Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Pathwise turnpike and dissipativity results for discrete-time stochastic linear-quadratic optimal control problems

Jonas Schießl, Ruchuan Ou, Timm Faulwasser, Michael Heinrich Baumann, Lars Grüne

Abstract

We investigate pathwise turnpike behavior of discrete-time stochastic linear-quadratic optimal control problems. Our analysis is based on a novel strict dissipativity notion for such problems, in which a stationary stochastic process replaces the optimal steady state of the deterministic setting. The analytical findings are illustrated by a numerical example.

Pathwise turnpike and dissipativity results for discrete-time stochastic linear-quadratic optimal control problems

Abstract

We investigate pathwise turnpike behavior of discrete-time stochastic linear-quadratic optimal control problems. Our analysis is based on a novel strict dissipativity notion for such problems, in which a stationary stochastic process replaces the optimal steady state of the deterministic setting. The analytical findings are illustrated by a numerical example.
Paper Structure (8 sections, 9 theorems, 55 equations, 1 figure, 1 table)

This paper contains 8 sections, 9 theorems, 55 equations, 1 figure, 1 table.

Key Result

Lemma 1

Assume strict $(x,u)$-dissipativity at $(x^s,u^s)$. Then for each $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$ there exists a constant $C \in \mathbb{R}$ such that for each $\delta > 0$, each control sequence $u(\cdot)$ satisfying $J_N(x_0,u) \leq N\ell(x^s,u^s) + \delta$ and each $\varepsilon > 0$ the value $Q_{\varepsi

Figures (1)

  • Figure 1: Fixed realization $w$ of the noise and corresponding realizations of the optimal solutions $(X_N^*(\cdot),U_N^*(\cdot))$ from \ref{['eq_exampleOCP']} on different horizons $N$ (dashed) and the optimal stationary pair $(X^s_*(\cdot),U^s_*(\cdot))$ (solid red).

Theorems & Definitions (21)

  • Definition 1
  • Lemma 1
  • Definition 2
  • Remark 1: Stationarity in probability measures
  • Lemma 2
  • proof
  • Definition 3
  • Theorem 1
  • proof
  • Lemma 3
  • ...and 11 more