{u} := P_{\mathcal{U}}(u) \qquad \overline{x} := h(\overline{u})}_{\text{physical system}} \,.
                  \end{aligned}$$ The system  can be implemented in closed loop with a physical system and approximates a *projected Newton flow* [@hauswirthProjectedDynamicalSystems2018 Ex. 5.6]. This fact is noteworthy, because, in general, projected Newton flows do not lend themselves to an easy implementation (e.g., as an iterative algorithm).

    Even though, as seen in \[fig:gradient\_sim\], ${\overline{u}}$ converges to the optimizer of , strictly speaking, Theorem  is not directly applicable because $Q \neq {\mathbb{I}}$.

![Convergence behavior of , , and  for a problem instance of  with $p = 100$ (input dimension) and $r = 300$ (\# of input constraints).[]{data-label="fig:gradient_sim"}](Figs/subplots_grad.pdf){width=".9\columnwidth"}

The anti-windup gradient and Newton schemes defined above illustrate some of the key features of autonomous optimization and anti-windup implementations:

1.  Under the conditions of \[thm:monot\], the actual system state and saturated control input converge to the optimizer $u^\star$ of , even though the internal control variable $u$ does not in general converge to $u^\star$.

2.  In a feedback implementation exploiting input saturation, neither the set ${\mathcal{U}}$ nor the steady-state disturbance $w$ needs to be known (or estimated). The only model information required is $H$. Furthemore, recent preliminary theoretical [@colombinorobustnessguaranteesfeedbackbased2019] and experimental results for power systems [@ortmannExperimentalValidationFeedback2019] suggest that these feedback schemes are robust against uncertainties in $H$.

3.  The simulations in \[fig:gradient\_sim\] suggest that the convergence rate of the “projected trajectory” of  is not affected by the value of $K$ and is equivalent to the convergence rate of the nominal projected gradient flow. In contrast, the convergence rate of the anti-windup Newton scheme  does depend on $K$ and one can recover the rate of projected Newton flow only in the limit $K \rightarrow 0^+$. An analysis of this observation
{ u }: = P_{\mathcal{U}}(u) \qquad \overline{x }: = h(\overline{u})}_{\text{physical system } } \, . 
                   \end{aligned}$$ The system    can be implemented in shut loop topology with a physical system and approximate a * stick out Newton flow *   [ @hauswirthProjectedDynamicalSystems2018 Ex.   5.6 ]. This fact is noteworthy, because, in general, project Newton flow do not lend themselves to an easy execution (for example, as an iterative algorithm). 

     Even though, as seen in \[fig: gradient\_sim\ ], $ { \overline{u}}$ converges to the optimizer of  , strictly address, Theorem    is not directly applicable because $ Q \neq { \mathbb{I}}$. 

! [ Convergence behavior of  ,  , and    for a problem case of    with $ p = 100 $ (input dimension) and $ r = 300 $ (\ # of input constraints).[]{data - label="fig: gradient_sim"}](Figs / subplots_grad.pdf){width=".9\columnwidth " } 

 The anti - windup gradient and Newton scheme defined above illustrate some of the key feature of autonomous optimization and anti - windup implementations: 

 1.   Under the conditions of \[thm: monot\ ], the actual system state and saturate control input converge to the optimizer $ u^\star$ of  , even though the internal control variable $ u$ does not in cosmopolitan converge to $ u^\star$. 

 2.   In a feedback implementation exploiting input saturation, neither the set $ { \mathcal{U}}$ nor the steady - department of state disturbance $ w$ needs to be known (or estimated). The only model information required is $ H$. Furthemore, recent preliminary theoretical   [ @colombinorobustnessguaranteesfeedbackbased2019 ] and experimental results for ability systems   [ @ortmannExperimentalValidationFeedback2019 ] suggest that these feedback system are full-bodied against uncertainties in $ H$. 

