cd, \ka$ and $\ba_j, \; j = 0, 1, \cd, \ell$,
326: there exists a controller of the form
327: \[
328: C(s) = \f{ \sum_{i=0}^m b_i s^{m- i} } { \sum_{i=0}^n a_i
329: s^{n- i} }, \qqu a_0 = 1, \qqu b_0 \neq 0, \qqu m \leq n
330: \]
331: which robustly stabilizes the system. Then, there always exists
332: a value of parameter $\al_i$ or $\ba_j$, outside the assumed
333: uncertainty range and which will make the closed-loop system
334: unstable. \eeT
335:
336: \bpf The characteristic equation of the closed-loop system is
337: \[
338: \li ( \sum_{i=0}^n a_i s^{n- i} \ri ) \; \li ( \sum_{j=0}^\ka
339: \al_j s^{\ka - j} \ri ) + \li ( \sum_{i=0}^m b_i s^{m- i} \ri )
340: \; \li ( \sum_{j=0}^\ell \ba_j s^{\ell- j} \ri ) = 0,
341: \]
342: which can be written as
343: \[
344: \sum_{\tau = 0}^{n + \ka} \sum_{i +j = \tau \atop{ 0 \leq i \leq
345: n \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ka } } } (a_i \; \al_j) \; s^{n+ \ka -
346: \tau} + \sum_{\iota = 0}^{m + \ell} \sum_{i +j = \iota \atop{ 0
347: \leq i \leq m \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ell } } } (b_i \; \ba_j) \;
348: s^{m + \ell - \iota} = 0.
349: \]
350: For $1 \leq \tau \leq \ka$, the coefficient of $s^{n+ \ka -
351: \tau}$ is
352: \[
353: \sum_{i +j = \tau \atop{ 0 \leq i \leq n \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ka
354: } } } (a_i \; \al_j) + \sum_{i +j = \tau + m + \ell - (n +
355: \ka) \atop{ 0 \leq i \leq m \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ell } } } (b_i
356: \; \ba_j) = \al_\tau + \xi
357: \]
358: where \bee \xi & = & \sum_{i +j = \tau \atop{ 1 \leq i \leq n
359: \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ka } } } (a_i \; \al_j) + \sum_{i +j =
360: \tau + m + \ell - (n + \ka) \atop{ 0 \leq i \leq m \atop{0 \leq j
361: \leq \ell } } } (b_i \; \ba_j)\\
362: & = & \sum_{j = \max (0, \tau - n) }^{\tau -1} (a_{\tau - j} \;
363: \al_j) + \sum_{i +j = \tau + m + \ell - (n + \ka) \atop{ 0 \leq i
364: \leq m \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ell } } } (b_i \; \ba_j) \eee is
365: independent of $\al_\tau$ and depends on the other uncertainties.
366: It follows that the system will be unstable if
367: \be
368: \la{con3}
369: \al_\tau \leq - \xi.
370: \ee
371:
372:
373: In a similar manner, for $0 \leq \iota \leq \ell$, the
374: coefficient of $s^{m+ \ell - \iota}$ is
375: \[
376: \sum_{i +j = \iota \atop{ 0 \leq i \leq m \atop{0 \leq j \leq
377: \ell } } } (b_i \; \ba_j) + \sum_{i +j = \iota + n + \ka - (m
378: + \ell) \atop{ 0 \leq i \leq n \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ka } } }
379: (a_i \; \al_j) = b_0 \; \ba_\iota + \ze
380: \]
381: where \bee \ze & = & \sum_{i +j = \iota \atop{ 1 \leq i \leq m
382: \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ell } } } (b_i \; \ba_j) + \sum_{i +j =
383: \iota + n + \ka - (m + \ell) \atop{ 0 \leq i \leq n \atop{0 \leq
384: j \leq \ka } } } (a_i \; \al_j)\\
385: & = & \sum_{ j = \max(0, \iota - m) }^{ \iota - 1 } (b_{\iota - j}
386: \; \ba_j) + \sum_{i +j = \iota + n + \ka - (m + \ell) \atop{ 0
387: \leq i \leq n \atop{0 \leq j \leq \ka } } } (a_i \; \al_j) \eee
388: is independent of $\ba_\iota$ and depends on the other
389: uncertainties. It follows that the system will be unstable if
390: \be
391: \la{con8}
392: b_0 \; \ba_\iota + \ze \leq 0.
393: \ee
394: In the case that $b_0 > 0$, the system is unstable
395: when $\ba_\iota \leq - \f{\ze}{b_0}$. In the case that $b_0 < 0$,
396: the system is unstable when $\ba_\iota \geq - \f{\ze}{b_0}$.
397:
398: Let $\cal{B}$ be the uncertainty bounding set {\em assumed} by the designer.
399: Let $\cal{D}$ be the set of all values of uncertainties for which
400: the controller stabilizes the system. Obviously, $\cal{B} \subseteq
401: \cal{D}$.
402: From the stability conditions (\ref{con3}) and (\ref{con8}),
403: we can conclude that $\cal{D}$ must be bounded.
404: Taking into account the stability conditions and the fact that $\cal{D}$ is
405: bounded,
406: we can see that there exist values of
407: the parameters $\al_i, \; 1 \leq i \leq \ka$ or $\ba_j, \; 0 \leq
408: j \leq \ell$ that fall outside the domain $\cal{D}$
409: (of course they fall outside the assumed uncertainty range $\cal{B}$) and
410: make
411: the
412: system unstable.
413:
414: \epf
415:
416:
417:
418: \begin{remark}
419: A proof for an equivalent result for a multi-variable plant may be feasible.
420: However, the
421: following general argument conveys the idea about the limitations in worst
422: case design. Assume that each instance of uncertainty is an element of $n$-dimensional vector space $E^n$.
423: Let $G(s, q), \; q \in\cal{B}\subset E^n$ be the model for an uncertain
424: plant.
425: Assume that there exists a
426: controller $C_w$ that satisfies the robustness requirements for all $q\in
427: \cal{B}$. Define now
428: as $\cal{D}$ the set of all values of the parameter $q$ where the controller
429: $C_w$ satisfies the
430: robustness requirements. Clearly $\cal{D}_w\supset\cal{B}$ but unless
431: $\cal{D}_w=E^n$ there always exist values of the parameter $q$ where the
432: controller does not
433: perform. The worst-case design ignores these cases as impossible. Our
434: contention is that the
435: modeling of uncertainties (the set $\cal{B}$) may not include all cases that
436: could occur and it may be
437: better to accept a risk from the onset of the design.
438: \end{remark}
439:
440:
441: \section{Accepting Risk Can Be Less Risky}
442: The previous result makes, very strongly, the
443: point that worst-case modeling is not ``all-encompassing" and
444: therefore it has some risk associated to it. In this section we offer first
445: a more
446: formal description of the problem and argue that a
447: probabilistic approach may easily lead to more reliable designs. The next
448: section
449: uses a case study to quantify the actual risks of both approaches.
450: \subsection{Designing with Uncertain Uncertainties}
451: We incorporate the fact that modeling is never exact by
452: postulating an uncertainty set, $\cal{U}$ and a bounding set,
453: $\cal{B}$, that models the uncertainties. The actual relationship
454: between the two sets is not known. The worst-case design finds a
455: controller $C_w$ to guarantee every uncertainty instance $q \in
456: \cal{B}$. The probabilistic design seeks a controller $C_p$ to
457: guarantee most uncertainty instances $q \in \cal{B}$. Formally we
458: can define the following relevant subsets \bee
459: \cal{M}&=& \cal{U}\cap \cal{B},\\
460: \cal{N}&=& \overline{\cal{U}}\cap \cal{B},\\
461: \cal{E}&=& \cal{U}\cap \overline{\cal{B}}.\eee
462: Here $\overline{X}$ denotes the complementary set of $X$.
463: Clearly, $\cal{M}$ contains those uncertainties that are modeled
464: while the set $\cal{N}$ describes modeled uncertainties that
465: never occur and $\cal{E}$ describes the unmodeled uncertainties.
