Yuichiro Aoyama, Oswin So, Augustinos D. Saravanos, Evangelos A. Theodorou
{"title":"Second-Order Constrained Dynamic Optimization","authors":"Yuichiro Aoyama, Oswin So, Augustinos D. Saravanos, Evangelos A. Theodorou","doi":"arxiv-2409.11649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides an overview, analysis, and comparison of second-order\ndynamic optimization algorithms, i.e., constrained Differential Dynamic\nProgramming (DDP) and Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP). Although a\nvariety of these algorithms has been proposed and used successfully, there\nexists a gap in understanding the key differences and advantages, which we aim\nto provide in this work. For constrained DDP, we choose methods that\nincorporate nolinear programming techniques to handle state and control\nconstraints, including Augmented Lagrangian (AL), Interior Point, Primal Dual\nAugmented Lagrangian (PDAL), and Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers.\nBoth DDP and SQP are provided in single- and multiple-shooting formulations,\nwhere constraints that arise from dynamics are encoded implicitly and\nexplicitly, respectively. In addition to reviewing these methods, we propose a\nsingle-shooting PDAL DDP. As a byproduct of the review, we also propose a\nsingle-shooting PDAL DDP which is robust to the growth of penalty parameters\nand performs better than the normal AL variant. We perform extensive numerical\nexperiments on a variety of systems with increasing complexity towards\ninvestigating the quality of the solutions, the levels of constraint violation,\niterations for convergence, and the sensitivity of final solutions with respect\nto initialization. The results show that DDP often has the advantage of finding\nbetter local minima, while SQP tends to achieve better constraint satisfaction.\nFor multiple-shooting formulation, both DDP and SQP can enjoy informed initial\nguesses, while the latter appears to be more advantageous in complex systems.\nIt is also worth highlighting that DDP provides favorable computational\ncomplexity and feedback gains as a byproduct of optimization.","PeriodicalId":501286,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - MATH - Optimization and Control","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - MATH - Optimization and Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.11649","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper provides an overview, analysis, and comparison of second-order
dynamic optimization algorithms, i.e., constrained Differential Dynamic
Programming (DDP) and Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP). Although a
variety of these algorithms has been proposed and used successfully, there
exists a gap in understanding the key differences and advantages, which we aim
to provide in this work. For constrained DDP, we choose methods that
incorporate nolinear programming techniques to handle state and control
constraints, including Augmented Lagrangian (AL), Interior Point, Primal Dual
Augmented Lagrangian (PDAL), and Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers.
Both DDP and SQP are provided in single- and multiple-shooting formulations,
where constraints that arise from dynamics are encoded implicitly and
explicitly, respectively. In addition to reviewing these methods, we propose a
single-shooting PDAL DDP. As a byproduct of the review, we also propose a
single-shooting PDAL DDP which is robust to the growth of penalty parameters
and performs better than the normal AL variant. We perform extensive numerical
experiments on a variety of systems with increasing complexity towards
investigating the quality of the solutions, the levels of constraint violation,
iterations for convergence, and the sensitivity of final solutions with respect
to initialization. The results show that DDP often has the advantage of finding
better local minima, while SQP tends to achieve better constraint satisfaction.
For multiple-shooting formulation, both DDP and SQP can enjoy informed initial
guesses, while the latter appears to be more advantageous in complex systems.
It is also worth highlighting that DDP provides favorable computational
complexity and feedback gains as a byproduct of optimization.