1

Data-Driven Inversion-Based Control:
closed-loop stability analysis for MIMO systems

arXiv:1801.08993v1 [] 26 Jan 2018

Carlo Novara and Simone Formentin

Abstract—Data-Driven Inversion-Based Control (D2 -IBC) is
a recently introduced control design method for uncertain nonlinear systems, relying on a two degree-of-freedom architecture,
with a nonlinear controller and a linear controller running
in parallel. In this paper, extending to the MIMO case a
previous result holding for the SISO case, we derive a finite-gain
stability sufficient condition for a closed-loop system formed by
a nonlinear MIMO plant, connected in feedback with a D2 -IBC
controller.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Data-Driven Inversion-Based Control (D2 -IBC) is a recently introduced control design method for uncertain nonlinear systems, relying on a two degree-of-freedom architecture,
with a nonlinear controller and a linear controller running
in parallel, [1], [2]. Despite many different approaches for
joint design of identification and control have been already
proposed (see [3] and the reference therein for a comprehensive overview), as far as we are aware, D2 -IBC is the first
“identification for control" method for nonlinear dynamical
systems, where also stability guarantees are provided and
enforced directly in the identification algorithm. However,
the underlying stability sufficient condition is valid for Single
Input Single Output (SISO) systems only. In this paper, we
extend this sufficient condition to Multiple Input Multiple
Output (MIMO) systems.
Notation. A column vector x ∈ Rnx ×1 is denoted as
x = (x1 , . . . , xnx ). A row vector x ∈ R1×nx is denoted
⊤
as x = [x1 , . . . , xnx ] = (x1 , . . . , xnx ) , where ⊤ indicates
the transpose.
A discrete-time signal (i.e. a sequence of vectors) is denoted
with the bold style: x = (x1 , x2 , . . .), where xt ∈ Rnx ×1
and t = 1, 2, . . . indicates the discrete time; xi,t is the ith
component of the signal x at time t.
A regressor, i.e. a vector that, at time t, contains n present
and past values of a variable, is indicated with the bold style
and the time index: xt = (xt , . . . , xt−n+1 ).
The ℓp norms of a vector x = (x1 , . . . , xnx ) are defined as
(P
1
nx
|xi |p ) p , p < ∞,
. ( i=1
kxkp =
maxi |xi | ,
p = ∞.
C. Novara is with Politecnico di Torino (Italy), S. Formentin is
with Politecnico di Milano (Italy). Email: carlo.novara@polito.it,
simone.formentin@polimi.it.

The ℓp norms of a signal x = (x1 , x2 , . . .) are defined as
(P
1
∞ Pnx
|xi,t |p ) p , p < ∞,
. ( t=1 i=1
kxkp =
maxi,t |xi,t | ,
p = ∞,
where xi,t is the ith component of the signal x at time t.
II. T HE D2 -IBC APPROACH
Consider a nonlinear discrete-time MIMO system in regression form:
yt+1 = g (y t , ut , ξt )

(1)

y t = (yt , . . . , yt−n+1 )
ut = (ut , . . . , ut−n+1 )
ξ t = (ξt , . . . , ξt−n+1 )
where ut ∈ U = [−ū, ū]nu ⊂ Rnu is the saturated input,
.
¯ ξ¯ nξ ⊂ Rnξ is a
yt ∈ Rny is the output, ξt ∈ Ξ = −ξ,
disturbance, and n is the system order. Both U and Ξ are
compact sets.
Suppose that the system (1) is unknown, but a set of
measurements is available:
.
D = {ũt , ỹt }0t=1−L

(2)

.
where ũt ∈ U , ỹt ∈ Y , Y = [−ȳ, ȳ]ny , ȳ = maxt,i |ỹt,i | <
∞, and ỹt,i is the ith component of ỹt . The tilde is used
to indicate the input and output samples of the data set (2),
which is supposed to be available at time t = 0 when the
controller needs to be designed. The input signals employed
to generate (2) are also assumed to be such that the system
output does not diverge.
.
Let R = [−r̄, r̄]ny , with 0 ≤ r̄ ≤ ȳ, be a domain
of interest for the trajectories of the system (1). The aim
is to control the system (1) in such a way that, starting
.
from any initial condition y 0 ∈ Y 0 = Rn×ny ⊂ Rn×ny ,
the system output sequence y = (y1 , y2 , . . .) tracks any
reference sequence r = (r1 , r2 , . . .) ∈ R ⊆ R∞ ⊂ ℓ∞ .
The set of all possible disturbance sequences is defined as
.
Ξ = {ξ = (ξ1 , ξ2 , . . .) : ξt ∈ Ξ, ∀t}.
To accomplish this task, we consider a feedback control
structure with two controllers, K nl and K lin , working in
parallel:K nl is a nonlinear controller used to guide the
system (1) along the trajectories of interest, while K lin is
a linear controller aimed to enhance the tracking precision.