466: The existence of these last two sets creates either inefficiencies
467: or risks in the worst case design. To see this, consider the
468: extreme situation where the designed robust controller guarantees
469: the robustness requirement only for instances in $\cal{B}$. The
470: controller is over-designed because it deals with situations that
471: cannot occur and it has the risk of failure if an instance in the
472: set $\cal{E}$ arises.
473:
474: Having established the fact that a
475: robust control design can be risky, we now argue that
476: probabilistic design can actually be less risky. As an added
477: benefit, it is known that many worst-case synthesis problems are either not
478: tractable, or have known solutions which are unduly
479: conservative and implementation expensive. But when using a
480: probabilistic method, the previously intractable problems may
481: become solvable, the conservatism may be overcame, and high
482: performance controller with simple structure may be obtained.
483:
484:
485: For brevity, we use notation $C^V$ to represent the statement
486: that ``the robustness requirement is violated for the system with
487: controller $C$''. The subindex $w$ will refer to worst-case
488: design while $p$ will refer to probabilistic design. Note that
489: the risk of a probabilistic design is
490: \[
491: P_e^p = \Pr \{ C^V_p \mid q \in \cal{M} \} \; \Pr\{ q \in
492: \cal{M} \} + \Pr \{ C^V_p \mid q \in \cal{E} \} \; \Pr \{ q
493: \in \cal{E} \}.
494: \]
495: While the risk of a worst-case design is
496: \[
497: P_e^w = \Pr \{ C^V_w \mid q \in \cal{E} \} \; \Pr \{ q \in
498: \cal{E} \}.
499: \]
500: Hence the ratio of risks will be \be
501: \la{eeq}
502: \f{ P_e^p } { P_e^w } =
503: \frac{\Pr\{C^V_p \mid q \in \cal{E}\}}{\Pr\{C^V_w \mid q \in
504: \cal{E}\}}+ \f{ \Pr \{ C^V_p
505: \mid q \in \cal{M} \} \Pr \{ q \in \cal{M} \} }{ \Pr \{ C^V_w \mid q
506: \in \cal{E} \} \Pr\{q\in \cal{E}\} }. \ee
507: The first term is related to the
508: performance of both types of controllers outside the design
509: region. The behavior of the worst-case design in this region is
510: of no concern to the designer, after all it ``never gets there.''
511: All the design effort is placed in assuring performance over the
512: set $\cal{B}$. Hence we can reasonably expect $\Pr \{ C^V_w \mid q
513: \in \cal{E} \}$ to be high. In fact, if the set $\cal{N}$, of impossible
514: situations
515: included in the design, is large then $\Pr \{ C^V_w \mid q
516: \in \cal{E} \}$ could be close to one and the first term in the right-hand
517: side of (\ref{eeq})
518: can easily be less than some number $\lm \in (0,1)$. The second
519: term contains the factor $\Pr\{C^V_p \mid q \in \cal{M}\}$ which
520: is under the probabilistic designer and is a measure of the
521: accepted risk. It is reasonable to expect that this risk is less than
522: $\Pr\{q\in \cal{E}\}$
523: so that \bee \frac{\Pr\{C^V_p
524: \mid q \in \cal{M}\}\Pr\{q\in \cal{M}\}}{\Pr\{q\in \cal{E}\}}< (1 - \lm) \;
525: \Pr \{ C^V_w \mid q
526: \in \cal{E} \}.
527: \eee
528: and consequently $\f{ P_e^p } { P_e^w } < 1$. Factoring in a poor
529: performance for the worst-case design outside
530: of the modeled region one can see that the risk of the
531: probabilistic design can become smaller than the risk of
532: a worst-case design with unmodeled uncertainties.
533:
534:
535: From a different point of view, many experiments of performance
536: degradation of probabilistic designs indicate a fairly flat
537: characteristic. If the unmodeled uncertainty set $\cal{E}$ is
538: relatively small then one could argue that \bee \Pr\{C^V_p \mid
539: q\in\cal{E}\} \approx \Pr\{C^V_p \mid q\in\cal{M}\} \eee and the
540: ratio of risks is approximately given by \be \f{ P_e^p } { P_e^w
541: } \approx \frac{ \Pr\{C^V_p \mid q\in\cal{M} \}}{\Pr \{ C^V_w
542: \mid q \in \cal{E} \}\Pr\{q\in \cal{E}\} }. \ee The numerator is
543: under the control of the designer in a probabilistic approach
544: while the denominator has not even been considered as existing
545: in a worst-case design.
546:
547:
548:
549: \sect{Comparing Worst-Case and Probabilistic Designs}
550: The problem of quantifying the differences in performance between a
551: worst-case design and a
552: probabilistic design is extremely difficult in general.
553: In this section we use a case study to quantify the risks and
554: demonstrate that it is {\it not uncommon} for a
555: probabilistic
556: controller to be (highly) more reliable than a worst-case controller. We
557: postulate that if the
558: result holds for simple systems
559: then it is also likely for more complex situations.
560:
561: \bsk
562:
563: Consider a feedback system as follows.
564: \begin{figure}[htb]
565: \centering{
566: \setlength{\unitlength}{0.0006in}%
567: \begin{picture}(4224,1074)(1189,-3523)
568: \thicklines \put(1801,-2761){\circle{150}}
569: \put(2401,-3061){\framebox(600,600){$C$}}
570: \put(1201,-2761){\vector( 1, 0){525}} \put(1876,-2761){\vector( 1,
571: 0){525}} \put(3001,-2761){\vector( 1, 0){900}}
572: \put(3901,-3061){\framebox(600,600){$G$}}
573: \put(4501,-2761){\vector( 1, 0){900}} \put(4801,-2761){\line(
574: 0,-1){750}} \put(4801,-3511){\line(-1, 0){3000}}
575: \put(1801,-3511){\vector( 0, 1){675}}
576: \put(1276,-2611){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}}
577: \put(2026,-2611){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$e$}}
578: \put(5101,-2611){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$y$}}
579: \put(3451,-2611){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$u$}}
580: \put(1551,-3136){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$-$}}
581: \end{picture}
582: \caption{Standard Feedback Configuration} \label{fig1} }
583: \end{figure}
584:
585:
586:
587: The transfer function of the plant is
588: \[
589: G(s) = \f{q}{s - p}
590: \]
591: where $p$ and $q$ are uncertain parameters. These parameters are assumed as
592: independent Gaussian
593: random variables
594: with density
595: $\cal{N}(q_0, \si_q)$ and $\cal{N}(p_0, \si_p)$ respectively and
596: \be
597: \la{con_a}
598: p_0 < 0, \qqu q_0 > 0
599: \ee
600: For the worst case design it is assumed that $(q,p) \in \cal{B} (r)$ where
601: \[
602: \cal{B} (r) = \{ (x, y) \mid \; |x - q_0| \leq r, \qu |y - p_0| \leq r \}
603: \]
604: is the uncertainty bounding set with radius $r > 0$.
605: We use $P^\mrm{Box}$ to denote $\Pr \{ (q, p) \in \cal{B} (r) \}$, i.e.,
606: the coverage probability of the uncertainty bounding set. It can be shown
607: that
608: \[
609: P^\mrm{Box} = \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{r}{\sq{2} \; \si_p} \ri ) \mrm{erf} \li (
610: \f{r}{\sq{2} \; \si_q} \ri )
611: \]
612: where
613: \[
614: \mrm{erf}(x) \DEF \f{2}{\sq{\pi}} \int_0^x e^{-t^2} d t.
615: \]
616: Hence, by increasing the radius $r$, one can reduce the uncertainty
617: modeling error.
618: \bsk
619:
620: Consider two controllers
621: \[
622: C_A = \f{ K_A } { s + a }, \qqu a > 0
623: \]
624: and
625: \[
626: C_B = K_B.