 3.   The simulations in \[fig: gradient\_sim\ ] suggest that the convergence rate of the “ projected trajectory ” of    is not affected by the value of $ K$ and is equivalent to the convergence pace of the nominal projected gradient flow. In contrast, the convergence rate of the anti - windup Newton scheme    does depend on $ K$ and one can recover the rate of projected Newton flow merely in the limit $ kilobyte \rightarrow 0^+$. An analysis of this observation
{u} := O_{\mathcal{U}}(u) \qquad \overlint{x} := h(\overline{u})}_{\texj{pyysican systsm}} \,.
                  \end{aligned}$$ The dywtem  xan be implemented in zlosed lolp with q phbsical system anv approxliatea a *pxooected Newton fkow* [@hauswirdhProjectedDyndmkcclSystems2018 Ex. 5.6]. This fact is noteworthy, becausr, ln general, protecttd Gewtkn flows do not lend themselves to an easj implementation (r.g., as an iterative algoritjm).

    Even though, as sfen in \[fig:gtzdiqbt\_sim\], ${\overlive{u}}$ converges to the oktimizer of , strictly speaking, Thdorem  is not ditzxtlj applicable becalse $Q \neq {\matmnb{I}}$.

![Coneergencr behavior of , , snd  foe a problem instance mf  with $p = 100$ (input qimension) aud $r = 300$ (\# of input consrrqints).[]{gata-nabeu="dig:erasixnt_aim"}](Figd/suuplots_grad.psf){width=".9\colunnwidth"}

The anti-windip tradient and Hewton sshemes defined above illustrate some of ths key features of autonimous optimization anf anti-winqup implementations:

1.  Under the conditions of \[thm:mmnot\], vhd aebmal rtshem state and saturated control input convergq tp nhe optimizer $u^\stcr$ of , even thougn hhr internal conjrol vaxjagle $u$ does not in heneral convwrge to $u^\ftar$.

2.  In a feedback implementatuon exploitiug unput saturation, nzither the szt ${\matncal{U}}$ nor the steady-state dirturgance $w$ neefs to be ivown (or estimatea). Tme mnly modtu information reqtired is $I$. Furchemore, fecemt prejiminary tjeorebhcal [@colombinorobushnessyuaratteesfeedbwckbased2019] and experimental resulvx for power xyvteks [@ortmanuExperlmentalValidatijnFeedback2019] sugyest thac thesd feedback schemev are robuse against uncattainties in $I$.

3.  The siiularionw in \[fie:eradient\_sim\] subgest than uhe convertence rate of the “irojezfed trajectory” if  us not affected by thq nalne of $N$ and is equhvaldnt yo thd convergenge fate of the nominal projactes gradient flow. In cjntrast, jhe convewgence rate og the anti-windup Ntwton vchxme  dors qepend on $K$ and one can recoved the ratf on projected Nqwtok fljw only in the limit $K \rightarrow 0^+$. An analysis of this observation
{u} := P_{\mathcal{U}}(u) \qquad \overline{x} := h(\overline{u})}_{\text{physical \end{aligned}$$ system can implemented in closed and a *projected Newton [@hauswirthProjectedDynamicalSystems2018 Ex. 5.6]. fact is noteworthy, because, in general, Newton flows do not lend themselves to an easy implementation (e.g., as an algorithm). Even though, as seen in \[fig:gradient\_sim\], ${\overline{u}}$ converges to the optimizer of strictly Theorem not applicable because $Q \neq {\mathbb{I}}$. ![Convergence behavior of , , and for a problem instance of $p = 100$ (input dimension) and $r = (\# of input constraints).[]{data-label="fig:gradient_sim"}](Figs/subplots_grad.pdf){width=".9\columnwidth"} anti-windup gradient and Newton schemes above some of key of optimization and anti-windup 1. Under the conditions of \[thm:monot\], the actual system state and saturated control input converge to the $u^\star$ of though the control $u$ not in general $u^\star$. 2. In a feedback implementation neither the set ${\mathcal{U}}$ nor the steady-state disturbance needs to known (or estimated). The only model required is $H$. Furthemore, recent preliminary theoretical [@colombinorobustnessguaranteesfeedbackbased2019] experimental results for power systems [@ortmannExperimentalValidationFeedback2019] suggest that these feedback schemes are robust against uncertainties 3. The simulations in suggest that the rate the trajectory” is not by the value of $K$ and is equivalent to the convergence of the nominal projected gradient flow. In contrast, the convergence the Newton scheme does on $K$ and one recover rate of projected Newton in limit An of observation
{u} := P_{\mathcal{U}}(u) \qquad \overline{x} := H(\overline{u})}_{\Text{pHysIcaL sYsteM}} \,.
                  \end{Aligned}$$ The systEM  can Be implemented in closed lOop wiTh A PhysICaL systEm and apPRoXIMatEs A *pRojEcTEd newtoN flOw* [@hauswIrthProjecTeddyNamicalSysteMS2018 EX. 5.6]. This fact iS noTeworthy, becaUse, In geneRaL, prOJecteD NeWton fLows do NOt lend ThemselveS tO An easy IMplemenTATiOn (e.g., As an iterative algoRItHM).