2

A. Nonlinear controller design
The first step needed to design the nonlinear controller is
to identify from the data (2) a model for the system (1) of
the form
ŷt+1 = f (y t , ut ) ≡ f (q t , ut )

(3)

q t = (yt , . . . , yt−n+1 , ut−1 , . . . , ut−n+1 )
where ut and yt are the system input and output, and ŷt
is the model output. A parametric structure is taken for the
function f :
f (q t , ut ) =

N
X

αi φi (q t , ut )

(4)

i=1

where φi : Rn(ny +nu ) → R are polynomial basis functions
and αi ∈ Rny ×1 are parameter vectors that can be identified
by means of convex optimization.
Once a model of the form (3) has been identified, the
nl
current command action unl
t of the nonlinear controller K
is computed by the on-line inversion of the obtained models,
given the available regressor q t . This inversion is performed
by solving the following optimization problem:
unl
t = arg min Jt (ū)
ū∈U

(5)

where the current objective function Jt is
ny
2
X
ζi 
µi 2
λi 2
Jt (ū) =
rt+1,i − fi (q t , ū) +
ū +
δū
ρ
ρui
ρui
i=1 yi
(6)
where rt+1,i is the ith component of rt+1 and fi is the
.
. ||y˜i 1−L ,...,y˜i 0 ||22
and ρui =
ith component of f ; ρyi =
L
||u˜i1−L ,...,u˜i0 ||22
L

are normalization constants computed form
the data set (2), δū = ū − ut−1 are the control action rate of
change with respect to the past input, µi ≥ 0 and λi ≥ 0 are
design parameters which allow us to set the trade off between
tracking precision and control action aggressiveness for every
input (control action magnitude and speed, respectively), and
1 ≥ ζi ≥ 0 are other design parameters which are needed to
set the priority of tracking for all the different output. The
controller K nl is fully defined by the law (5).
B. Linear controller design
The linear controller K lin is defined by the centralized
extended PID (Proportional Integrative Derivative) control
law
nθ
X
lin
Bi et−i
(7)
+
ulin
=
u
t
t−1
i=0

where et = rt − yt is the tracking error, nθ is the controller
order and Bi ∈ Rnu ×ny are the controller parameter matrices. All the entries of these matrices are contained in a
vector θ = (θ1 , . . . , θny ×nu ×nθ ). Note that, for nθ = 1 and
nθ = 2, the standard PI and PID controller are selected,

respectively. The goal of K lin in the proposed architecture
is to compensate for model-inversion errors and boost the
control performance by assigning a desired dynamics to the
resulting nonlinearly-compensated system.
In the considered setting, where most of the information
about the system is that inferrable from data, finding a good
control-oriented model of the error system, i.e. the system
describing the relationship between ulin
and yt , is not an
t
easy task. Therefore, in this paper, the Virtual Reference
Feedback Tuning (VRFT) method, originally developed in
[4] and extended to the MIMO case in [5], is employed and
adapted to the present setting. Its rationale is briefly recalled
next for self-consistency of the paper.
First, define the desired behavior for the closed loop
system by means of a discrete transfer function M . In the
present setting, this function is used to assign a specific
desired dynamic to the nonlinearly-compensated resulting
system. Typically, for ny = nu = m, M is a diagonal m×m
transfer function composed by m asymptotically stable lowpass filters, synthesizing the desired closed loop behavior
for each output. The virtual reference rationale permits the
design of K lin without identifying any model of the system,
based on the following observation: in a virtual operating
condition, where the closed-loop system behaves exactly as
M , the virtual reference signal rtv would be given by the
filtering of the output yt by the model M −1 . Since the
inverse model M −1 is non-causal, the filtering task must
be accomplished off-line using a set of available data. The
optimal controller is the one giving the measured ulin
as
t
output when fed by the virtual error evt = rtv − yt , as to
minimize the cost function
X
lin
JV R =
||ulin
(θ)evt ||22 .
(8)
t −K
t

Two versions of the VRFT method in the D2 -IBC setting are
available, corresponding to two cases, related to bijectivity
of the function f in (3). The details of these two versions
are not discussed here for the sake of brevity.

III. C LOSED - LOOP STABILITY ANALYSIS
The closed-loop system formed by the plant (1), controlled
in feedback by the parallel connection of K nl and K lin , is
described by the following equations:
yt+1 = g (y t , ut , ξ t )
lin
ut = unl
t + ut
nl
unl
rt+1 , y t , unl
t =K
t−1



lin
r t − y t , ulin
ulin
t−1
t = K



(9)

where K nl and K lin are defined in (5) and (7), respectively,
and ut ∈ U , ∀t. The reference initial condition is chosen as
r0 = y0 .
In the following, we study the stability properties of such a
close-loop system. The following stability notion is adopted.