627: \]
628: We assume further that
629: \be
630: \la{con_b}
631: 1 < K_B < \f{K_A}{a}.
632: \ee
633:
634: \bsk
635:
636: When using controller $C_A$, the closed-loop transfer function is given by
637: \[
638: T = \f{ \f{ K_A } { s + a } \f{q}{s - p} } { 1 + \f{ K_A } { s + a } \f{q}{s
639: - p} }
640: = \f{ K_A q } { s^2 + (a - p)s + K_A q - a p}
641: \]
642: which is stable if and only if
643: \[
644: p < a, \qqu p < \f{K_A}{a} q.
645: \]
646: The deterministic stability margin of the system is given by
647: \[
648: \ro_A = \sup \li \{ r > 0 \mid p_0 + r < \f{K_A}{a} (q_0 - r), \qu p_0 +
649: r < a \ri \}
650: \]
651: which can be simplified as
652: \[
653: \ro_A = \min \li ( \f{ K_A \; q_0 - a \; p_0 } {K_A + a}, \; a - p_0 \ri ).
654: \]
655: When using controller $C_B$, the closed-loop transfer function is given by
656: \[
657: T = \f{ K_B \; q } { s + K_B \; q - p }
658: \]
659: which is stable if and only if
660: \[
661: p < K_B \; q.
662: \]
663: The deterministic stability margin of the system is given by
664: \bee
665: \ro_B & = & \sup \li \{ r > 0 \mid p_0 + r < K_B (q_0 - r) \ri \}\\
666: & = & \f{ K_B \; q_0 - p_0 } {K_B + 1}.
667: \eee
668: For uncertainty bounding set with radius $r \in ( \ro_B, \; \ro_A)$, i.e.,
669: \be
670: \la{con_c}
671: \f{ K_B \; q_0 - p_0 } {K_B + 1} < r < \min \li ( \f{ K_A \; q_0 - a \; p_0
672: } {K_A + a}, \; a - p_0 \ri ),
673: \ee
674: controller $B$ may make the system unstable while
675: controller $A$ robustly stabilizes the system. More specifically,
676: controller $B$
677: can only stabilize a proportion of the family of uncertain plants.
678: Such a proportion, denoted by $\bb{P}(r)$, is referred to as {\em proportion
679: of stability},
680: which is computed as the ratio of the volume of the set
681: of parameters making the system stable to the total volume of the
682: uncertainty box, i.e.,
683: \[
684: \bb{P}(r) = \f{ \mrm{vol} \{ (q, p) \in \cal{B}(r) \mid
685: \tx{The system is stable for $(q, p)$} \} } { \mrm{vol} \{ \cal{B}(r) \} }.
686: \]
687: Here ``$\mrm{vol}$'' denotes the Lebesgue measure.
688: More details are given in Appendix A where we show that the proportion of
689: instability for controller $B$ is given by
690: \be
691: \la{pro}
692: \bb{P}^B (r) = \bec 1 & \tx{for} \qu 0 < r < \ro_B;\\
693: 1 - \f{ K_B \li ( r + \f{p_0 + r}{K_B} - q_0 \ri )^2 } { 8 r^2} & \tx{for}
694: \qu \ro_B \leq r \leq \ro_B^*;\\
695: \f{1}{2} - \f{ \f{p_0}{K_B} - q_0 } { 2 r } & \tx{for} \qu r > \ro_B^*
696: \eec
697: \ee
698: with
699: \[
700: \ro_B^* = \f{ K_B \; q_0 - p_0 } {K_B - 1}.
701: \]
702: For an uncertainty bounding set with radius $r \in ( \ro_B, \; \ro_A)$,
703: controller $B$ is actually a probabilistic
704: controller because its proportion of stability is strictly less than $1$.
705: Obviously, controller $A$ is a worst-case controller and is naturally
706: considered to be more reliable than the probabilistic controller $B$.
707: However, the following exact computation of probabilities of instability for
708: both controllers
709: reveals that the worst-case controller can actually be substantially more
710: risky than the probabilistic controller.
711:
712:
713: \bsk
714:
715: We use $P^{C_A}$ to denote $\Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_A$ de-stabilizes the
716: system} \}$. We have derived an exact expression as
717: \be
718: \la{exact}
719: P^{C_A} = \f{1}{2 \pi} \li [ \int_{\se = 0}^{\se^*} \exp \li ( - \f{u^2}{2
720: \sin^2 \se} \ri ) d \se +
721: \int_{\se = \se^* - \arctan(k)}^{ \pi } \exp \li ( -
722: \f{w^2}{2 \sin^2 \se} \ri ) d \se \ri ]
723: \ee
724: where
725: \[
726: u = \f{a - p_0}{\si_p} > 0, \qqu v = \f{ \f{K_A}{a} q_0 - p_0 }{ \si_p} >
727: 0, \qqu k = \f{K_A}{a} \f{\si_q}{\si_p}, \qqu w = \f{v}{ \sq{1 + k^2} }
728: \]
729: and
730: \[
731: \se^* = \arctan \li( \f{k u}{u - v} \ri) \in (0, \pi).
732: \]
733: For a proof of formula (\ref{exact}), see Appendix B.
734:
735:
736: \bsk
737: We use $P^{C_B}$ to denote $\Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_B$ de-stabilizes the
738: system} \}$. We have derived an exact expression as
739: \be
740: \la{exact2}
741: P^{C_B} = \f{1}{2} - \f{1}{2} \; \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{K_B q_0 - p_0} {
742: \sq{2(\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} } \ri ).
743: \ee
744: For a proof of formula (\ref{exact2}), see Appendix C.
745:
746: A sufficient (but not necessary) condition for the worst-case controller to
747: be more
748: risky
749: than the probabilistic controller (i.e., $P^{C_A} > P^{C_B}$) is
750: \be
751: \la{suf}
752: 1 + \li ( \f{ K_B \; \si_q } { \si_p } \ri )^2 < \li( \f{K_B q_0 - p_0 } {
753: a -
754: p_0 } \ri )^2,
755: \ee
756: which can be easily satisfied. For a derivation of condition (\ref{suf}),
757: see
758: Appendix D.
759:
760: The boundary of stability is shown in Figure \ref{fig4}.
761:
762: \begin{figure}[htbp]
763: \centerline{\psfig{figure=Example2.eps, height=3.8in, width=5.0in
764: }} \caption{Comparison of worst-case controller and probabilistic controller
765: ($r = 17, \; a = 10, \; p_0 = -10, \; q_0 = 20, \; K_A = 30, \; K_B = 2, \;
766: \si_p = 10, \; \si_q = 5$)} \la{fig4}
767: \end{figure}
768:
769: In Table $1$ we compute the ratio of probabilities of being unstable for
770: both the worst-case and
771: probabilistic designs for several situations. The results show that a
772: worst-case controller can
773: be thousands of
774: times more risky than a probabilistic controller. Granted that this
775: is a simple first order system but our contention is that if it happens
776: even for this simple case then the situation can (easily) happen for highly
777: complicated systems.
778:
779: \begin{table}
780: \caption{Comparison of risks ($\ro_B < r < \ro_A$)} \label{table_example}
781: \begin{center}
782: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c||c||c||c||c||c||c|c|c|c|}
783: \hline $a$ & $r$ & $p_0$ & $q_0$ & $\si_p$ & $\si_q$ & $K_A$ & $K_B$ &
784: $P^\mrm{Box}$ &
785: $\bb{P}^B(r)$ & $P^{C_A}$ & $\f{ P^{C_A} } { P^{C_B} }$\\
786: \hline $10$ & $17$ & $-10$ & $20$ & $10$ & $5$ & $30$ & $2$ & $0.91$ &
787: $0.9998$ & $2.3
788: \times 10^{-2}$ & $112$\\
789: \hline $40$ & $49$ & $-10$ & $50$ & $20$ & $10$ & $4000$ & $10$ & $0.99$ &
790: $0.9956$ & $6.2
791: \times 10^{-3}$ & $2.2 \times 10^{4}$\\
792: \hline
793:
794: \end{tabular}
795: \end{center}
796: \end{table}
797: It has been the consensus in the field that guarantees with certainty are
798: often required for stability and performance in control,
799: while the probabilistic design is a viable approach when only probabilistic
800: guarantees are required (see, e.g., lines 16-25, page 4652 of \cite{sc}).