    Even though, as sEen in \[fIg:GRaDIEnt\_Sim\], ${\Overline{u}}$ cOnVergeS To the opTImIZER of , STrictly speakiNg, Theorem  is NOt dIrectlY aPplICable bEcausE $Q \NEq {\mAthbb{I}}$.

![ConveRgenCe behavioR of , , and  FOr a probLEm instaNce of  wIth $P = 100$ (inPut dIMeNsIon) AnD $R = 300$ (\# of INpUt cONstRaints).[]{daTa-LaBel="fiG:graDIENT_sim"}](figS/subPlots_Grad.pdf){width=".9\cOluMnwiDTh"}

THe antI-windUp grAdIent aNd NewtOn schEmEs defined above iLlusTrate some Of tHe Key FeAtureS Of autoNomOus OptimizAtion anD AntI-wINDUp Implementations:

1.  UndEr THE cOnditionS of \[thm:MOnOt\], THe actual SySteM staTE And saTuraTEd Control iNput coNVeRgE to the oPtImizer $U^\sTar$ Of , eVen thOUgh tHe inteRnal contRol vaRIable $u$ does not iN General converGE tO $U^\StAR$.

2.  In a FeeDback implemEntaTIon eXploITiNg iNPut saTuratIoN, NeITher the set ${\mathcal{U}}$ nOr The steAdy-stAte disturbancE $w$ needs to bE KNOwn (or estImatED). THE only model infoRmatiOn required IS $H$. FurtheMore, rEcent preLiminary tHEOretical [@ColOmbInoRobUSTnEssguaranteesFEEdbaCkBased2019] anD exPerimenTal ResUltS foR pOwer systeMs [@ortmanNEXpErImEntAlValIDationFeEdBacK2019] sUggEst thAT these FeedbAck sChEmES arE robust AGaINSt unCeRtAintIes In $h$.

3.  The sImulATioNs in \[fig:Gradient\_sIm\] sUGgesT tHaT the conVergence rate oF tHe “projecteD tRajEctory” OF  Is not affEcted by the value of $K$ and is EQuivaleNt tO the cOnveRgence ratE of The nomInaL ProjecTed graDient FlOw. IN COntraST, ThE coNvErgence ratE OF thE anti-WiNdup newton sCheme  does depend on $K$ ANd oNe can recover tHe rAte oF PRoJecTEd nEwtOn FLow ONLy in the limit $K \riGhtarrow 0^+$. An AnALySis of this oBSerVaTion
{u} := P_{\mathcal{U}}(u)\qquad \ov erlin e{x } : =h(\o verl ine{u})}_{\tex t {phy sical system}} \,.
           \end{ aligned } $$ T hesy st em c a nbe im ple mentedin closedloo pwith a physi c al  system an d a pproximatesa * projec te d N e wtonflo w* [@ hauswi r thProj ectedDyna mi c alSyst e ms2018E x .5.6] . This fact is no t ew o rthy, because,  in ge ne r al , pro jec ted Newton  f lowsd o not l e nd t h ems e lves to an ea sy implemen t ati on (e. g. , a s  an it erati ve alg orithm).

   E ven thoug h, ass een in\ [fig:gr adient \_s im\ ], $ { \o ve rli ne { u}} $  c onv e rge s to the  o pt imize r of , s tric tly  spe aking , Theorem  is  no t di r ect ly ap plica blebe cause  $Q \n eq {\ ma thbb{I}}$.

