Approximation by Simple Poles—Part I: Density and Geometric Convergence Rate in Hardy Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal linear feedback control design is a valuable but challenging problem due to nonconvexity of the underlying optimization and infinite dimensionality of the Hardy space of stabilizing controllers. A powerful class of techniques for solving optimal control problems involves using reparameterization to transform the control design to a convex but infinite dimensional optimization. To make the problem tractable, historical work focuses on Galerkin-type finite dimensional approximations to Hardy space, especially those involving Lorentz series approximations such as the finite impulse response approximation. However, Lorentz series approximations can lead to infeasibility, difficulty incorporating prior knowledge, deadbeat control in the case of finite impulse response, and increased suboptimality, especially for systems with large separation of time scales. The goal of this two-part article is to introduce a new Galerkin-type method based on approximation by transfer functions with a selection of simple poles, and to apply this simple pole approximation for optimal control design. In Part I, error bounds for approximating arbitrary transfer functions in Hardy space are provided based on the geometry of the pole selection. It is shown that the space of transfer functions with these simple poles converges to the full Hardy space, and a uniform convergence rate is provided based purely on the geometry of the pole selection. This is then specialized to derive a convergence rate for a particularly interesting pole selection based on an Archimedes spiral. In Part II, the simple pole approximation is combined with system level synthesis, a recent reparameterization approach, to develop a new control design method with desirable properties and bounded suboptimality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".