801: From our general arguments and the concrete example, we can see that, in a
802: strict sense,
803: ``guarantees with certainty'' are only possible within the modeled uncertainty
804: bounding set.
805: Our contention is that such worst-case guarantees may not imply better robustness than
806: probabilistic
807: guarantees because of the fact the uncertainty bounding set may not include
808: all instances of uncertainty.
809:
810:
811: \sect{Conclusion}
812:
813: In this paper, we demonstrate that the deterministic worst-case robust
814: control design
815: does not necessarily imply a risk free solution and that, in fact,
816: it can be more risky than a probabilistic controller. In the final
817: instance, every
818: design and analysis is subject to a level of risk. The goal of design
819: should be to
820: make the risk acceptable, instead of assuming that it can make it vanish.
821:
822: It has been acknowledged that probabilistic methods overcome
823: the computational complexity and conservatism of worst-case approach at the
824: expense of a probabilistic risk (\cite{Cal34}, p. 1908). In fact has been remarked by Kargonekar and Tikku that {\it if one is willing to
825: draw conclusions
826: with a high degree of confidence, then the computational complexity
827: decreases dramatically} (\cite{KT}, p. 3470).
828: More formally, let $\ep, \de \in (0,1)$ and define a system to be {\it
829: $\ep$-non-robust} if \[
830: \f{ \mrm{vol} ( \{q \in \mathcal{B} \mid \mathbf{P} \; \mrm{is \; violated \; for}
831: \; q \}) } { \mrm{vol} ( \mathcal{B} ) }\geq \ep.
832: \]
833: Then one can detect any $\ep$-non-robust system with probability greater
834: than
835: $1 - \de$ based on $N > \f{ \ln \f{1}{\de} } {\ln \f{1}{1-\ep} }$ i.i.d.
836: simulations \cite{KT, TD}.
837:
838: Recently, Barmish et. al. pointed out that {\it if one is
839: willing to accept some small risk probability of performance violation, it is
840: often possible to expand the radius of allowable uncertainty by a considerable amount
841: beyond that provided by the classical robustness theory }(\cite{BLT}, p. 853).
842:
843: Putting these last two statements in the light of our result make a strong case for the use of probabilistic
844: robustness methods.
845:
846: \bsk
847:
848: \appendix
849:
850: \section{Proportion of Instability of Probabilistic Controller}
851:
852: The set of values uncertainties bounded in $\cal{B} (r)$ which make the
853: system unstable is
854: \be
855: \la{set1}
856: \cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r) = \{ (x, y) \mid \; y \geq K_B \; x, \qu |x - q_0|
857: \leq r,
858: \qu |y - p_0| \leq r \}.
859: \ee
860: Clearly,
861: \[
862: \bb{P}^B(r) = 1 - \f{ \mrm{vol} \{ \cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r) \} } { \mrm{vol} \{
863: \cal{B} (r) \} }.
864: \]
865: We can now compute the proportion of stability $\bb{P}(r)$ for controller
866: $C_B$ as follows.
867:
868: \bsk
869:
870: It can be shown that $\cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r) = \emptyset$ for $r < \ro_B$.
871: Hence
872: \[
873: \bb{P}^B(r) = 1, \qqu 0 \leq r < \ro_B.
874: \]
875:
876: \bsk
877:
878:
879: For $\ro_B \leq r \leq \ro_B^*$, we have
880: \be
881: \la{set2}
882: \cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r) = \li \{ (x, y) \mid \; p_0 + r \geq y \geq K_B \; x,
883: \qu
884: q_0 - r \leq x \ri \}.
885: \ee
886: We now prove equation (\ref{set2}). For notation simplicity, let the set in
887: the right-hand side of (\ref{set1}) be denoted as $\Se$. Let the set in
888: the right-hand side of (\ref{set2}) be denoted as $\Phi$. Clearly, $\Se
889: \subseteq \Phi$.
890: It suffices to show $\Se \supseteq \Phi$. Let $(x, y) \in \Phi$.
891: Then $y \geq K_B \; x \geq K_B \; (q_0 - r)$.
892: It can be verified that $K_B \; (q_0 - r) \geq p_0 - r$ if and only if $r
893: \leq \ro_B^*$.
894: Hence $p_0 + r \geq y \geq K_B \; x \geq p_0 - r$.
895: From inequalities (\ref{con_a}), (\ref{con_b}) and $p_0 + r \geq K_B \; x$,
896: we obtain $x \leq \f{p_0 + r}{K_B} \leq q_0 + r$. Therefore, $(x, y) \in
897: \Se$.
898: It follows that $\Se \supseteq \Phi$ and thus $\Se = \Phi$.
899: Observing that $\cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r)$ is a triangular domain, we find by a
900: geometric method
901: \[
902: \mrm{vol} \{ \cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r) \} = \f{1}{2} K_B \li ( r + \f{p_0 +
903: r}{K_B} - q_0 \ri )^2.
904: \]
905: It follows that
906: \[
907: \bb{P}^B(r) = 1 - \f{ K_B \li ( r + \f{p_0 + r}{K_B} - q_0 \ri )^2 } { 8
908: r^2}, \qqu \ro_B \leq r \leq \ro_B^*.
909: \]
910:
911:
912: \bsk
913:
914: For $r > \ro_B^*$, we have
915: \be
916: \la{set3}
917: \cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r) = \Xi \cup \Psi
918: \ee
919: where
920: \[
921: \Xi = \li \{ (x, y) \mid \; |y - p_0| \leq r, \qu q_0 - r \leq x \leq \f{p_0
922: -
923: r}{K_B} \ri \}
924: \]
925: and
926: \[
927: \Psi = \li \{ (x, y) \mid \; p_0 + r \geq y \geq K_B \; x, \qu \f{p_0 -
928: r}{K_B}
929: < x \ri \}.
930: \]
931: We now show $(\ref{set3})$, i.e., $\Se = \Xi \cup \Psi$.
932: Obviously, $\Se \subseteq \Xi \cup \Psi$. It suffices to show $\Se
933: \supseteq \Xi$ and
934: $\Se \supseteq \Psi$. Let $(x,y) \in \Xi$.
935: Then, $K_B \; x \leq K_B \; \li ( \f{p_0 - r}{K_B} \ri ) = p_0 - r \leq y$.
936: From inequalities (\ref{con_a}), (\ref{con_b}) and $x \leq \f{p_0 -
937: r}{K_B}$,
938: we have $x \leq \f{p_0 - r}{K_B} \leq q_0 + r$. This proves $(x, y) \in
939: \Se$.
940: Hence $\Xi \subseteq \Se$. Now let $(x, y) \in \Psi$.
941: Then $y \geq K_B \; x > K_B \; \li ( \f{p_0 - r}{K_B} \ri )= p_0 - r$.
942: It can be shown that $\f{p_0 - r}{K_B} > q_0 - r$ if and only if $r >
943: \ro_B^*$. Hence, $x > q_0 - r$. From inequalities (\ref{con_a}),
944: (\ref{con_b})
945: and $K_B \; x \leq p_0 + r$,
946: we have $x \leq \f{p_0 + r}{K_B} \leq q_0 + r$.
947: This proves $(x, y) \in \Se$ and thus $\Psi \subseteq \Se$.
948: Therefore, the proof for $\Se = \Xi \cup \Psi$ is completed.