3

Definition 1: A nonlinear system (possibly time-varying),
with inputs rtand ξt , and output yt , is finite-gain ℓ∞ stable
on Y 0 , R, Ξ if finite and non-negative constants Γr , Γξ
and Λ exist such that
kyk∞ ≤ Γr krk∞ + Γξ kξk∞ + Λ
for any (y 0 , r, ξ) ∈ Y 0 × R × Ξ.

Note that this finite-gain stability definition is more general
than the standard one, which is obtained for R = ℓ∞ and
Ξ = ℓ∞ , see e.g. [6].
In order to study how to guarantee finite-gain stability of
the feedback system (9), some additional assumptions are
introduced.
Assumption 1 (Lipschitzianity): The function g in (1) and
(9) is Lipschitz continuous on Y n × U n × Ξn . Without loss
of generality, it is also assumed that Y n × U n × Ξn contains
the origin.

This assumption is mild, since most real-world dynamic
systems are described by functions that are Lipschitz continuous on a compact set.
From Assumption 1, it follows that g can be written as
g (y t , ut , ξ t ) = g o (y t , ut ) + gtξ ξ t
.
where g o (y t , ut ) = g (y t , ut , 0) and gtξ ∈ Rny ×n is a timevarying parameter (dependent on y t , ut and ξ t ) bounded
on Y n × U n × Ξn as gtξ
≤ γξ , for some γξ < ∞.
∞
Assumption 1, together with (4), implies that the residue
function
.
∆ (y t , ut ) = g o (y t , ut ) − f (y t , ut )
is Lipschitz continuous on Y n × U n . Hence, a finite and
non-negative constant γy exists, such that
k∆ (y, u) − ∆ (y ′ , u)k∞ ≤ γy ky − y ′ k∞
for all y, y ′ ∈ Y n and all u ∈ U n .
Assumption 2 (Model accuracy): The following inequality
holds: γy < 1.

The meaning of this assumption is clear: it requires f to
accurately describe the variability of g with respect to y t .
Now, consider that
.
êt+1 = rt+1 − ŷt+1 = rt+1 − f (y t , ut )

lin
≡ rt+1 − f y t , ut rt+1 , rt , y t , unl
t−1 , ut−1
.
= F (y t , rt , v t ) ,
.
lin
where v t = (rt+1 , unl
t−1 , ut−1 ) ∈ V and V is a compact set.
Then, for any (y t , r t , v t ) ∈ Y n × Rn × V n ,
|êt+1 | ≤ Γy ky t k∞ + Γs kr t k∞ + Λe

(10)

where Γy , Γs , Λe < ∞. This inequality directly follows from
the fact that the model function f is Lipschitz continuous on
Y n × U n . Note that (10) does not imply that y ∈ Y ∞ .

Assumption 3 (Effective model inversion): The following
inequality holds: Γy ≤ 1 − γy .

This assumption is not restrictive: it is certainly satisfied if
µ = 0 and the reference r = (r1 , r2 , . . .) is a model solution
(i.e. rt+1 is in the range of f (y t , ·) for all t). Indeed, in
this case, ŷt+1 = rt+1 , ∀t, since K nl performs an exact
inversion of the model, see again (5) (K lin gives a null input
signal in this case). This implies that Γy = 0, Γs = 0 and
Λe = 0. Hence, if a sufficiently small µ is chosen and the
reference is sufficiently close to a system solution, supposing
that inequality (10) holds with a sufficiently small Γy is
reasonable.
To formulate our last assumption, define

1
(11)
λr r̄ + γξ ξ¯ + Λg
1 − λy
.
.
.
where λy = Γy + γy < 1, λr = λy + Γs and Λg = Λe +
maxu∈U n k∆ (0, u)k∞ . Note that ē is bounded, being the
sum of bounded quantities. In particular, for null disturbances
(ξ¯ = 0), exact modeling (f = g, ∆ = 0, γy = 0) and
reference signals properly chosen (Γy = 0, Γs = 0, Λe = 0),
we have ē = 0. In realistic situations, with reasonable
disturbances, sufficiently accurate modeling and reference
signals properly chosen, ē can be reasonably small (that is,
ē ≪ r̄).
.
ē =

Assumption 4 (Output domain exploration): The following
inequality holds: ȳ ≥ r̄ + ē.

This assumption requires that the set Y explored by the
output data is somewhat larger than the set R where the
trajectory of interest are defined. Note that it can always be
met just collecting data that sufficiently enlarge the set Y .
Closed-loop stability of the system (9) is stated by the
following result, which also provides a bound on the tracking
error.
Theorem 1: Consider the system (9) and let Assumptions
1-4 hold. Then:
(i) The feedback system (9), having inputs rt and ξt and
output yt , is finite-gain ℓ∞ stable on Y 0 , R, Ξ .
.
(ii) The tracking error signal e = r − y is bounded as
kek∞ ≤ ē.