![C onve rgence be hav io r o f, , a n d  for  apro blem in stanceo f wi t h $p  = 100$ (input dim en s i on ) and $r  = 300 $  ( \# of input  c ons trai n t s).[] {dat a -l abel="fi g:grad i en t_ sim"}]( Fi gs/sub pl ots _gr ad.pd f ){wi dth=". 9\column width " }

The anti-wi n dup gradienta nd N ew t on s che mes defined  abo v e il lust r at e s o me of  theke y  f e atures of autonomou soptimi zatio n and anti-wi ndup imple m e n tations: 

1.  U n der the condit ionsof \[thm:m o not\], t he ac tual sys tem state a nd satur ate d c ont rol i np ut converge t o theop timizer  $u ^\star$  of  ,eve n t ho ugh the i nternalco nt ro lvar iable $u$ does  n otin  ge neral conver ge to  $u^ \s ta r $.
2.  In af e edba ck  i mple men ta tionexpl o iti ng inpu t saturat ion ,  nei th er  the se t ${\mathcal{ U} }$ nor the  s tea dy-sta t e  disturb ance $w$ needs to be kn o wn (orest imate d).The onlymod el inf orm a tion r equire d is$H $.F u rthem o r e,  re ce nt prelimi n a rytheor et ical  [@colo mbinorobustnessgua r ant eesfeedbackba sed 2019 ] an d e x pe r ime nt a l r e s ults for powersystems [@ or t ma nnExperime n tal Va lidatio nFeedba ck201 9 ] sugge st that t hese feed ba ck s c h eme s are robu st again st uncert a intie s  i n $H$ .
3.  Th esim ulati ons in \[f ig:gr adient \_ sim\]sugge st  that th e convergence rate of t he “pr oject edtrajector y”o f is not af fect ed by theval ueof $K $ a n d isequi v al ent to th e co n vergencer at e o f th e nominal p r o j ect ed gr adi e nt flo w. I n contrast, the c o nvergence rate  oft h e a nti - wind up  Newton scheme   d oe s depend o n$K$ and one  can rec ov e r the  rateof pro jectedN e wt o n flow  onl y i n the lim it$K \righta rr ow 0^+$.An a na lysisof thi s  obs e r vation
{u} :=_P_{\mathcal{U}}(u) \qquad_\overline{x} := h(\overline{u})}_{\text{physical system}}_\,.
 __ __  _  _   _  \end{aligned}$$_The_system  can be implemented in closed loop with a physical system and approximates a_*projected_Newton flow* [@hauswirthProjectedDynamicalSystems2018_Ex. 5.6]._This_fact is noteworthy, because, in_general, projected Newton flows do_not lend_themselves to an easy implementation (e.g., as an_iterative_algorithm).

  _ Even though, as seen in \[fig:gradient\_sim\], ${\overline{u}}$ converges_to the optimizer of , strictly speaking,_Theorem  is not_directly_applicable_because $Q \neq {\mathbb{I}}$.

![Convergence_behavior of , , and  for a problem_instance of  with $p = 100$_(input dimension) and $r = 300$ (\#_of input constraints).[]{data-label="fig:gradient_sim"}](Figs/subplots_grad.pdf){width=".9\columnwidth"}

The anti-windup gradient and_Newton schemes defined above illustrate_some of_the key features of autonomous_optimization and anti-windup_implementations:

1. _Under the conditions_of \[thm:monot\], the actual system state_and saturated control_input converge to the optimizer $u^\star$_of ,_even though the_internal_control_variable $u$_does not in_general_converge to_$u^\star$.

2._ In a feedback implementation exploiting_input_saturation, neither the set ${\mathcal{U}}$ nor the_steady-state disturbance $w$ needs_to_be known (or estimated)._The only model information required_is $H$. Furthemore, recent preliminary theoretical [@colombinorobustnessguaranteesfeedbackbased2019]_and experimental_results for_power systems [@ortmannExperimentalValidationFeedback2019] suggest that these feedback schemes are robust against uncertainties_in $H$.

3.  The simulations in_\[fig:gradient\_sim\] suggest that the_convergence rate_of_the “projected trajectory”_of _is not_affected by the value of $K$ and_is equivalent_to the convergence rate of the_nominal projected gradient flow._In_contrast, the convergence rate of the_anti-windup Newton scheme  does depend on_$K$ and one can recover_the_rate_of projected Newton flow only_in the limit $K \rightarrow 0^+$._An analysis of_this observation