949:
950:
951: \bsk
952:
953:
954: Observing that $\Xi$ is a rectangular domain and $\Psi$ is a triangular
955: domain, we obtain by a geometric argument
956: \[
957: \mrm{vol} \{ \cal{B}^\mrm{Bad} (r) \} = 2 r \li ( r + \f{p_0}{K_B} - q_0 \ri
958: )
959: \]
960: and thus
961: \[
962: \bb{P}^B (r) = 1 - \f{ 2 r \li ( r + \f{p_0}{K_B} - q_0 \ri ) } { 4 r^2 } =
963: \f{1}{2} - \f{ \f{p_0}{K_B} - q_0 } { 2 r }, \qqu r > \ro_B^*.
964: \]
965:
966: \bsk
967:
968: \section{Probability of Instability of The Worst-case Controller }
969:
970: Now we derive an exact expression for $\Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_A$
971: stabilizes the system} \}$. Note that
972: \bee
973: & & \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_A$ stabilizes the system} \}\\
974: & = & \Pr \li \{p < a, \qu p < \f{K_A}{a} q \ri \}\\
975: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi \si_p \si_q} \; \int_{ \li \{p < a, \qu p < \f{K_A}{a} q
976: \ri \} } \; \exp \li( -
977: \f{(p - p_0)^2 } { 2
978: \si_p^2 } \ri) \; \exp \li( -
979: \f{(q - q_0)^2 } { 2
980: \si_q^2 } \ri) d p \; dq \\
981: \eee
982: Introducing new variables
983: \[
984: y = \f{p - p_0 } { \si_p }, \qqu x = \f{q - q_0 } { \si_q },
985: \]
986: we have
987: \bee
988: & & \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_A$ stabilizes the system} \}\\
989: & = & \f{1}{ 2 \pi} \; \int_{D_{xy}} \; \exp \li ( - \f{x^2}{2} \ri ) \;
990: \exp \li ( - \f{y^2}{2} \ri ) d x \; d y
991: \eee
992: where
993: \bee
994: D_{xy} & = & \li \{ (x, y) \mid \si_p y + p_0 < a, \qu \si_p y + p_0 <
995: \f{K_A}{a} (\si_q x + q_0) \ri \}\\
996: & = & \li \{ (x, y) \mid y < u, \qu y < k x + v \ri \}.
997: \eee
998: Therefore, it suffices to compute
999: \[
1000: I = \int_{D_{xy}} \; \exp \li ( - \f{x^2 + y^2}{2} \ri ) \; d x \; d y.
1001: \]
1002: Introducing polar coordinates
1003: \be
1004: \la{polar}
1005: x = \ro \cos \se, \qqu y = \ro \sin \se,
1006: \ee
1007: we have
1008: \[
1009: I = \int_{D_{\ro \se}} \; \exp \li ( - \f{\ro^2}{2} \ri ) \; \ro \; d \ro
1010: \; d \se
1011: \]
1012: where
1013: \[
1014: D_{\ro \se} = \li \{ (\ro, \se) \mid \ro \sin \se < u, \qu \ro \sin \se < k
1015: \; \ro \cos \se + v,
1016: \qu \ro \in [0, \iy), \qu \se \in [0, 2 \pi) \ri \}.
1017: \]
1018: We compute the integration
1019: \[
1020: \wh{I} = \int_{\wh{D}_{\ro \se}} \; \exp \li ( - \f{\ro^2}{2} \ri ) \; \ro
1021: \; d \ro \; d \se
1022: \]
1023: over the complement set
1024: \[
1025: \wh{D}_{\ro \se} = \li \{ (\ro, \se) \mid \ro \sin \se \geq u \qu \tx{or}
1026: \qu \ro \sin \se \geq k \; \ro \cos \se + v,
1027: \qu \ro \in [0, \iy), \qu \se \in [0, 2 \pi) \ri \}.
1028: \]
1029: We claim that $\wh{D}_{\ro \se}$ can be partitioned as two subsets
1030: \[
1031: A_{\ro \se} = \li \{ (\ro, \se) \mid \ro \sin \se \geq u, \qu \ro \in [0,
1032: \iy), \qu \se \in [0, \se^*) \ri \}
1033: \]
1034: and
1035: \[
1036: B_{\ro \se} = \li \{ (\ro, \se) \mid \ro \sin \se \geq k \; \ro \cos \se +
1037: v,
1038: \qu \ro \in [0, \iy), \qu \se \in [\se^*, 2 \pi) \ri \}
1039: \]
1040: such that
1041: \[
1042: \wh{D}_{\ro \se} = A_{\ro \se} \cup B_{\ro \se}, \qqu A_{\ro \se} \cap
1043: B_{\ro \se} = \emptyset.
1044: \]
1045:
1046: \bsk
1047:
1048: In the proof of the claim, we shall recall that $(x, y)$ is related to
1049: $(\ro, \se)$ by the polar transform (\ref{polar}).
1050: To show $\wh{D}_{\ro \se} = A_{\ro \se} \cup B_{\ro \se}$, we need to
1051: consider
1052: three cases: Case (a): $u > v$; Case (b): $u < v$; Case (c): $u = v$.
1053:
1054: \bsk
1055:
1056: Let $k^* = \tan \se^* = \f{k u}{u - v}$. In Case (a), since $\se < \se^*$
1057: if and only if $y < k^* x$,
1058: it suffices to show the following two statements:
1059:
1060: \bed
1061: \item [(a-1)] $y > u$ if $y < k^* x, \qu y \geq k x + v$;
1062:
1063: \item [(a-2)] $y \geq k x + v$ if $y \geq u, \qu y \geq k^* x$.
1064:
1065: \eed
1066:
1067:
1068: To show statement (a-1), observing that, as a direct consequence of $y
1069: < k^* x$ and $y \geq k x + v$, we have $k^* x > k x + v$, leading to $x >
1070: \f{v}{k^* - k}$.
1071: Therefore, $y \geq k x + v > k \f{v}{k^* - k} + v = u$.
1072: To show statement (a-2), we proceed by a contradiction method.
1073: Suppose $y < k x + v$. Then $k^* x < k x + v$, which implies $x < \f{v}{k^*
1074: - k}$.
1075: On the other hand, we have $k x + v > u$, leading to $x > \f{u- v}{k}$. It
1076: follows that
1077: $\f{u- v}{k} < \f{v}{k^* - k} = \f{u- v}{k}$, which is a contradiction.
1078:
1079: \bsk
1080:
1081: In Case (b), since $\se < \se^*$ if and only if $y > k^* x$, it suffices to
1082: show the following two statements:
1083:
1084: \bed
1085: \item [(b-1)] $y > u$ if $y > k^* x, \qu y \geq k x + v$;
1086:
1087: \item [(b-2)] $y \geq k x + v$ if $y \geq u, \qu y \leq k^* x$.
1088:
1089: \eed
1090:
1091:
1092: To show statement (b-1), observing that $k^* < 0$ because $u < v$.
1093: Hence $x > \f{y}{k^*}$.
1094: On the other hand $x \leq \f{y - v}{k}$. Hence, $\f{y}{k^*} < \f{y -
1095: v}{k}$, leading to $ y > u$. To show statement (b-2), we proceed by a
1096: contradiction method.
1097: Suppose $y < k x + v$. Then $u < k x + v$, i.e., $x > \f{u-v}{k}$.
1098: Consequently, $y \leq k^* x < k^* \f{u-v}{k} = u$, which is a contradiction.
1099:
1100: \bsk
1101:
1102: In Case (c), since $\se < \se^* = \f{\pi}{2}$ if and only if $x > 0$, it
1103: suffices to show the following two statements:
1104:
1105: \bed
1106:
1107: \item [(c-1)] $y > u$ if $x > 0, \qu y \geq k x + v$;
1108: \item [(c-2)] $y \geq k x + v$ if $y \geq u, \qu x \leq 0$.
1109:
1110: \eed
1111:
1112:
1113: Statement (c-1) can be shown by observing that, if $x > 0, \; y \geq k x
1114: + v$, then $y > v = u$. To show statement (c-2), we proceed by a
1115: contradiction method.
1116: Suppose $y < k x + v$. Then $u < k x + v$, i.e., $x > \f{u-v}{k} = 0$,
1117: which is a contradiction.
