1

Let $x_0 \sim N(\mu_{x_0},\Sigma_{x_0})$, where $\mu_{x_0} \in \mathbb R^n$ and $\Sigma_{x_0} \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$. Then, let $$ y_0 = Cx_0 + v_0 $$ where $C \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}, v_0 \sim N(0,\Sigma_{v_0})$, and $\Sigma_{v_0} \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$. Suppose that $x_0$ and $v_0$ are independent, such that $y_0 \sim N(C\mu_{x_0},C^T \Sigma_{x_0}C + \Sigma_{v_0})$. Next, let $$ x_1 = Ax_0 + Bu_0(y_0) + w_0 $$ where

  • $A \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$,
  • $B \in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$,
  • $u_0 : \mathbb R^n \to \mathbb R^n$ is a vector-valued function of $y_0$, and
  • $w_0 \sim N(0,\Sigma_{w_0})$ is independent of $x_0$ and $v_0$.

In Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) control, we want to solve the following optimization problem $$ \min_{u_0} E_{x_0,w_0,v_0}[x_0^T Q_0 x_0 + u_0^T(y_0)R_0u_0(y_0) + x_1^TQ_1x_1] $$ where

  • the notation $E_{x_0,w_0,v_0}[\cdot]$ indicates that we are averaging over all possible values of $x_0,w_0,$ and $v_0$, which are the fundamental sources of randomness in the problem,
  • $Q_0$ and $Q_1$ are positive semi-definite matrices, and
  • $R_0$ is a positive-definite matrix

In other words, we want to determine the optimal function $u_0$ that minimizes the above cost function. In the books that I've read that derive the solution to this optimization problem, they instead solve the following optimization problem $$ \min_{u_0} E_{x_0,x_1,y_0}[x_0^T Q_0 x_0 + u_0^T(y_0)R_0u_0(y_0) + x_1^TQ_1x_1] $$ Note that the expectation changed from $E_{x_0,w_0,v_0}[\cdot]$ to $E_{x_0,x_1,y_0}[\cdot]$. I'm not sure if these two optimization problems are equivalent. If they are, I'm not sure how to prove it.

mhdadk
  • 4,940
  • Cross-posted here. – mhdadk Feb 07 '23 at 15:40
  • 2
    Hi, I came from this question. As in there, I continue to discourage you using the "$E$" operator with random variables as subscripts, which only blurs your understanding (you probably still need to consult some measure-theoretic definition of expectation to fully understand my suggestion). For this question, my answer is No. $u_0^TR_0u_0$ in the second objective function is non-random and can be taken out, while in the first objective function, it is not. – Zhanxiong Feb 07 '23 at 16:50
  • @Zhanxiong Thanks for taking the time to read through this question, and for your help in the last question. Could you please expand on how $u_0^TR_0u_0$ is random in the first objective function but non-random in the second? In both cases, $u_0$ is a function of $y_0$, which in-turn is a function of $x_0$ and $v_0$. Also, could you please explain what you meany by "taken out"? Do you mean out of the expectation? – mhdadk Feb 07 '23 at 17:18
  • I saw your edits. Then they are the same. Again (x4), this is simply because integrands are the same and $E$ has nothing to do with subscripts. – Zhanxiong Feb 07 '23 at 18:17
  • @Zhanxiong Thanks a lot! – mhdadk Feb 07 '23 at 19:37
  • @Zhanxiong Just to add, my subscript notation refers to which random variables the integration should be with respect to, such as what is described in this answer. However, after reading your comments, it seems that this answer may be misleading. If you think so, or otherwise, please let me know. I'm curious to know what you think. – mhdadk Feb 07 '23 at 19:50
  • 1
    I checked the answer -- and I agree with you, it is misleading. I could not represent others, but I will never use "$E_X[h(X, Y)]$" to either mean "$E[h(X, Y)|X]$" or $\int h(x, y)f_X(x)dx$. And I couldn't agree with the statement "who said that scientific notation is totally free of ambiguity or multiple use". Good mathematical notations are of course precise and free of ambiguity. The ambiguity, if any, is not caused by the notation itself, but by people who abused it (such as creating symbols like "$E_X$"). – Zhanxiong Feb 07 '23 at 20:10
  • 1
    As I mentioned before, to gain the most rigorous understanding of expectation, conditional probability, and conditional expectation (the latter two concepts are much more tricky), I recommend you reading math/pure probability literatures. Probability and Measure by Billingsley is an excellent and prestigious reference on clarifying these concepts. Depending on your math maturity, the reading may not be very easy, but it will be worthwhile. – Zhanxiong Feb 07 '23 at 20:15
  • @Zhanxiong thank you for all your help! Maybe to help others who visit that answer, you could probably add your own so that people are aware that this notation is misleading. I would have benefitted from your point of view when seeing this answer the first time :-) – mhdadk Feb 07 '23 at 20:20

0 Answers0