(12)

Proof. The proof of the theorem is structured as follows.
Firstly, the tracking error is proven to be upper bounded by
a suitable combination of the norms of the output and the
reference. Secondly, it is shown that, under the assumption
of an effective model inversion, such a bound is equivalent to
a bound on the tracking error, whatever the output is (claim
(ii)). Claim (i) is derived as a straightforward consequence
of claim (ii).
To start with, consider that
.
et+1 = rt+1 − yt+1 = êt+1 − δyt

4

Then, yt ∈ Y , ∀t ≥ 0 and (12) holds (claim (ii)). Claim (i)
is a direct consequence of claim (ii) and the relation y =
r − e.


where
êt+1 = rt+1 − ŷt+1 = F (y t , r t , v t )
δyt = ∆ (y t , ut ) + gtξ ξ t .
The term êt+1 is bounded according to (10). Note that ky t k∞
could be unbounded. In order to derive a bound on δyt , we
can use Assumption 2 and observe that, for any y t ∈ Y n ,
k∆ (y t , ut )k∞ − k∆ (0, ut )k∞
≤ k∆ (y t , ut ) − ∆ (0, ut )k∞ ≤ γy ky t k∞ .
The following inequality thus holds for any y t ∈ Y n :
kδyt k∞ ≤ k∆ (y t , ut )k∞ + γξ kξ t k∞
¯
≤ γy ky t k + γξ kξt k + ∆,
∞

∞

.
¯ =
where ∆
maxu∈U n k∆ (0, u)k∞ < ∞. Hence,
ket+1 k∞ ≤ λy ky t k∞ + Γs kr t k∞ + Λe
¯
+γξ kξ k + ∆,

(13)

t ∞

which proves that the tracking error e is bounded by a
suitable combination of the norms of y t and r t , for any
y t ∈ Y n . Note that (13) in this form is of no use, since
ky t k∞ could be unbounded and thus the condition y t ∈ Y n
may not hold. However, (13) can be rewritten as
ket+1 k∞ ≤ λy ket k∞ + λy krt k∞ + Γs krt k∞
+γξ kξ t k∞ + Λg ,

(14)

that means,
ket+1 k∞ ≤ λy ket k∞ + w,
(15)
.
where w = λr r̄ + γξ ξ̄ + Λg . Inequality (15), again, holds
only if y t ∈ Y n .
Consider now that, by assumption, y 0 ∈ Rn ⊆ Y n . This
implies that, at time t = 0, inequality (15) holds. Being
e0 = r 0 − y 0 = 0 for the selected initialization of r0 , we
have
ke1 k∞ ≤ λy ke0 k∞ + w = w ≤ ē.
Since ke1 k∞ ≤ ē and |r1 | ≤ r̄, it follows from Assumption
4 that y1 ∈ Y . Consequently, the Lipschitzianity assumption
holds and (15) can be used also for t = 1, giving
ke2 k∞ ≤ λy ke1 k∞ + w ≤ λy w + w
P∞
w
≤ w k=0 λky ≤ 1−λ
= ē
y

where the geometric series sum has been obtained thanks
to the fact that, by Assumption 3, λy < 1. It follows that
y2 ∈ Y and, consequently, (15) can be used also for t = 2.
Iterating the above reasoning,
ke3 k∞ ≤ λy max {ke2 k∞ , ke1 k∞ } + w
≤ λy ke2 k∞ + w ≤ λ2y w + λy w + w ≤ ē
..
.
Pt
ket+1 k∞ ≤ w k=0 λky
P
w
k
≤w ∞
k=0 λy ≤ 1−λy = ē.

R EFERENCES
[1] S. Formentin, C. Novara, S. Savaresi, and M. Milanese, “Active braking
control system design: The D2-IBC approach,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1573–1584, 2015.
[2] C. Novara, S. Formentin, S. Savaresi, and M. Milanese, “Data-driven
design of two degree-of-freedom nonlinear controllers: the D2-IBC
approach,” Automatica, vol. 72, pp. 19–27, 2016.
[3] H. Hjalmarsson, “From experiment design to closed-loop control,”
Automatica, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 393–438, 2005.
[4] M. Campi, A. Lecchini, and S. Savaresi, “Virtual reference feedback
tuning: a direct method for the design of feedback controllers,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1337–1346, 2002.
[5] S. Formentin, S. Savaresi, and L. Del Re, “Non-iterative direct datadriven controller tuning for multivariable systems: theory and application,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1250–1257,
2012.
[6] H. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall, 1996.