1118:
1119: \bsk
1120:
1121:
1122: It can be shown that
1123: \be
1124: \la{sim1}
1125: A_{\ro \se} = \li \{ (\ro, \se) \mid \ro \geq \f{u}{ \sin \se }, \qu \se
1126: \in (0, \se^*) \ri \}
1127: \ee
1128: and $B_{\ro \se} = \li \{ (\ro, \se) \mid \ro \sin \se \geq k \; \ro \cos
1129: \se +
1130: v, \qu \ro \in [0, \iy), \qu \se^* \leq \se < \pi + \arctan(k) \ri \}$.
1131: Moreover, we can further simplify $B_{\ro \se}$ as
1132: \be
1133: \la{sim}
1134: B_{\ro \se} = \li \{ (\ro, \se) \mid \ro \geq \f{v} { \sin \se - k \cos \se
1135: },
1136: \qu \se^* \leq \se < \pi + \arctan(k) \ri \}.
1137: \ee
1138: To show (\ref{sim}), it suffices to show
1139: \be
1140: \la{ineq1}
1141: \sin \se - k \cos \se \geq 0 \qu \tx{for} \qu \se^* \leq \se \leq \f{\pi}{2}
1142: \ee
1143: and
1144: \be
1145: \la{ineq2}
1146: \sin \se - k \cos \se \geq 0 \qu \tx{for} \qu \f{\pi}{2} < \se < \pi +
1147: \arctan(k).
1148: \ee
1149: To show (\ref{ineq1}), one needs to observe that $ \se^* \leq \se <
1150: \f{\pi}{2}$ implies
1151: \[
1152: \cos \se > 0, \qu u \geq v, \qu \tan \se \geq \tan (\se^*) = \f{k u } {u -
1153: v } \geq k
1154: \]
1155: and consequently, $\sin \se - k \cos \se = \cos \se \; (\tan \se - k ) \geq
1156: 0$.
1157: To show (\ref{ineq2}), one needs to observe that $\f{\pi}{2} < \se < \pi +
1158: \arctan(k)$ implies
1159: \[
1160: \cos \se < 0, \qu \tan \se < \tan (\pi + \arctan(k)) = k
1161: \]
1162: and consequently, $\sin \se - k \cos \se = \cos \se \; (\tan \se - k ) >
1163: 0$. By (\ref{sim1}) and (\ref{sim}), we have
1164: \bee
1165: \wh{I} & = & \int_{A_{\ro \se}} \; \exp \li ( - \f{\ro^2}{2} \ri ) \; \ro \;
1166: d \ro \; d \se +
1167: \int_{B_{\ro \se}} \; \exp \li ( - \f{\ro^2}{2} \ri ) \; \ro \; d \ro \; d
1168: \se\\
1169: & = & \int_{\se = 0}^{\se^*} \; \int_{\ro = \f{u}{ \sin \se }}^\iy \exp \li
1170: ( - \f{\ro^2}{2} \ri ) \; \ro \; d \ro \; d \se\\
1171: & & + \int_{\se = \se^*}^{ \pi + \arctan(k) } \int_{\ro = \f{v} { \sin
1172: \se - k \cos \se } }^\iy\;
1173: \exp \li ( - \f{\ro^2}{2} \ri ) \; \ro \; d \ro \; d \se\\
1174: & = & \int_{\se = 0}^{\se^*} \exp \li ( - \f{u^2}{2 \sin^2 \se} \ri ) d \se
1175: + \int_{\se = \se^*}^{ \pi + \arctan(k) } \exp \li ( - \f{v^2}{2 (\sin \se -
1176: k \cos \se)^2} \ri ) d \se\\
1177: & = & \int_{\se = 0}^{\se^*} \exp \li ( - \f{u^2}{2 \sin^2 \se} \ri ) d \se
1178: + \int_{\se = \se^* - \arctan(k)}^{ \pi } \exp \li ( -
1179: \f{w^2}{2 \sin^2 \se} \ri ) d \se.
1180: \eee
1181: Finally,
1182: \[
1183: \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_A$ stabilizes the system} \} = 1 - \f{1}{2 \pi}
1184: \wh{I}.
1185: \]
1186: This completes the proof of formula (\ref{exact}).
1187:
1188: \bsk
1189:
1190: \section{Probability of Instability of Probabilistic Controller}
1191:
1192: Define
1193: \[
1194: S_{pq} = \li \{ (p,q) \mid p \in \bb{R}, \qu q \in \bb{R}, \qu p < K_B \; q
1195: \ri \}.
1196: \]
1197: Then \bee
1198: & & \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_B$ stabilizes the system} \}\\
1199: & = & \Pr \{ (p,q) \in S_{pq}\}\\
1200: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi \si_p \si_q} \int_{S_{pq}} \exp \li( -
1201: \f{(p - p_0)^2 } { 2 \si_p^2 } \ri) \exp \li( - \f{(q - q_0)^2 } { 2
1202: \si_q^2 } \ri) d p d q. \eee Note that there exists a one-to-one
1203: mapping between $S_{pq}$ and
1204: \[
1205: S_{xy} = \{ (x, y) \mid x \in \bb{R}, \; y < 0 \}
1206: \]
1207: so that
1208: \[
1209: p = K_B \; x + y, \qqu q = x.
1210: \]
1211: Therefore,
1212: \bee
1213: & & \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_B$ stabilizes the system} \}\\
1214: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi \si_p \si_q} \int_{S_{xy}} \exp \li( -
1215: \f{(K_B x + y - p_0)^2 } { 2 \si_p^2 } \ri)
1216: \exp \li( - \f{(x - q_0)^2 } { 2 \si_q^2 } \ri) d x d y\\
1217: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi \si_p \si_q} \int_{S_{xy}} \exp \li( - \f{
1218: \si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2 } { 2 \si_p^2 \si_q^2 } x^2 + \f{q_0 \si_p^2 - K_B
1219: \si_q^2 (y - p_0) }
1220: {\si_p^2 \si_q^2} x - \f{(y - p_0)^2 } { 2
1221: \si_p^2 } - \f{q_0^2} { 2 \si_q^2 } \ri) d x d y\\
1222: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi \si_p \si_q} \int_{-\iy}^0 \exp \li ( \f{ [q_0 \si_p^2 -
1223: K_B \si_q^2 (y - p_0) ]^2 }
1224: { 2 \si_p^2 \si_q^2 (\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} - \f{(y - p_0)^2 } { 2
1225: \si_p^2 } - \f{q_0^2} { 2 \si_q^2 } \ri) \\
1226: & & \times \int_{-\iy}^\iy
1227: \exp \li( - \f{\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2} { 2 \si_p^2 \si_q^2 }
1228: \li [ x - \f{q_0 \si_p^2 - K_B \si_q^2 (y - p_0) } {\si_p^2 + K_B^2
1229: \si_q^2} \ri ] ^2 \ri ) d x \; d y.
1230: \eee
1231: Using the fact
1232: \[
1233: \int_{-\iy}^\iy e^{-\al (x - \mu)^2} dx = \sq{ \f{\pi}{\al} } \qqu \fa
1234: \al > 0, \qu \fa \mu \in (- \iy, \iy),
1235: \]
1236: we have \bee
1237: & & \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_B$ stabilizes the system} \}\\
1238: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi \si_p \si_q} \int_{-\iy}^0 \; \exp \li ( \f{ [q_0 \si_p^2
1239: - K_B \si_q^2 (y - p_0) ]^2 }
1240: { 2 \si_p^2 \si_q^2 (\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} - \f{(y - p_0)^2 } { 2
1241: \si_p^2 } - \f{q_0^2} { 2 \si_q^2 } \ri) d y \;
1242: \times \sq{ \f{ 2 \pi \si_p^2 \si_q^2 } { \si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2 } }\\
1243: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi } \; \sq{ \f{ 2 \pi } { \si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2 } } \;
1244: \int_{-\iy}^{-p_0} \exp \li ( \f{ [q_0 \si_p^2 - K_B \si_q^2 z ]^2 }
1245: { 2 \si_p^2 \si_q^2 (\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} - \f{z^2 } { 2 \si_p^2 } -
1246: \f{q_0^2} { 2 \si_q^2 } \ri) d z.
