160 likes | 279 Views
Colloquium on Optimisation and Control University of Sheffield Monday April 24 th 2006 Sensitivity Analysis and Optimal Control Richard Vinter Imperial College. Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity analysis: the effects of parameter changes on the solution of an optimisation problem:
E N D
Colloquium on Optimisation and Control University of Sheffield Monday April 24th 2006 Sensitivity Analysis and Optimal Control Richard Vinter Imperial College
Sensitivity Analysis • Sensitivity analysis: the effects of parameter changes on the solution of an optimisation problem: • Practical Relevance: • Resource economics (economic viability • of optimal resource extraction in changing environment) • Design (buildings to withstand earthquakes, . .) • Theoretical Relevance: • Intimate links with theory of constrained optimization • (Lagrange multipliers, etc.) • Intermediate step in mini-max optimisation • ‘parametric’ approaches to MPC
The Value Function m vector parameter Minimize over and s.t. Data: Value function: (describes how minimum cost changes with ) (no constraints case)
Links With Lagrange Multipliers Special case: over Minimize s.t. (m vector parameter is value of equality constraint function ) Lagrange multiplier rule: Fix . Suppose is a minimiser for . Then for some m vector ‘Lagrange multiplier’
Value function: Fact: The Lagrange multiplier has interpretation: ( is the gradient of the value function associated with perturbations of the constraint ) Show this: For any , for , so By ‘minimality’: (since ) Hence , where (Caution: analysis not valid unless V is differentiable.)
Consider now the optimal control problem: Minimize s.t. and and (data: and ) sets Most significant value function is associated with perturbation of initial data: x Minimize Domain of s.t. t
Pontryagin Maximum Principle Take a minimizer Define ‘Hamiltonian’: Then, for some ‘co-state arc’ (adjoint equation) (max. of Hamiltonian cond.) (transversality cond.) where (maximised Hamiltonian) C is the normal cone at x ‘normal vector’ at x
Sensitivity Relations in Optimal Control Gradients of value function w.r.t. ‘initial data’ are related to co-state variable What if V is not differentiable? Interpret sensitivity relation in terms of set valued ‘generalized gradients’: (definition for ‘Lipshitz functions’, these are ‘almost everywhere’ differentiable) For some choice of co-state p(.) +1 -1 (Valid for non-differentiable value functions)
Generalizations Dynamics and cost depend on par. Minimize s.t. ( , nominal value ) and Obtain sensitivity relations (gradients of V’ ) by ‘state augmentation’. Introduce with extra state equation expressible in terms of co-state arcs for state augmented problem
Application to ‘robust’ selection of feedback controls • Classical tracker design: • Step 1: Determine nominal trajectory using optimal control • Step 2: Design f/b to track the nominal trajectory • (widely used in space vehicle design) • Can fail to address adequately conflicts between performance and robustness • Alternatively, • Integrate design steps 1 and 2 • Append ‘sensitivity term’ in the optimal control cost to reduce effect of • model inaccuracies • This is ‘robust optimal control’
Robust Optimal Control 1) Model dynamics: 2) Model cost: 3) Model variables requiring de-sensitisation: Example: magnitude of deviation from desired terminal location : 4) Feedback control law: Objective:find sub-optimal control which reduces sensitivity of to deviation of from .
Sensitivity Relations (Write For control , letbe state trajectory for . The `sensitivity function’ has gradient: where the arc p (.) solves
Optimal Control Problem with Sensitivity Term Minimize s.t. and Pink blocks indicate extra terms to reduce sensitivity is sensitivity tuning parameter sensitive insensitive values 0
Trajectory Optimization for Air-to-Surface Missiles with Imaging Radars • Researchers: Farooq, Limebeer and Vinter. Sponsors: MBDA, EPSRC • ‘Terminal guidance strategies for air-to-surface missile using DBS radar seeker’. • Specifications include: • Stealthy terrain phase, followed by climb and dive phase (‘bunt’ trjectory) • Sharpening radars impose azimuthal plane constraints on trajectory Bunt phase Stealth phase • Six degree of freedom model of skid-to-turn missile • (two controls: normal acceleration demains • Select cost function to achieve motion, within constraints.
References: R B VINTER, Mini-Max Optimal Control, SIAM J. Control and Optim., 2004 V Papakos and R B Vinter, A Structured Robust Control Technique, CDC 2004 A Farooq and D J N Limebeer, Trajectory Optimization for Air-to-Surface Missiles with Imaging Radars, AIAA J., to appear