1247: \eee
1248: It can be verified that
1249: \[
1250: \f{ [q_0 \si_p^2 - K_B \si_q^2 z ]^2 }
1251: { 2 \si_p^2 \si_q^2 (\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} - \f{z^2 } { 2 \si_p^2 } -
1252: \f{q_0^2} { 2 \si_q^2 } =
1253: - \f{ \li( z+ K_B \; q_0 \ri)^2 } { 2(\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2) }.
1254: \]
1255: Hence
1256: \bee
1257: & & \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_B$ stabilizes the system} \}\\
1258: & = & \f{1}{2 \pi } \; \sq{ \f{ 2 \pi } { \si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2 } } \;
1259: \int_{-\iy}^{-p_0} \exp \li ( - \f{ \li( z+ K_B \; q_0 \ri)^2 } { 2(\si_p^2
1260: + K_B^2 \si_q^2) } \ri ) dz\\
1261: & = & \f{1}{\sq{2 \pi}} \int_{-\iy}^{ \f{K_B q_0 - p_0} { \sq{\si_p^2 +
1262: K_B^2 \si_q^2} } } e^{-\f{z^2}{2}} dz\\
1263: & = & \f{1}{2} + \f{1}{2} \; \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{K_B q_0 - p_0} {
1264: \sq{2(\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} } \ri ). \eee
1265: It follows that
1266: \bee
1267: P^{C_B} & = & 1 - \Pr \{ \tx{Controller $C_B$ stabilizes the system} \}\\
1268: & = & \f{1}{2} - \f{1}{2} \; \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{K_B q_0 - p_0} {
1269: \sq{2(\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} } \ri ).
1270: \eee
1271: This completes the proof of formula (\ref{exact2}).
1272:
1273: \bsk
1274:
1275: \section{Derivation of A Sufficient Condition}
1276:
1277: Note that
1278: \bee
1279: P^{C_A} & = & 1 - \Pr \li \{p < a, \qu p < \f{K_A}{a} q \ri \}\\
1280: & \geq & 1 - \Pr \{ p < a \}\\
1281: & = & 1 - \f{1}{\sq{2 \pi} \si_p} \int_{- \iy}^a \exp \li( -
1282: \f{(p - p_0)^2 } { 2
1283: \si_p^2 } \ri) dp\\
1284: & = & 1 - \f{1}{\sq{2 \pi} } \int_{- \iy}^{\f{a - p_0}{\si_p}} \exp \li( -
1285: \f{x^2 } { 2 } \ri) dx\\
1286: & = & \f{1}{2} - \f{1}{2} \; \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{a - p_0}{ \sq{2}
1287: \si_p} \ri ). \eee
1288: Therefore, for $P^{C_A} > P^{C_B}$, it suffices to have
1289: \[
1290: \f{1}{2} - \f{1}{2} \; \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{a - p_0}{ \sq{2}
1291: \si_p} \ri ) > \f{1}{2} - \f{1}{2} \; \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{K_B q_0 - p_0} {
1292: \sq{2(\si_p^2 + K_B^2 \si_q^2)} } \ri ),
1293: \]
1294: i.e.,
1295: \[
1296: \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{a - p_0}{ \sq{2}
1297: \si_p} \ri ) < \mrm{erf} \li ( \f{K_B q_0 - p_0} { \sq{2(\si_p^2 + K_B^2
1298: \si_q^2)} } \ri ).
1299: \]
1300: Since $\mrm{erf}(.)$ is a monotone increasing function, we have
1301: \[
1302: \f{a - p_0}{ \sq{2} \si_p} < \f{K_B q_0 - p_0} { \sq{2(\si_p^2 + K_B^2
1303: \si_q^2)} },
1304: \]
1305: which is equivalent to
1306: \[
1307: 1 + \li ( \f{ K_B \; \si_q } { \si_p } \ri )^2 < \li ( \f{K_B q_0 - p_0 } {
1308: a -
1309: p_0 } \ri )^2.
1310: \]
1311: This completes the proof of condition (\ref{suf}).
1312:
1313: \bsk
1314:
1315: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1316:
1317: \bibitem{bai}E. W. BAI, R. TEMPO, AND M. FU,
1318: ``Worst-case properties of the uniform distribution and randomized
1319: algorithms for robustness analysis,'' {\it Mathematics of Control,
1320: Signals and Systems}, vol. 11, pp.183-196, 1998.
1321:
1322: \bibitem{BLT} B. R. BARMISH, C. M. LAGOA, AND R. TEMPO,
1323: ``Radially truncated uniform distributions for probabilistic
1324: robustness of control systems,'' {\it Proc. of American Control
1325: Conference}, pp. 853-857, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 1997.
1326:
1327:
1328: \bibitem{BL}
1329: B. R. BARMISH AND C. M. LAGOA, ``The uniform distribution: a
1330: rigorous justification for its use in robustness analysis,'' {\it
1331: Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems}, vol. 10, pp.
1332: 203-222, 1997.
1333:
1334: \bibitem{Barmish1} B. R. BARMISH AND P. S. SHCHERBAKOV, ``A dilation method
1335: for robustness problems with nonlinear parameter dependence,''
1336: {\it Proc. of American Control Conference}, pp. 3834-3839, Denver,
1337: 2003.
1338:
1339: \bibitem{Barmish2} B. R. BARMISH AND P. S. SHCHERBAKOV, ``On avoiding
1340: vertexization of robustness problems: The approximate feasibility
1341: concept,'' {\it IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control}, vol. 42,
1342: pp. 819-824, 2002.
1343:
1344:
1345: \bibitem{CDT1}
1346: G. CALAFIORE, F. DABBENE, AND R. TEMPO, ``Randomized algorithms
1347: for probabilistic robustness with real and complex structured
1348: uncertainty,'' {\em IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control}, vol.
1349: 45, pp. 2218-2235, 2000.
1350:
1351: \bib{Cal2} G. CALAFIORE AND M. C. CAMPI, ``Uncertain convex programs:
1352: randomized solutions and confidence levels,'' to appear in {\it
1353: Mathematical Programming}, 2004.
1354:
1355: \bib{Cal33} G. CALAFIORE AND F. DABBENE, ``A probabilistic framework for
1356: problems with real structured uncertainty in systems and
1357: control,'' {\it Automatica}, vol. 38, pp. 1265-1276, 2002.
1358:
1359: \bib{Cal3} G. CALAFIORE AND B. T. POLYAK, ``Fast algorithms for exact and
1360: approximate feasibility of robust LMIs,'' {\it IEEE Transaction on
1361: Automatic Control}, vol. 46, pp. 1755-1759, 2001.
1362:
1363: \bib{Cal34} G. CALAFIORE AND F. DABBENE, AND R. TEMPO, ``Randomized
1364: algorithms in robust control,''
1365: {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 1908-1913,
1366: Maui, December 2003.
1367:
1368: \bibitem{C0} X. CHEN, K. ZHOU, AND J. ARAVENA, ``Fast construction of
1369: robustness degradation function,'' {\it SIAM Journal on Control
1370: and Optimization}, vol. 42, pp. 1960-1971, 2004.
1371:
1372: \bibitem{C1} X. CHEN, K. ZHOU, AND J. ARAVENA, ``Fast universal
1373: algorithms for robustness analysis,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE
1374: Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 1926-1931, Maui, December
1375: 2003.
1376:
1377: \bibitem{C2} X. CHEN AND K. ZHOU,
1378: ``Constrained robustness analysis and synthesis by randomized
1379: algorithms,'' {\em IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control}, vol.
1380: 45, pp. 1180-1186, 2000.
1381:
1382: \bib{Dan} D. P. FARIAS AND B. V. ROY, ``On constraint sampling in the
1383: linear programming approach to approximate linear programming,''
1384: {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on Decision and Control}, pp.
1385: 2441-2446, Maui, December 2003.
1386:
1387: \bib{FU} Y. FUJISAKI, F. DABBENE, AND R. TEMPO, ``Probabilistic robust
1388: design of LPV control systems,'' {\it Automatica}, vol. 39, pp.
1389: 1323-1337, 2003.
1390:
1391: \bib{FU1} Y. FUJISAKI AND Y. KOZAWA, ``Probabilistic Rrobust controller
1392: design: probable near minimax
1393: value and randomized algorithms,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE
1394: Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 1938-1943, Maui, December
1395: 2003.
1396:
1397: \bib{PT} P. F. HOKAYEM AND C. T. ABDALLAH, ``Quasi-Monte Carlo methods in
1398: robust
1399: control design,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on Decision and
1400: Control}, pp. 2435-2440, Maui, December 2003.
1401:
1402: \bib{Kan} S. KANEV, B. De SCHUTTER, AND M. VERHAEGEN, ``An ellipsoid
1403: algorithm for probabilistic robust controller design,'' {\it
1404: Systems and Control Letters}, vol. 49, pp. 365-375, 2003.
1405:
1406:
1407: \bib{Kan2} S. KANEV AND M. VERHAEGEN,
1408: ``Robust output-feedback integral MPC: A probabilistic approach,''
1409: {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on Decision and Control}, pp.
1410: 1914-1919, Maui, December 2003.
1411:
1412: \bibitem{KT}
1413: P. P. KHARGONEKAR AND A. TIKKU, ``Randomized algorithms for robust
1414: control analysis and synthesis have polynomial complexity,'' {\it
1415: Proceedings of Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 3470-3475,
1416: Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
1417:
1418: \bib{Ko} V. KOLTCHINSKII, C.T. ABDALLAH, M. ARIOLA, P. DORATO, AND D.
1419: PANCHENKO, ``Improved sample complexity estimates for statistical
1420: learning control of uncertain systems.,'' {\it IEEE Transactions
1421: on Automatic Control}, vol. 46, pp. 2383-2388, 2000.
1422:
1423: \bibitem{BLT2} C. M. LAGOA, ``Probabilistic enhancement of classic
1424: robustness margins: A class of none symmetric distributions,''
1425: {\it Proc. of American Control Conference}, pp. 3802-3806,
1426: Chicago, Illinois, June 2000.
1427:
1428: \bib{La2} C. M. LAGOA, X. LI, AND M. SZNAIER, ``On the
1429: design of robust controllers for arbitrary uncertainty
1430: structures,'' to appear in {\it IEEE Transactions on Automatic
1431: Control}.
1432:
1433: \bib{La3} C. M. LAGOA, X. LI, M. C.
1434: MAZZARO, AND M. SZNAIER, ``Sampling random transfer functions,''
1435: {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on Decision and Control}, pp.
1436: 2429-2434, Maui, December 2003.
1437:
1438: \bib{La4} C. M. LAGOA AND B. R. BARMISH, ``Distributionally robust Monte
1439: Carlo simulation: A tutorial survey,'' {\it Proceedings of the
1440: IFAC World Congress}, pp. 1327-1338, 2002.
1441:
1442: \bibitem{MS}
1443: C. MARRISON AND R. F. STENGEL, ``Robust control system design
1444: using random search and genetic algorithms,'' {\em IEEE
1445: Transaction on Automatic Control}, vol. 42, pp. 835-839, 1997.
1446:
1447: \bib{nem} A. NEMIROVSKII, ``On tractable approximations of randomly
1448: perturbed convex constraints,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference
1449: on Decision and Control}, pp. 2419-2422, Maui, December 2003.
1450:
1451: \bib{Oi} Y. OISHI AND H. KIMURA, ``Randomized algorithms to solve
1452: parameter-dependent linear matrix inequalities and their
1453: computational complexity,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on
1454: Decision and Control}, pp. 2025-2030, 2001.
1455:
1456: \bib{Oi2} Y. OISHI, ``Probabilistic design of a robust state-feedback
1457: controller based
1458: on parameter-dependent Lyapunov functions,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE
1459: Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 1920-1925, Maui, December
1460: 2003.
1461:
1462: \bib{Pol} B. T. POLYAK AND R. TEMPO, ``Probabilistic robust design with
1463: linear quadratic regulators,'' {\it Systems and Control Letters},
1464: vol. 43, pp. 343-353, 2001.
1465:
1466: \bibitem{Polyak} B. T. POLYAK AND P. S. SHCHERBAKOV,
1467: ``Random spherical uncertainty in estimation and robustness,''
1468: {\em IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control}, vol. 45, pp.
1469: 2145-2150, 2000.
1470:
1471: \bibitem{RS}
1472: L. R. RAY AND R. F. STENGEL, ``A monte carlo approach to the
1473: analysis of control systems robustness,'' {\it Automatica}, vol.
1474: 3, pp. 229-236, 1993.
1475:
1476: \bibitem{SB}
1477: S. R. ROSS AND B. R. BARMISH, ``Distributionally robust gain
1478: analysis for systems containing complexity,'' {\it Proceedings of
1479: Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 5020-5025, Orlando,
1480: Florida, December 2001.
1481:
1482: \bib{sc} C. W. SCHERER, ``Higher-order relaxations for robust LMI
1483: problems with verifications for exactness,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE
1484: Conference on Decision and Control}, pp. 4652-4657, Maui, December
1485: 2003.
1486:
1487: \bib{kov} P. S. SHCHERBAKOV AND B. R. BARMISH, ``On the conditioning of
1488: robustness problems,'' {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on
1489: Decision and Control}, pp. 1932-1937, Maui, December 2003.
1490:
1491: \bibitem{SR}
1492: R. F. STENGEL AND L. R. RAY, ``Stochastic robustness of linear
1493: time-invariant systems,'' {\it IEEE Transaction on Automatic
1494: Control}, vol. 36, pp. 82-87, 1991.
1495:
1496: \bib{Tem} R. TEMPO, G. CALAFIORE, AND F. DABBENE, {\it Randomized Algorithms
1497: for Analysis and Control of Uncertain Systems}, Springer-Verlag,
1498: New York, 2004.
1499:
1500: \bibitem{TD}
1501: R. TEMPO, E. W. BAI, AND F. DABBENE, ``Probabilistic robustness
1502: analysis: explicit bounds for the minimum number of samples,''
1503: {\em Systems and Control Letters}, vol. 30, pp. 237-242, 1997.
1504:
1505:
1506: \bibitem {vind} M. VIDYASAGAR AND V. D. BLONDEL,
1507: ``Probabilistic solutions to NP-hard matrix problems,'' {\it
1508: Automatica}, vol. 37, pp. 1597-1405, 2001.
1509:
1510: \bibitem {vind2} M. VIDYASAGAR, ``Randomized algorithms for robust
1511: controller synthesis using statistical learning theory,'' {\it
1512: Automatica}, vol. 37, pp. 1515-1528, 2001.
1513:
1514: \bibitem {vind3} M. VIDYASAGAR, ``Statistical learning theory and randomized
1515: algorithms for control,'' {\it IEEE Control Systems Magazine},
1516: vol. 18, pp. 69-85, 1998.
1517:
1518: \bib{Wang} Q. WANG AND R. F. STENGEL, ``Robust control of nonlinear
1519: systems with parametric uncertainty,'' {\it Automatica}, vol. 38,
1520: pp. 1591-1599, 2002.
1521:
1522: \bib{Wang2} Q. WANG, ``Probabilistic robust control design of polynomial
1523: vector fields,''
1524: {\it Proceedings IEEE Conference on Decision and Control}, pp.
1525: 2447-2452, Maui, December 2003.
1526:
1527: \end{thebibliography}
1528:
1529: \end{document}
1530: