An Overview of

Systems-Theoretic
Guarantees in Data-Driven
Model Predictive Control
Julian Berberich and Frank Allgöwer
arXiv:2406.04130v1 [eess.SY] 6 Jun 2024

Institute for Systems Theory and Automatic Control, University of Stuttgart,

70569 Stuttgart, Germany; email: [email protected],
[email protected]

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Keywords

Autonomous Systems yyy. xxx:1–25
Data-driven control, model predictive control, robustness, stability,
https://doi.org/10.1146/((please add
article doi))
adaptive control

Abstract

The development of control methods based on data has seen a surge

of interest in recent years. When applying data-driven controllers in
real-world applications, providing theoretical guarantees for the closed-
loop system is of crucial importance to ensure reliable operation. In
this review, we provide an overview of data-driven model predictive
control (MPC) methods for controlling unknown systems with guaran-
tees on systems-theoretic properties such as stability, robustness, and
constraint satisfaction. The considered approaches rely on the Funda-
mental Lemma from behavioral theory in order to predict input-output
trajectories directly from data. We cover various setups, ranging from
linear systems and noise-free data to more realistic formulations with
noise and nonlinearities, and we provide an overview of different tech-
niques to ensure guarantees for the closed-loop system. Moreover, we
discuss avenues for future research that may further improve the theo-
retical understanding and practical applicability of data-driven MPC.

1
 1. INTRODUCTION
Determining models that are both accurate and tractable, as commonly required for con-
troller design, is challenging. On the other hand, the increasing availability of data provides
unprecedented opportunities for enhancing controllers with additional information. System
identification provides one possibility for extracting information from data by estimating a
model of the underlying dynamical system (1), which can then be employed for control. Ob-
taining theoretical guarantees for this indirect data-driven control strategy requires rigorous
bounds on the estimation error, whose derivation is an active field of research (2).
As an alternative to indirect approaches, designing controllers directly from data with-
out intermediate system identification has received increasing attention in the recent litera-
ture (3). The Fundamental Lemma by Willems et al. (4) provides a unifying framework for
direct data-driven control. It states that one persistently exciting trajectory of an unknown
linear time-invariant (LTI) system can be used to parametrize all other trajectories. This
allows to address various analysis and controller design problems, that are traditionally
solved using model knowledge, based purely on data, see (5) for a recent survey. One of
the most promising applications of the Fundamental Lemma is the design of data-driven
model predictive control (MPC) schemes. MPC is a powerful modern control technique
which can handle constraints, performance criteria, and nonlinear dynamics (6). It relies
on a receding-horizon principle: At each time step, an open-loop optimal control problem
is solved, the first component of the optimal input sequence is applied to the plant, and
the process is repeated at the next time step using a new measurement. While classi-
cal MPC schemes assume precise model knowledge, they can be enhanced via data using
learning-based (7) and adaptive (8, 9, 10) approaches.
This review provides an overview of recent research on direct data-driven MPC based on
the Fundamental Lemma with a focus on systems-theoretic guarantees for the closed-loop
system. It was first shown in (11, 12) that the Fundamental Lemma can be used to set
up data-driven MPC schemes, which compute control inputs directly from data without in-
termediate system identification. Since then, data-driven MPC has been successfully used
in a large number of applications, including a quadcopter (13), a four-tank system (14),
synchronous motor drives (15), a quadrupedal robot (16), a soft robot (17), green house
automation (18), and traffic control (19, 20, 21, 22). Further, various successful applications
have been demonstrated in the domain of energy systems, including grid-connected power
converters (23, 24), power system oscillation damping (25), building control (26, 27, 28, 29),
battery charging (30), a combined-cycle power plant (31), energy networks (32, 33, 34), and
a fuel cell system (35). These remarkable empirical demonstrations have motivated nu-
merous theoretical contributions with the goal of understanding and improving data-driven
MPC. When using data-driven MPC in real-world applications, especially for complex and
safety-critical systems, it is desirable to provide a priori guarantees on reliable closed-loop
operation. Mathematically, the goal is to ensure systems-theoretic properties such as sta-
bility, robustness, and constraint satisfaction for the controlled system.
In this review, we provide an overview of recent progress on systems-theoretic guaran-
tees in data-driven MPC. We discuss appropriate modifications that allow to prove rigorous
guarantees for the closed-loop system, covering different setups including linear and non-
linear systems as well as noise-free and noisy data. While we mainly focus on theoretical
aspects of data-driven MPC, in particular closed-loop guarantees, we refer to (5, 36, 37) for
further details, e.g., on implementations.
This review is structured as follows. In Section 2, we introduce preliminaries on the

2 Berberich & Allgöwer

Fundamental Lemma and on model-based MPC. Next, in Section 3, we provide an overview
of data-driven MPC for linear systems, discussing stability guarantees with noise-free data,
robustifications and associated guarantees for noisy data, as well as more advanced MPC
formulations. In Section 4, we turn our attention to nonlinear data-driven MPC approaches.
These are either based on global linearity, exploiting the structure of specific system classes
and knowledge of basis functions, or on local linearity, pursuing an adaptive formulation
with online data updates. Finally, Section 5 concludes the review with a discussion and
avenues for future research.
Notation: We denote the set of nonnegative integers by I≥0 and integers in the interval
−1
[a, b] by I[a,b] . For a sequence {uk }N
k=0 , we define the stacked column vector u[k1 ,k2 ] :=
h i⊤
u⊤ ⊤ ⊤
k1 uk1 +1 . . . uk2 and we abbreviate u := u[0,N −1] for the vector containing the full
sequence. Further, we define the Hankel matrix
 
u0 u1 . . . uN −L
 u
 1 u2 . . . uN −L+1 

HL (u) :=  . .  ∈ RmL×(N −L+1) .
 . . .
.. .. .. 
 . 
uL−1 uL . . . uN −1

For
√ a vector x, we denote the p-norm by ∥x∥p and we define the weighted norm ∥x∥P =
x⊤ Px for some matrix P = P⊤ .

2. Preliminaries
In this section, we introduce the Fundamental Lemma (Section 2.1) as well as model-based
MPC (Section 2.2).

2.1. The Fundamental Lemma

In the following, we consider a discrete-time linear time-invariant (LTI) system

xk+1 = Axk + Buk , yk = Cxk + Duk 1.

with state xk ∈ Rn , input uk ∈ Rm , output yk ∈ Rp , and time k ∈ I≥0 . We make the

standing assumption that (A, B) is controllable and (A, C) is observable. The matrices
N −1
A, B, C, D, are unknown but, instead, an input-output data trajectory {udk , ykd }k=0 is
available. We require the corresponding input signal to be sufficiently rich in the following
sense (4).
−1
Definition 2.1. The signal {uk }N k=0 with uk ∈ R
m
is persistently exciting (PE) of order
L if HL (u) has full row rank, i.e., rank(HL (u)) = mL.

The following result from (4), commonly referred to as the Fundamental Lemma, forms
the theoretical basis of data-driven MPC.
−1
Theorem 2.1. Suppose {udk }N L−1
k=0 is PE of order L + n. Then, {ūk , ȳk }k=0 is a trajectory
N −L+1
of the system in Equation 1 if and only if there exists α ∈ R such that
" # " #
HL (ud ) ū
α= . 2.
HL (yd ) ȳ

www.annualreviews.org • 3
 The Fundamental Lemma (Theorem 2.1) provides a parametrization of all possible
input-output trajectories of the system in Equation 1 based on only one input-output tra-
−1
jectory {udk , ykd }N
k=0 . More precisely, the image of the Hankel matrices in Equation 2 is
equal to the set of all system trajectories (recall the notation ū = ū[0,L−1] and ȳ = ȳ[0,L−1] ).
While the result was originally formulated and proven in behavioral systems theory (4), al-
ternative proofs were provided more recently in the classical state-space framework (38, 39).
Further, the result has found increasing usage in the recent literature for developing direct
data-driven analysis and control methods. In the remainder of the review, we focus on data-
driven MPC based on the Fundamental Lemma with closed-loop guarantees. Beyond MPC,
the result can be used, e.g., for data-driven simulation (40), dissipativity analysis (41, 42),
and state-feedback design (43, 44, 45), see (5, 46, 47, 48) for recent overview articles.

2.2. Model predictive control

Suppose we want to steer the system 1 to a steady-state xs while satisfying constraints on
the input uk ∈ U and the state xk ∈ X for all k ∈ I≥0 with sets U ⊆ Rm , X ⊆ Rn . In MPC,
this is achieved by solving, at time t, the following optimal control problem.
L−1
X
min ∥x̄k (t) − xs ∥2Qx + ∥ūk (t) − us ∥2R 3a.
ū(t),x̄(t)
k=0

s.t. x̄k+1 (t) = Ax̄k (t) + Būk (t), k ∈ I≥0 , x̄0 (t) = xt , 3b.
ūk (t) ∈ U, x̄k (t) ∈ X, k ∈ I[0,L−1] . 3c.
Here, ū(t) and x̄(t) denote the predicted input and state trajectory at time t, e.g., x̄k (t) is
the k-th step of the state trajectory predicted at time t. According to the constraint 3b,
{ūk (t), x̄k (t)}L−1
k=0 is a trajectory of the system 1 which is initialized at the current state xt .
In the cost 3a, the distance of this trajectory to the setpoint is penalized over the prediction
horizon L with positive definite cost matrices Qx , R. Further, Equation 3c enforces the
constraints on the predicted trajectory. We denote the optimal solution of the optimization
problem 3 by ū∗ (t), x̄∗ (t). It can be used to synthesize a feedback controller in a receding-
horizon fashion as commonly done in MPC: At time t, the first component ū∗0 (t) of the
optimal input trajectory is applied to the system and a new optimal input is computed at
the next time step based on a new state measurement, see Algorithm 2.1.
When applying Algorithm 2.1 without further modifications, the closed-loop system
need not be stable, see (49) for an experimental example. Guarantees on closed-loop sta-
bility and constraint satisfaction can be ensured either via a sufficiently long prediction
horizon L (50) or by adding terminal ingredients to the optimization problem 3, e.g., a
terminal cost and a terminal region constraint on the final state x̄L (t) (6).
Both the design and the implementation of standard MPC schemes as in Algorithm 2.1
require model knowledge. For example, for solving the optimization problem 3, the matrices
(A, B, C, D) need to be available. In this review, we cover an alternative MPC approach
which can control unknown systems only from input-output data while maintaining systems-
theoretic guarantees.

3. DATA-DRIVEN MPC FOR LINEAR SYSTEMS

In this section, we review data-driven MPC schemes for LTI systems with a focus on systems-
theoretic guarantees for the closed loop. We consider data-driven MPC for stabilization

4 Berberich & Allgöwer

Algorithm 2.1. Model predictive control
Offline: Choose prediction horizon L, positive definite cost matrices Qx , R, constraint sets
U, X, setpoint (us , xs ).
Online:

1) At time t, solve the optimization problem 3.

2) Apply the first optimal input component ut = ū∗0 (t).
3) Set t = t + 1 and go back to 1).

tasks in the ideal case of noise-free data (Section 3.1) and in the more realistic scenario of
noisy data (Section 3.2). In Section 3.3, we discuss more advanced MPC approaches, e.g.,
addressing control objectives beyond stabilization.

3.1. Data-driven MPC with noise-free data

The Fundamental Lemma can be used to set up data-driven MPC schemes by replacing
the commonly used state-space model (compare Section 2.2) via data-dependent Hankel
matrices. Let us consider the control goal of tracking an input-output setpoint (us , ys ) while
satisfying constraints uk ∈ U and yk ∈ Y for all k ∈ I≥0 with sets U ⊆ Rm , Y ⊆ Rp . The
−1
Fundamental Lemma allows to achieve these two objectives based only on data {udk , ykd }N k=0
by solving, at time t, the following optimal control problem
L−1
X
min ∥ūk (t) − us ∥2R + ∥ȳk (t) − ys ∥2Q 4a.
α(t),ū(t),ȳ(t)
k=0
" # " #
ū(t) HL+n (ud )
s.t. = α(t), 4b.
ȳ(t) HL+n (yd )
" # " #
ū[−n,−1] (t) u[t−n,t−1]
= , 4c.
ȳ[−n,−1] (t) y[t−n,t−1]
ūk (t) ∈ U, ȳk (t) ∈ Y, k ∈ I[0,L−1] . 4d.

The input-output trajectory predicted at time t is denoted by ū(t) = ū[−n,L−1] (t) ∈ UL+n ,
ȳ(t) = ȳ[−n,L−1] (t) ∈ YL+n . The constraint in Equation 4b is based on the Fundamental
Lemma and ensures that {ūk (t), ȳk (t)}L−1
k=−n is a trajectory of the LTI system. The cost
penalizes the difference of the predicted trajectory w.r.t. the setpoint (us , ys ) for user-
specified positive definite matrices Q, R. Note that the predicted trajectory is of length
L + n. In the constraint 4c, the first n components {ūk (t), ȳk (t)}−1
k=−n are used to initialize
the prediction based on the most recent n input-output measurements {uk , yk }t−1 k=t−n . This
initialization over n time steps is required when using an input-output prediction model to
ensure that the internal states of the prediction and the plant coincide, i.e., to implicitly
enforce a constraint analogous to the initial condition in Equation 3b. Instead of the
system order n, any upper bound can be used (to be precise, an upper bound on the lag
is sufficient). Further, Equation 4d contains the input-output constraints. Note that, for
convex polytopic constraint sets U, Y, the optimization problem 4 is a convex quadratic
program. We denote the optimal solution of the optimization problem 4 by α∗ (t), ū∗ (t),
ȳ∗ (t). It can be used to set up a data-driven MPC scheme in a receding-horizon fashion
analogous to the model-based case in Section 2.2, see Algorithm 3.1.

www.annualreviews.org • 5
 Algorithm 3.1. Data-driven MPC
Offline: Choose upper bound on system order n, prediction horizon L, positive definite
−1
cost matrices Q, R, constraint sets U, Y, setpoint (us , ys ), and generate data {udk , ykd }N
k=0 .
Online:

1) At time t, solve the optimization problem 4.

2) Apply the first optimal input component ut = ū∗0 (t).
3) Set t = t + 1 and go back to 1).

Algorithm 3.1 allows to control unknown LTI systems based only on input-output data
and without explicit model knowledge. The main difference to model-based MPC as in
Section 2.2 is the usage of data-dependent Hankel matrices for prediction, instead of a
state-space model. If the data are PE, the optimization problem 4 returns the same optimal
input as using a state-space model. Since the Fundamental Lemma directly parametrizes
input-output trajectories, Algorithm 3.1 inherently is an output-feedback MPC scheme. In
contrast, model-based output-feedback MPC schemes typically involve an observer whose
estimation error needs to be accounted for.
Analogous to the model-based case, data-driven MPC may lead to an unstable closed
loop and can even destabilize an open-loop stable system if L is too short (51). Closed-loop
stability of data-driven MPC can be ensured by modifying the optimization problem 4.
The arguably simplest approach is to add terminal equality constraints, i.e., to restrict the
optimal solution to be equal to the setpoint (us , ys ) over n steps at the end of the prediction
horizon. Mathematically, the following constraint is added to the optimization problem
" # " #
ūk (t) us
= , k ∈ I[L−n,L−1] . 5.
ȳk (t) ys

This implicitly ensures that the internal state corresponding to the input-output trajectory
ū(t), ȳ(t) is equal to the steady-state xs corresponding to (us , ys ) at time L. With this
modification, it can be shown under mild assumptions (e.g., PE) that, if the optimization
problem is feasible at initial time t = 0, then it is recursively feasible for all t ∈ I≥0
and Algorithm 3.1 exponentially stabilizes (us , ys ) in closed loop (51). While terminal
equality constraints are simple to implement and to study theoretically, they have significant
drawbacks in terms of robustness and the size of the region of attraction. In particular,
the latter only includes points from which the optimization problem is initially feasible, i.e.,
from which the setpoint can be reached within L time steps while satisfying the constraints.
As an alternative, one can design more general terminal ingredients, i.e., a terminal
cost function and a terminal region constraint for an extended state vector consisting of
sequential input-output values (52). To be precise, an alternative,
" non-minimal
# state of
u[t−n,t−1]
the LTI system in Equation 1 can be obtained as ξt = , compare (53, 54).
y[t−n,t−1]
Adapting data-driven output-feedback design methods from (55), it is possible to design
a terminal cost function Vf (ξ¯L (t)) = ∥ξ¯L (t)∥2P as well as a corresponding terminal region
constraint ξ¯L (t) ∈ Ξf for a sublevel set Ξf of Vf . Replacing the terminal equality constraint
in Equation 5 by these two components leads to closed-loop stability guarantees with a
significantly larger region of attraction (52). However, this approach faces an important
limitation: The design of the terminal ingredients from (52) is only applicable when the

6 Berberich & Allgöwer

state-space realization with state ξt is controllable, which holds, e.g., if the system is single-
output and the order n is known exactly (52, Lemma 13). Addressing this limitation based
on alternative data-driven output-feedback design approaches (56, 57) is an open research
problem. Beyond the above-described terminal ingredients, it can be shown that data-driven
MPC without any terminal ingredients also provides desirable closed-loop guarantees if the
prediction horizon is sufficiently long (58). Finally, recursive feasibility and stability can be
guaranteed based on dissipativity (59, 60)
All approaches discussed so far require that the setpoint (us , ys ) is a feasible equilib-
rium for the unknown system, i.e., there exists xs ∈ Rn such that xs = Axs + Bus , ys =
Cxs + Dus . This condition is non-trivial to verify, especially when no model is available,
and therefore it can be a critical limitation for practical applications of data-driven MPC. A
powerful way to resolve this problem is to optimize over the equilibrium (us , ys ) online and
penalize its distance to the actual target setpoint in the cost. Such an artificial equilibrium
has been proposed in model-based MPC (61) and it leads to strong theoretical results as
well as useful practical methods. In particular, data-driven MPC with artificial equilib-
rium guarantees exponential stability of the unknown optimal reachable equilibrium for a
given setpoint and cost function (62). This includes, e.g., the case that only an output set-
point without corresponding input component is available. Additional advantages include
theoretical guarantees for online setpoint changes, improved robustness, and a significantly
larger region of attraction compared to a standard MPC scheme with terminal equality con-
straints. Further, online optimization over an artificial equilibrium plays a crucial role when
using data-driven MPC to control unknown nonlinear systems, see Section 4 for details.
To summarize, if the data are noise-free, then the Fundamental Lemma allows to predict
future trajectories exactly such that, under appropriate assumptions (long prediction hori-
zon) or modifications (terminal ingredients), closed-loop stability under data-driven MPC
can be guaranteed. The main technical challenge in the analysis is that the cost function pe-
nalizes input-output values due to the employed input-output prediction model. This only
implies a positive semidefinite cost in the state, in contrast to model-based MPC which com-
monly assumes a positive definite cost, compare the optimization problem 3. Therefore, the
analysis of data-driven MPC requires additional detectability arguments (63).
In the sidebar Subspace Predictive Control, we introduce an alternative data-driven
MPC approach via an indirect perspective, i.e., using an identified model for MPC.

3.2. Data-driven MPC with noisy data

Real-world data are rarely noise-free. When data-driven MPC as discussed in Section 3.1 is
applied in the presence of noise, there is no guarantee that the closed-loop system behaves
desirably. In the following, we describe modifications of data-driven MPC that allow for
comparable theoretical guarantees also in the case of noisy data.
Suppose that both the offline data used for prediction via the Fundamental Lemma as
well as the online data used to specify initial conditions at time t are affected by output
measurement noise. To be precise, instead of the exact output values, we have access to

ỹkd = ykd + εdk , k ∈ I[0,N −1] , ỹt = yt + εt , t ∈ I≥0 ,

compare Figure 1. Further, the noise is bounded by some ε̄ > 0, i.e., ∥εdk ∥∞ ≤ ε̄ for
k ∈ I[0,N −1] and ∥εt ∥∞ ≤ ε̄ for t ∈ I≥0 . The following optimization problem provides the

www.annualreviews.org • 7
SUBSPACE PREDICTIVE CONTROL
Subspace predictive control (SPC) involves a two-step procedure consisting of 1) identification of a multi-
step predictor from data and 2) using this predictor as a model for MPC (64, 65). To introduce SPC, we
partition the Hankel matrices used for prediction in Equation 4b as follows
   
" # Hn (ud[0,N −L−1] ) Up
 H (ud
HL+n (ud )  L [n,N −1] )   Uf 
  
=  =:   . 6.
HL+n (yd ) d
Hn (y[0,N −L−1] ) Yp 
d
HL (y[n,N −1] ) Yf

Here, the data matrices Up , Yp correspond to the first n components of the input-output predictions, i.e.,
to the initial conditions in Equation 4c (hence, the index ’p’ for past). On the other hand, the data matrices
Uf , Yf correspond to future predictions (hence, the index ’f’). In SPC, the data are used to identify
a multi-step predictor which predicts future output values based on a future input trajectory and initial
conditions. To be precise, the predictor M is determined via least-squares estimation and takes the form
 †
Up
M = Yf  Uf  , where A† denotes the Moore-Penrose inverse of a matrix A. Based on this predictor, SPC
 
Yp
solves the following optimal control problem at time t.
 
L−1
X ū[−n,−1] (t)
min ∥ūk (t) − us ∥2R + ∥ȳk (t) − ys ∥2Q s.t. ȳ[0,L−1] (t) = M  ū[0,L−1] (t)  . 7.
 
ū(t),ȳ(t)
k=0 ȳ[−n,−1] (t)

Thus, in contrast to direct data-driven MPC, SPC involves an a priori estimation step and, hence, it is
an indirect data-driven MPC method. In Section 5, we discuss differences between direct and indirect
data-driven MPC in more detail.

basis for controlling unknown linear systems based on noisy input-output data.
L−1
X
min ∥ūk (t) − us ∥2R + ∥ȳk (t) − ys ∥2Q + λα ∥α(t)∥22 + λσ ∥σ(t)∥22 8a.
α(t),σ(t),ū(t),ȳ(t)
k=0
" # " #
ū(t) HL+n (ud )
s.t. = α(t), 8b.
ȳ(t) + σ(t) HL+n (ỹd )
" # " #
ū[−n,−1] (t) u[t−n,t−1]
= , 8c.
ȳ[−n,−1] (t) ỹ[t−n,t−1]
ūk (t) ∈ U, k ∈ I[0,L−1] . 8d.

In contrast to data-driven MPC for noise-free data as in Section 3.1, the exact output
values are replaced by their noisy versions. Further, the scheme contains an additional op-
timization variable σ(t) ∈ Rp(L+n) , the slack variable, which ensures that the constraint 8b
remains feasible despite the noise. In order to reduce the prediction error, the slack vari-
able is penalized in the cost with regularization parameter λσ > 0. Moreover, the norm

8 Berberich & Allgöwer

 ε
u y ỹ
System

Figure 1
Setup considered for robust data-driven MPC in Section 3.2. The figure displays a generic system
generating the data which are affected by output measurement noise ỹk = yk + εk .

of the variable α(t) is penalized with regularization parameter λα > 0 (see Section 3.2.2
for details). Finally, we note that the optimization problem 8 does not contain output
constraints, which would require a robust constraint tightening due to the noise, see (66)
for details. The optimization problem 8 can be used to set up a robust data-driven MPC
scheme in a standard receding-horizon fashion, see Algorithm 3.2.

Algorithm 3.2. Robust data-driven MPC

Offline: Choose upper bound on system order n, prediction horizon L, positive definite
cost matrices Q, R, regularization parameters λα , λσ > 0, constraint set U, setpoint (us , ys ),
−1
and generate data {udk , ỹkd }N
k=0 .
Online:

1) At time t, solve the optimization problem 8.

2) Apply the first optimal input component ut = ū∗0 (t).
3) Set t = t + 1 and go back to 1).

In the following, we discuss several key issues in robust data-driven MPC: closed-loop
guarantees for bounded noise (Section 3.2.1), the role of the regularization of α(t) (Sec-
tion 3.2.2), and closed-loop guarantees for stochastic noise (Section 3.2.3).

3.2.1. Closed-loop guarantees for bounded noise. Similar to Section 3.1, Algorithm 3.2
does not guarantee closed-loop stability unless the prediction horizon is sufficiently long
or terminal ingredients are added. It was shown in (51) that stability and robustness can
be ensured by adding terminal equality constraints as in Equation 5 to the optimization
problem 8. In this case, due to a technical controllability argument, proving theoretical
guarantees requires the application in an n-step fashion (67). This means that, in each
MPC iteration, the first n optimal input components ū∗[0,n−1] (t) are applied to the system
before repeating the optimization. With these modifications, robust data-driven MPC with
terminal equality constraints guarantees that the internal state xt converges exponentially
to a neighborhood of the steady-state xs corresponding to (us , ys ), where the size of the
neighborhood depends on the noise level. Mathematically, there exist 0 < c < 1 as well as
a continuous and strictly increasing function β with β(0) = 0 such that

∥xt − xs ∥2 ≤ ct ∥x0 − xs ∥2 + β(ε̄), 9.

compare (51, Theorem 3). For ε̄ = 0, the closed loop converges to the desired setpoint.
These theoretical guarantees require analogous assumptions as in the noise-free case (e.g.,
PE data, n is an upper bound on the system order, compare Section 3.1) and additionally
that the noise level ε̄ is sufficiently small and that the regularization parameters scale as

www.annualreviews.org • 9
 λα ∼ ε̄, λσ ∼ 1ε̄ . The latter conditions ensure that, in the noise-free case ε̄ = 0, robust data-
driven MPC (Algorithm 3.2) reduces to the nominal scheme (Algorithm 3.1) since λα = 0
and λσ → ∞ enforces σ(t) = 0. Beyond this stability result, the theoretical analysis reveals
direct connections between the data quality and the closed-loop performance. In particular,
the asymptotic tracking error decreases and the region of attraction increases if the minimum
singular value of the input Hankel matrix HL+2n (u) increases, which corresponds to a
quantitative PE condition (39). The possiblity to establish such end-to-end insights is a
valuable feature of direct data-driven control methods, which is often harder to achieve
in indirect approaches. While the original paper (51) required an additional non-convex
constraint ∥σ(t)∥∞ ≤ ε̄(1 + ∥α(t)∥1 ) to bound the slack variable, it was later shown in (58)
that this constraint can be dropped when λσ ∼ 1ε̄ , see also (68, Theorem 4.1).
As in the noise-free case, the occurrence of terminal equality constraints poses practical
limitations, e.g., a small region of attraction, and alternative means of guaranteeing closed-
loop stability are available. Roughly speaking, any model-based MPC scheme which admits
inherent robustness properties against disturbances can be transformed into a data-driven
MPC scheme with closed-loop guarantees in the presence of noise (69). Beyond this general
principle, the literature contains various concrete results on closed-loop guarantees in robust
data-driven MPC. For example, in the noisy data case, terminal ingredients can be designed
based on robust data-driven output-feedback design (55). By combining continuity of data-
driven MPC w.r.t. noise (70) and inherent robustness properties (69, 71), one can show that
the resulting data-driven MPC scheme admits closed-loop guarantees also in the presence of
noise, see (68, Section 4.5.2) for a discussion. Likewise, data-driven MPC without terminal
ingredients practically exponentially stabilizes the closed-loop system, assuming that the
prediction horizon L is sufficiently long (58). Notably, in both cases (terminal ingredients
and L sufficiently long), stability and robustness can be proven even for a 1-step MPC
scheme as in Algorithm 3.2. Alternatively, one can optimize over an artifical equilibrium
online which provides powerful practical features (no knowledge required if (us , ys ) is a
feasible equilibrium, improved robustness, increased region of attraction, handling online
setpoint changes) and also admits closed-loop guarantees in the presence of noise (70).
Due to the inaccurate predictions of the Fundamental Lemma with noisy data, handling
output constraints is non-trivial. By using a bound on the prediction error from (51), a
constraint tightening can be constructed which guarantees closed-loop output constraint
satisfaction (66). The conservatism of this tightening can be reduced, e.g., via a pre-
stabilizing feedback, and analogous results can be derived when the system is affected by
bounded disturbances (72).
In summary, the Fundamental Lemma can be used to design robust data-driven MPC
schemes for unknown LTI system based on noisy data. With appropriate modifications,
these schemes admit rigorous closed-loop guarantees on recursive feasibility, constraint sat-
isfaction, and practical exponential stability.

3.2.2. Regularization in data-driven MPC. While robust data-driven MPC (Algorithm 3.2)
differs from the nominal approach (Algorithm 3.1) in multiple aspects, the most crucial
modification is the regularization of α(t) in the cost. Indeed, satisfactory practical results
can often be obtained even without the slack variable σ(t). On the contrary, the absence
of the regularization of α(t) can pose difficulties already for tiny noise levels or even in
the complete absence of noise due to numerical inaccuracies. Intuitively, this regularization
can be understood as reducing the complexity of the employed prediction model based

10 Berberich & Allgöwer

on the Fundamental Lemma, analogous to regularization methods in linear regression. In
particular, due to the multiplication of α(t) with the noisy output Hankel matrix, values
α(t) with small norm are desired to reduce the prediction error due to the noise.
Since the introduction of regularization as a heuristic in (12), numerous recent works
have illuminated the role of regularization in data-driven MPC. First, we note that regular-
ization plays a crucial role in the closed-loop analysis of data-driven MPC, where it allows to
control the size of α(t), which influences the prediction error (51, 58, 66, 69, 70, 72). More-
over, a variety of works have focused on the effect of regularization in data-driven finite-
horizon optimal control, i.e., applying the full input sequence computed via the optimization
problem 8 in open loop. When considering stochastic noise, the regularized optimization
problem is equivalent to a min-max optimal control problem subject to distributional uncer-
tainty, i.e., regularization serves as a robustification against noise (73). The regularization
can also be derived through the lens of maximum likelihood estimation (74, 75) or by min-
imizing the expected cost rather than the nominal cost (76). Further, (77) has proposed
γ-data-driven predictive control (γ-DDPC), which decomposes the data-driven optimization
problem 8 into two separate steps and avoids the tuning of the regularization parameter λα .
The γ-DDPC scheme also allows to construct regularization terms which systematically re-
duce the prediction error and can be tuned without running additional experiments (78, 79).
This framework has been generalized in (80) via the Final Control Error, which can be used
to construct a data-driven MPC scheme that minimizes the actual prediction error due to
the noise and can be applied without tuning regularization parameters. Moreover, addi-
tional causality information can be used to improve performance in γ-DDPC (81). Notably,
equivalence between the classical regularized problem as in Algorithm 3.2 and γ-DDPC can
be established for suitable choices of the regularization parameters (82).
While the above approaches mainly focus on LTI systems with stochastic noise, regu-
larization can also be motivated via robustness against noise with deterministic description.
In particular, in (83), a data-driven optimal control problem with regularization is derived
as a tractable upper bound on a min-max problem against bounded uncertainty, where
different uncertainty structures lead to different regularization terms.
Regularization can also be studied through a bi-level optimization perspective, which
connects direct and indirect data-driven control: In (84), regularization terms are derived
which serve as a convex relaxation of low-rank approximation (with an ℓ1 -norm regular-
ization) or sequential least-squares estimation and model-based optimal control (with a
regularization ∥Πα(t)∥p for a suitable weighting matrix Π and some p-norm). The connec-
tion between different regularization approaches derived from bi-level optimization has been
further investigated in (85). Closely connected to these results, (86) studies regularization
via implicit predictors, which characterize the predictions caused by the constraints of the
data-driven optimization problem. Finally, regularization was used in (87, 88) to establish
equivalence between direct and indirect data-driven MPC.
To conclude, regularizing the parameter α(t) can be motivated through various reasons
which are all connected to enhancing robustness. More sophisticated regularized data-driven
MPC schemes, e.g., based on maximum likelihood estimation or γ-DDPC, can further
improve theoretical properties and admit practical benefits, e.g., not requiring to tune
additional regularization parameters. Finally, we note that the majority of the above works
focuses on the impact of regularization on the open-loop behavior, i.e., applying the full
optimal input sequence computed via the optimization problem 8. On the other hand,
studying the impact of regularization in closed loop, beyond the available robust stability

www.annualreviews.org • 11
 results (51, 58, 66, 69, 70, 72), and designing new regularization strategies via a closed-loop
perspective provides a promising future research direction.

3.2.3. Closed-loop guarantees for stochastic noise. While Section 3.2.1 has focused on
bounded noise, we now turn our attention to data-driven MPC for systems affected by
stochastic disturbances. One recent stream of works has employed Polynomial Chaos Ex-
pansions (PCE) for designing stochastic data-driven MPC schemes with closed-loop guar-
antees. Stochastic system trajectories are random variables which can be expressed (ap-
proximately) in a polynomial basis – the PCE basis. By relating the images of Hankel
matrices filled by three different quantities (random variables, PCE coefficients, and sam-
ples), a stochastic version of the Fundamental Lemma can be derived (89), see (90) for a
recent tutorial and overview of behavioral data-driven control for stochastic systems.
The stochastic Fundamental Lemma can be used to construct a data-driven MPC
scheme for unknown stochastic systems subject to chance constraints. In (91), it is shown
that this scheme admits closed-loop guarantees on recursive feasibility and practical stabil-
ity as well as closed-loop performance bound. Here, closed-loop guarantees are ensured via
terminal ingredients, i.e., a terminal cost function and a terminal region constraint, which
can be constructed based only on data. Subsequent works have extended the result in (91),
which considers state measurements and a binary selection of the initial condition as either
the measured state or a backup in case of infeasibility (the prediction from the previous
time step). In particular, (92) provides an MPC scheme with analogous guarantees for
input-output measurements and (93) optimizes the initial condition, interpolating between
the measured state and the backup. Since stochastic data-driven MPC based on PCE ad-
mits an increased computational cost, a tailored multiple shooting approach for complexity
reduction was derived in (94).
As an alternative to the PCE approach, closed-loop guarantees of data-driven MPC
with stochastic noise can be ensured by resorting to techniques from tube-based robust
MPC, i.e., computing a constraint tightening offline such that closed-loop guarantees can
be established (95). All previously mentioned approaches for stochastic data-driven MPC
require access to past disturbance realizations and, therefore, they derive data-driven es-
timation procedures. As an alternative, the recent work (96) constructs an explicit data-
driven parametrization of consistent disturbance realizations from which new samples can
be drawn, allowing to set up a sampling-based stochastic data-driven MPC scheme which
guarantees closed-loop properties via a robust first-step constraint.

3.3. Data-driven MPC for more advanced control objectives

Sections 3.1 and 3.2 focused on data-driven MPC schemes which are designed to (robustly)
stabilize an unknown LTI system. In the following, we discuss data-driven MPC approaches
with closed-loop guarantees that address more advanced setups and control objectives.
The Fundamental Lemma can be used to design distributed data-driven MPC schemes
for controlling multi-agent systems with coupled dynamics, where the combination of un-
known dynamics and local communication poses a key challenge. In (97, 98), distributed
data-driven MPC schemes are proposed which rely on state measurements and iterative dis-
tributed optimization and which admit closed-loop stability guarantees. Alternatively, (99)
developed a non-iterative scheme which requires a minimum amount of communication and
can cope with input-output measurements, but possibly admits increased conservatism.

12 Berberich & Allgöwer

 Further data-driven MPC formulations in the literature include explicit MPC (100),
which relies on an explicit solution of the underlying quadratic program via the Karush-
Kuhn-Tucker conditions, and economic MPC (101), which addresses stage cost functions
that are not positive (semi-)definite and can also handle unknown linear cost functions. In
the context of networked and cyber-physical control systems, data-driven MPC schemes
have been proposed that address resilience against denial-of-service attacks (102) as well
as self-triggered (103) and event-triggered (104) MPC formulations. Further, various con-
tributions have been made on safe data-driven control via the Fundamental Lemma. This
includes the design of a data-driven safety filter which equips any controller with safety
guarantees by ensuring that unsafe regions are avoided (105, 106), the combination of a
data-driven MPC scheme with a funnel controller (107), and enhancing data-driven MPC
with control barrier certificates (108). The Fundamental Lemma as well as data-driven
state-feedback design approaches (109, 55) have also inspired alternative data-driven MPC
schemes relying on linear matrix inequalities (110, 111). These approaches consider an
infinite-horizon cost and a state-feedback parametrization of the input, and they may be
less conservative than data-driven MPC when guaranteeing constraint satisfaction in the
presence of noise, see (111) for a numerical comparison. Further formulations include data-
driven MPC for linear descriptor systems (112) as well as data-driven control for iterative
tasks (113). Finally, while all the above approaches use the Fundamental Lemma for data-
driven control, the dual problem of observer design has also been studied: In (114), a data-
driven moving horizon estimation scheme is developed which proves practical exponential
stability of the estimator in case of noisy data.
In conclusion, the literature contains a variety of data-driven MPC schemes for different
problem setups, control objectives, and system classes. While many of these approaches
are inspired by analoguous developments in model-based MPC, the Fundamental Lemma
allows to set up MPC schemes for controlling unknown systems based only on measured
data, which brings unique challenges for the theoretical analysis, in particular in the presence
of uncertainty (e.g., noisy data or disturbances).

4. DATA-DRIVEN MPC FOR NONLINEAR SYSTEMS

While the theory of data-driven MPC is well-developed for linear systems, real-world appli-
cations to complex and safety-critical systems require more sophisticated techniques that
can also cope with nonlinear systems. In this section, we discuss data-driven MPC schemes
for nonlinear systems with systems-theoretic guarantees. As in Section 3, the covered
schemes use the Fundamental Lemma to predict future trajectories in a direct data-driven
fashion. However, the Fundamental Lemma crucially involves linearity, e.g., already the
statement is based purely on linear concepts such as matrices, vector spaces, and rank
conditions. Therefore, care has to be taken when using it for nonlinear systems.
In the literature, two complementary approaches for nonlinear data-driven MPC based
on the Fundamental Lemma have been developed, which we discuss in Sections 4.1 and 4.2,
respectively. The first class of methods rely on nonlinear versions of the Fundamental
Lemma, which can be developed in a tailored fashion for specific system classes by assuming
some structural knowledge, e.g., basis functions, and exploiting global linearity in higher-
dimensional coordinates. The second class follows an adaptive approach and updates the
data used in the Fundamental Lemma online, exploiting that nonlinear systems are locally
well-approximated by linear dynamics.

www.annualreviews.org • 13
 4.1. Exploiting global linearity via a nonlinear Fundamental Lemma
The recent literature contains various extensions of the Fundamental Lemma beyond LTI
systems. Tailored formulations have been derived for Hammerstein and Wiener sys-
tems (115), second-order Volterra systems (116), linear parameter-varying (LPV) sys-
tems (117), affine systems (70, 118), nonlinear autoregressive exogenous systems (119),
bilinear systems (120), linear time-periodic systems (121), and feedback linearizable sys-
tems (122). Further, nonlinear variations of the Fundamental Lemma have been developed
by resorting to multi-step predictors which are linear in basis functions (123), the Koopman
operator (124), and kernel methods (125, 126).
Each of these nonlinear versions of the Fundamental Lemma allows to design a data-
driven MPC scheme for systems in the associated system class. In the following, we show
how this can be done for Hammerstein systems via the corresponding Fundamental Lemma
from (115). Analogous MPC schemes can be designed for other nonlinear system classes
when using the corresponding version of the Fundamental Lemma, cf. above. A Hammer-
stein system is a series interconnection of a static nonlinearity and an LTI system, i.e.,

xk+1 = Axk + Bψ(uk ), yk = Cxk + Dψ(uk ) 10.

for k ∈ I≥0 , compare Figure 2. Here, ψ : Rm → Rnψ is a static nonlinear function which is
assumed to be composed of known basis functions with unknown coefficients, i.e., ψ(u) =
Pq m
i=1 ai ψi (u) for known functions ψi : R → Rnψ and unknown scalars ai ∈ R.

u ψ(u) y
Static nonlinearity LTI System

Figure 2
Block diagram illustration of a Hammerstein system, which consists of a series interconnection of
a static nonlinearity and an LTI system, compare Equation 10.

−1
For a given data trajectory {udk , ykd }N
k=0 and under suitable PE conditions, an arbitrary
L−1
input-output sequence {ūk , ȳk }k=0 is a trajectory of the system in Equation 10 if and only
if there exists α ∈ RN −L+1 such that
" # " #
HL (vd ) v̄
α= 11.
HL (yd ) ȳ

with auxiliary input sequences

   
ψ1 (udk ) ψ1 (ūk )
 .   . 
vkd = 
 ..  , k ∈ I[0,N −1] ,

 ..  , k ∈ I[0,L−1] ,
v̄k =   12.
ψq (udk ) ψq (ūk )

compare (115, Proposition 5). This result exploits the linearity of the system which maps
the auxiliary input v, whose components involve the actual input u and the known basis
functions ψi , to the output y. Since Equation 11 allows to accurately predict input-output
trajectories of the given Hammerstein system, it can be used to set up a data-driven MPC
scheme precisely as in the linear noise-free case considered in Section 3.1. Again, closed-
loop guarantees can be established via appropriate modifications of the basic optimization

14 Berberich & Allgöwer

problem, e.g., terminal equality constraints, terminal cost and terminal region constraints,
or a sufficiently long prediction horizon. The main limitation of this approach, beyond
its restriction to Hammerstein systems and knowledge of the ψi ’s, is that the resulting
optimization problem to be solved at every time step is typically non-convex due to the
nonlinear coupling of the decision variables ū and v̄ in Equation 12.
An analogous data-driven MPC scheme is proposed in (127) for feedback linearizable
systems based on the corresponding nonlinear Fundamental Lemma (122). The scheme
relies on terminal equality constraints and is shown in (128) to admit closed-loop guarantees
on practical exponential stability, even in the presence of noisy data or inaccurate basis
function approximation. Further, the works (129, 130) address data-driven MPC for LPV
systems based on the LPV Fundamental Lemma (117). LPV systems provide a promising
system class for data-driven control due to their ability to represent nonlinear systems while
maintaining a linear structure. In particular, the MPC scheme from (130) is based on solving
convex optimization problems and it includes terminal ingredients which can be designed
from data via LPV state-feedback design. Further, the MPC scheme admits closed-loop
guarantees on recursive feasibility, constraint satisfaction, and exponential stability.
To summarize, nonlinear versions of the Fundamental Lemma allow to design data-
driven MPC schemes with closed-loop guarantees, assuming that the underlying system
indeed belongs to the associated system class. In this case, the predictions are exact and the
main challenges for the theoretical analysis are analogous to the linear case, e.g., handling
positive semidefinite cost functions, designing terminal ingredients based on data, or coping
with uncertainty due to noise or inexact basis function representations (127). The benefits
of this theoretically sound treatment are met by possible challenges due to the assumptions
on the system class. While each of the above approaches is tailored to a specific system
class, it is non-trivial to verify whether a given system indeed belongs to the assumed class.

4.2. Exploiting local linearity via online data updates

As an alternative to nonlinear versions of the Fundamental Lemma, one can resort to a
linear Fundamental Lemma and update the data used for prediction in the Hankel matrices
online. Since (smooth) nonlinear systems are locally well-approximated by linear dynamics,
the resulting predictions are guaranteed to be accurate under suitable conditions. In the
following, we discuss this idea in more detail and introduce the data-driven MPC approach
from (70), which provides closed-loop guarantees when controlling unknown nonlinear sys-
tems based only on input-output data.
The control goal is to steer the output to a given setpoint ys while satisfying input
constraints uk ∈ U (guaranteeing output constraint satisfaction in this setup is an open
challenge). The considered system is assumed to be input-affine

xk+1 = f (xk ) + Buk , yk = h(xk ) + Duk 13.

with state xk ∈ Rn , input uk ∈ Rm , output yk ∈ Rp , and time k ∈ I≥0 . The key idea is
to use online data updates in order to parametrize trajectories of the affine linearization at
the current state, i.e., of

xk+1 = Axt xk + Buk + ext , yk = Cxt xk + Duk + rxt , 14.

www.annualreviews.org • 15
 with Jacobians and remainder terms
∂f ∂h
Axt = , Cxt = , ext = f (xt ) − Axt xt , rxt = h(xt ) − Cxt xt . 15.
∂x xt ∂x xt

Before introducing the data-driven MPC scheme, we take a slight detour to model-based
MPC. The work (131) proposes an MPC scheme to control nonlinear systems based on the
linearized dynamics in Equation 14, i.e., an MPC scheme based on precise model knowledge.
The approach includes a terminal equality constraint w.r.t. an artificial equilibrium xs (t)
for the linearized dynamics, i.e., a vector xs (t) satisfying

xs (t) = Axt xs (t) + Bus (t) + ext , ys (t) = Cxt xs (t) + Dus (t) + rxt 16.

for some equilibrium input us (t) and output ys (t), compare (61). The distance of the arti-
ficial equilibrium xs (t) to the actual setpoint is penalized in the cost. If the corresponding
cost weight is sufficiently small, then xs (t) is encouraged to remain close to the initial state
xt . If xt is, in turn, close to the steady-state manifold of the nonlinear system, then the full
predicted trajectory x̄(t) remains in a small region around xt , i.e., in a region where the
linearized dynamics in Equation 14 provide an accurate prediction. Based on this idea, it
can be shown that the MPC scheme based on the linearized dynamics indeed exponentially
stabilizes the setpoint in closed loop. Notably, this guarantee does not only hold locally
around the setpoint, but the region of attraction is a neighborhood of the entire steady-
state manifold, which can be significantly larger. Roughly speaking, e.g., in an autonomous
driving application, successful tracking of a position can be guaranteed when starting from
any initial position, under the restriction that the car does not drive too fast, i.e., it remains
close to the steady-state manifold.
Let us now return to a data-driven MPC setup, where the quantities f , h, B, D in Equa-
tion 13 are unknown. If, at time t, a PE input-output trajectory of the dynamics linearized
at xt was available, then the Fundamental Lemma for affine systems (70, 118) would yield
equivalent predictions to a state-space model. Thus, the results in (131) on model-based
MPC could be used to guarantee closed-loop exponential stability for the corresponding
data-driven MPC scheme. However, instead of data of the linearized dynamics, in practice
one only has access to measurements from the nonlinear system. The key insight to bridge
this gap lies in using, at time t, the most recent input-output measurements {uk , yk }t−1 k=t−N
for prediction, i.e., the predicted trajectory ū(t), ȳ(t) is parametrized via
" # " #
ū(t) HL+n (u[t−N,t−1] ) X
= α(t), αi (t) = 1. 17.
ȳ(t) HL+n (y[t−N,t−1] ) i

The first equation is analogous to the linear optimization problem 4 with the main differ-
ence of using online trajectories for prediction in the Hankel matrix rather than an offline
trajectory. The second equation ensures that the vector α(t) sums up to 1, which is required
due to the affine Fundamental Lemma (70, 118) since the linearized dynamics 14 are affine.
By using an MPC scheme with artificial equilibrium as in (131), it can be enforced
that the system does not change too rapidly in closed loop and, therefore, the trajectory
{uk , yk }t−1
k=t−N of the nonlinear system is close to a trajectory from the dynamics linearized
at xt . More precisely, if a certain cost matrix in the MPC optimization problem is chosen
small enough, then the closed-loop trajectory moves slowly such that Equation 17 provides
locally accurate predictions for the nonlinear system. Combining these ideas in a rigorous

16 Berberich & Allgöwer

fashion, it can be shown that the setpoint is practically exponentially stable for the closed-
loop system, i.e., the trajectory converges to a neighborhood around the setpoint (70,
Theorem 2). The size of this neighborhood depends on the distance between data samples
generated initially at time t = 0, . . . , N − 1, e.g., through random exploration. As in the
model-based MPC scheme from (131), the guaranteed region of attraction of the data-driven
MPC scheme is a neighborhood of the steady-state manifold of the underlying system.
There are several notable differences of this approach to those based on nonlinear ver-
sions of the Fundamental Lemma explained in Section 4.1. On the theoretical side, data-
driven MPC with online data updates provides guarantees for system classes which are
complementary to those considered in Section 4.1, relying on local arguments and there-
fore requiring entirely different and partially less restrictive assumptions: not restricted
to systems which can be represented linearly in suitable known coordinates; input-affine
dynamics (can be enforced via an input transformation); smooth dynamics; properties that
are also needed in model-based MPC, e.g., controllability, observability. On the practical
side, data-driven MPC with online data updates only requires input-output measurements
for its implementation but no choice of basis functions for nonlinear components as in most
approaches from Section 4.1. Further, since the approach relies on the affine Fundamental
Lemma, the resulting optimization problems are strictly convex quadratic programs, in con-
trast to data-driven MPC based on nonlinear basis functions. Further, data-driven MPC
with online data updates has been successfully applied in real-world experiments, including
a four-tank system (14) and a complex soft robot (17). A related data-driven MPC scheme
which also uses online data updates but does not admit closed-loop guarantees was applied
to a building control experiment in (26).
On the other hand, updating the data online brings additional challenges. In partic-
ular, the data collected from the nonlinear system in closed loop need to carry sufficient
information, i.e., they need to be PE. In practice, this can be ensured, e.g., by adding an
excitation signal to the input applied to the system, by stopping the data updates once
the closed-loop system has (approximately) converged, or by incentivizing PE inputs via
an additional PE cost (10). Addressing the problem rigorously and providing a theoretical
solution is an interesting direction for future research.

5. DISCUSSION
When applying data-driven control to real-world systems, especially in complex and safety-
critical applications, it is desirable to provide rigorous systems-theoretic guarantees for
the closed-loop operation. In this review, we discussed direct data-driven MPC methods
based on the Fundamental Lemma which do provide such guarantees, e.g., on stability, ro-
bustness, and constraint satisfaction. The presented schemes can control unknown systems
based only on input-output data in various scenarios including linear and nonlinear systems
as well as noise-free and noisy data. As in the model-based case, closed-loop stability of
data-driven MPC is not necessarily guaranteed but needs to be ensured via suitable terminal
ingredients or a sufficiently long prediction horizon. When controlling linear systems based
on noise-free data, techniques from model-based MPC can be borrowed, but the technical
analysis needs to additionally cope with input-output cost functions. In the more realistic
scenario of noisy data (bounded or stochastic), desirable guarantees can be provided under
appropriate modifications of the MPC scheme, e.g., adding a regularization. For nonlinear
systems, we discussed two alternatives based on either global or local linearity. The former

www.annualreviews.org • 17
 approach exploits that systems from specific classes can be represented in linear coordinates
using knowledge of suitable basis functions, allowing to formulate nonlinear versions of the
Fundamental Lemma that can be used for MPC. Alternatively, nonlinear systems can be
controlled by updating the data used for prediction via the Fundamental Lemma online,
exploiting local linearity of (smooth) nonlinear dynamics. In guaranteeing closed-loop prop-
erties for the presented approaches, the key challenge is to combine established concepts
from model-based MPC with unique challenges when using the Fundamental Lemma for
prediction, in particular inaccuracies due to noise or nonlinearities.
A natural question in the context of data-driven MPC is the connection between direct
approaches based on the Fundamental Lemma and indirect schemes such as SPC (132).
For linear systems and noise-free data, basic formulations of SPC and data-driven MPC are
equivalent since both employ exact predictions (133, 134). This equivalence carries over to
more advanced formulations, e.g., including regularization (compare Section 3.2.2), and the
synergy between both approaches has led to the development of new data-driven control
methods (77, 60, 135). In the presence of inaccuracies, e.g., noisy data or nonlinearities,
the predictions in direct and indirect data-driven MPC are no longer equivalent and study-
ing performance gaps becomes relevant. The literature contains various empirical studies,
see (5, 36, 37) and the references therein, but also theoretical results indicating that the
open-loop performance of either direct or indirect approaches can be superior depending on
different factors including the data length (136). Deriving formal closed-loop results on this
gap, e.g., considering stability or closed-loop performance guarantees but also conservatism
of constraint tightenings, is an open research problem. To the best of the authors’ knowl-
edge, the existing SPC literature does not contain closed-loop guarantees under assumptions
comparable to the direct data-driven MPC results covered in this review, in particular in
the presence of noise or nonlinearities. Deriving such guarantees may provide a meaningful
step towards understanding the interplay between SPC and direct data-driven MPC.
In terms of complexity, indirect approaches have the advantage of being less com-
putationally demanding, whereas the number of decision variables in direct approaches
grows with the data length, compare the optimization problems 4 and 8. This has mo-
tivated contributions on complexity reduction in direct data-driven MPC, e.g., based on
wavelets (137), trajectory segmentation (138), singular value decomposition (139), alter-
native data-driven system representations (140), iterative solvers (141), and differentiable
convex programming (142). Finally, another noteworthy distinction arises when designing
indirect data-driven MPC schemes via identified state-space models, which admit several
inherent differences to the multi-step predictor based on the Fundamental Lemma (143).
Data-driven MPC is a promising modern control approach with remarkable empirical
performance and a solid theoretical foundation. We conclude the review by discussing open
research directions that may further enhance the theoretical understanding and reliability
of data-driven MPC, thereby simplifying its application in challenging control problems.

FUTURE ISSUES
1. Data-driven MPC for nonlinear systems: Data-driven methods are most useful in
cases where first-principles models are hard to obtain, e.g., for complex systems
with nonlinear dynamics. Current nonlinear data-driven MPC approaches are either
tailored to specific system classes, which limits their practicality, or employ online
data updates, which requires PE closed-loop trajectories. Developing a unifying

18 Berberich & Allgöwer

 data-driven MPC framework in the nonlinear regime, maintaining both rigorous
guarantees as well as practical applicability, is an important future direction.
2. Online data updates in data-driven MPC: The overwhelming majority of existing
data-driven MPC approaches focuses on a setup where the data used for prediction
via Hankel matrices are collected offline. On the other hand, if new data samples
are obtained in closed-loop operation, it is desirable to exploit the information
contained in the data to improve the performance. Understanding the role of data
in data-driven MPC, in particular in adaptive setups where new samples enter or
old data samples are deleted, is a crucial future research challenge.
3. Direct vs. indirect data-driven MPC: While the interplay between direct and indi-
rect data-driven control has received substantial attention, an ultimate assessment
of their respective advantages and drawbacks requires further research. One promis-
ing direction is to transfer performance bounds, e.g., from (136), to more general
scenarios such as bounded noise, nonlinear systems, or closed-loop performance.
4. Transferring open-loop results to closed-loop formulations: Several effects in data-
driven MPC are by now well-understood in open-loop optimal control formulations,
but have not been researched extensively w.r.t. closed-loop guarantees, e.g., reg-
ularization. On the other hand, when applying data-driven MPC, typically the
closed-loop performance is the main object of interest. Thus, transferring open-
loop to closed-loop results is another promising future research avenue.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings
that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are thankful to Tim Martin for helpful comments. F. Allgöwer is thankful that
this work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research
Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy - EXC 2075 - 390740016 and within
grant AL 316/15-1 - 468094890. The authors would like to thank the Stuttgart Center for
Simulation Science (SimTech) for the support.

LITERATURE CITED
1. Ljung L. 1987. System Identification: Theory for the User. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ
2. Tsiamis A, Ziemann I, Matni N, Pappas GJ. 2023. Statistical learning theory for control: a
finite-sample perspective. IEEE Control Systems Magazine 43(6):67–97
3. Hou ZS, Wang Z. 2013. From model-based control to data-driven control: Survey, classification
and perspective. Information Sciences 235:3–35
4. Willems JC, Rapisarda P, Markovsky I, De Moor B. 2005. A note on persistency of excitation.
Syst. Contr. Lett. 54:325–329
5. Markovsky I, Dörfler F. 2021. Behavioral systems theory in data-driven analysis, signal pro-
cessing, and control. Annual Reviews in Control 52:42–64

www.annualreviews.org • 19
 6. Rawlings JB, Mayne DQ, Diehl MM. 2020. Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation,
and Design. Nob Hill Pub. 3rd printing
7. Hewing L, Wabersich KP, Menner M, Zeilinger MN. 2020. Learning-based model predictive
control: Toward safe learning in control. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous
Systems 3:269–296
8. Adetola V, Guay M. 2011. Robust adaptive MPC for constrained uncertain nonlinear systems.
Int. J. Adaptive Control and Signal Processing 25(2):155–167
9. Tanaskovic M, Fagiano L, Smith R, Morari M. 2014. Adaptive receding horizon control for
constrained MIMO systems. Automatica 50(12):3019–3029
10. Lu X, Cannon M, Koksal-Rivet D. 2021. Robust adaptive model predictive control: perfor-
mance and parameter estimation. Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control 31(18):8703–8724
11. Yang H, Li S. 2015. A data-driven predictive controller design based on reduced hankel matrix.
In Proc. Asian Control Conference, pp. 1–7
12. Coulson J, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2019. Data-enabled predictive control: in the shallows of the
DeePC. In Proc. European Control Conf. (ECC), pp. 307–312
13. Elokda E, Coulson J, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2021. Data-enabled predictive control for quad-
copters. Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control 31(18):8916–8936
14. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2021. Data-driven model predictive control:
closed-loop guarantees and experimental results. at-Automatisierungstechnik 69(7):608–618
15. Carlet PG, Favato A, Bolognani S, Dörfler F. 2022. Data-driven continuous-set predictive
current control for synchronous motor drives. IEEE Trans. Power Electronics 37(6):6637–
6646
16. Fawcett RT, Afsari K, Ames AD, Hamed KA. 2022. Toward a data-driven template model for
quadrupedal locomotion. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(3):7636–7643
17. Müller D, Feilhauer J, Wickert J, Berberich J, Allgöwer F, Sawodny O. 2022. Data-driven
predictive disturbance observer for quasi continuum manipulators. In Proc. 61st IEEE Conf.
Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1816–1822
18. Hemming S, de Zwart F, Elings E, Petropoulou A, Righini I. 2020. Cherry tomato production
in intelligent greenhouses - sensors and AI for control of climate, irrigation, crop yield, and
quality. Sensors 20(22):6430
19. Wang J, Lian Y, Jiang Y, Xu Q, Li K, Jones CN. 2023. Distributed data-driven predictive con-
trol for cooperatively smoothing mixed traffic flow. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies 155:104274
20. Wang J, Zheng Y, Li K, Xu Q. 2023. DeeP-LCC: data-enabled predictive leading
cruise control in mixed traffic flow. IEEE Trans. Control Systems Technology Doi:
10.1109/TCST.2023.3288636
21. Shang X, Wang J, Zheng Y. 2023. Smoothing mixed traffic with robust data-driven predictive
control for connected and autonomous vehicles. arXiv:2310.00509
22. Rimoldi A, Cenedese C, Padoan A, Dörfler F, Lygeros J. 2023. Urban traffic congestion control:
a DeePC change. arXiv:2311.09851
23. Huang L, Coulson J, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2019. Data-enabled predictive control for grid-
connected power converters. In Proc. 58th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp.
8130–8135
24. Huang L, Zhen J, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2021. Quadratic regularization of data-enabled pre-
dictive control: theory and application to power converter experiments. IFAC-PapersOnLine
54(7):192–197
25. Huang L, Coulson J, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2021. Decentralized data-enabled predictive con-
trol for power system oscillation damping. IEEE Trans. Control Systems Technology Doi:
10.1109/TCST.2021.3088638
26. Lian Y, Shi J, Koch MP, Jones CN. 2021. Adaptive robust data-driven building control via
bi-level reformulation: an experimental result. arXiv:2106.05740

20 Berberich & Allgöwer

27. O’Dwyer E, Falugi P, Shah N, Kerrigan E. 2022. Automating the data-driven predictive con-
trol design process for building thermal management. In Proc. 35th Int. Conf. on Efficiency,
Cost, Optimization, Simulation and Environmental Impact of Energy Systems (ECOS). Doi:
10.11581/dtu.00000267
28. Di Natale L, Lian Y, Maddalena ET, Shi J, Jones CN. 2022. Lessons learned from data-driven
building control experiments: contrasting Gaussian process-based MPC, bilevel DeePC, and
deep reinforcement learning. In Proc. 61st IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp.
1111–1117
29. Behrunani V, Zagorowska M, Hudoba de Badyn M, Ricca F, Heer P, Lygeros J. 2023.
Degradation-aware data-enabled predictive control of energy hubs. arXiv:2307.01543
30. Chen K, Zhang X, Lin X, Zheng Y, Yin X, et al. 2022. Data-enabled predictive control for
fast charging of Lithium-Ion batteries with constraint handling. arXiv:2209.12862
31. Mahdavipour P, Wieland C, Spliethoff H. 2022. Optimal control of combined-cycle power
plants: a data-enabled predictive control perspective 55(13):91–96
32. Bilgic D, Koch A, Pan G, Faulwasser T. 2022. Toward data-driven predictive control of multi-
energy distribution systems. Electric Power Systems Research 212:108311
33. Schmitz P, Engelmann A, Faulwasser T, Worthmann K. 2022. Data-driven MPC of descriptor
systems: a case study for power networks. IFAC-PapersOnLine 55(30):359–364
34. Yin M, Cai H, Gattiglio A, Khayatian F, Smith RS. 2024. Data-driven predictive control for
demand side management: Theoretical and experimental results. Applied Energy 353:122101
35. Schmitt L, Beerwerth J, Bahr M, Abel D. 2023. Data-driven predictive control with online
adaption: application to a fuel cell system. IEEE Trans. Control Systems Technology Doi:
10.1109/TCST.2023.3293790
36. Markovsky I, Huang L, Dörfler F. 2023. Data-driven control based on the behavioral approach:
from theory to applications in power systems. IEEE Control Systems
37. Verheijen PCN, Breschi V, Lazar M. 2023. Handbook of linear data-driven predictive control:
Theory, implementation and design. Annual Reviews in Control 56:100914
38. van Waarde HJ, De Persis C, Camlibel MK, Tesi P. 2020. Willems’ fundamental lemma
for state-space systems and its extension to multiple datasets. IEEE Control Systems Lett.
4(3):602–607
39. Berberich J, Iannelli A, Padoan A, Coulson J, Dörfler F, Allgöwer F. 2023. A quantitative
and constructive proof of Willems’ Fundamental Lemma. In Proc. American Control Conf.
(ACC), pp. 4155–4160
40. Markovsky I, Rapisarda P. 2008. Data-driven simulation and control. Int. J. Control
81(12):1946–1959
41. Maupong TM, Mayo-Maldonado JC, Rapisarda P. 2017. On Lyapunov functions and data-
driven dissipativity. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1):7783–7788
42. Romer A, Berberich J, Köhler J, Allgöwer F. 2019. One-shot verification of dissipativity prop-
erties from input-output data. IEEE Control Systems Lett. 3(3):709–714
43. De Persis C, Tesi P. 2020. Formulas for data-driven control: stabilization, optimality and
robustness. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 65(3):909–924
44. Berberich J, Koch A, Scherer CW, Allgöwer F. 2020. Robust data-driven state-feedback design.
In Proc. American Control Conf. (ACC), pp. 1532–1538
45. van Waarde HJ, Eising J, Trentelman HL, Camlibel MK. 2020. Data informativity: a new
perspective on data-driven analysis and control. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 65(11):4753–
4768
46. Martin T, Schön TB, Allgöwer F. 2023. Guarantees for data-driven control of nonlinear systems
using semidefinite programming: A survey. Annual Reviews in Control :100911
47. De Persis C, Tesi P. 2023. Learning controllers for nonlinear systems from data. Annual Reviews
in Control :100915
48. van Waarde HJ, Eising J, Camlibel MK, Trentelman HL. 2023. The informativity approach

www.annualreviews.org • 21
 to data-driven analysis and control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine 43(6):32–66
49. Raff T, Huber S, Nagy ZK, Allgöwer F. 2006. Nonlinear model predictive control of a four
tank system: An experimental stability study. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Control Applications
(CCA), pp. 237–242
50. Grüne L. 2012. NMPC without terminal constraints. In Proc. IFAC Conf. Nonlinear Model
Predictive Control, pp. 1–13
51. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2021. Data-driven model predictive control
with stability and robustness guarantees. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 66(4):1702–1717
52. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2021. On the design of terminal ingredients
for data-driven MPC. IFAC-PapersOnLine 54(6):257–263
53. Goodwin GC, Sin KS. 2014. Adaptive filtering prediction and control. Courier Corporation
54. Koch A, Berberich J, Allgöwer F. 2022. Provably robust verification of dissipativity properties
from data. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 67(8):4248–4255
55. Berberich J, Scherer CW, Allgöwer F. 2023. Combining prior knowledge and data for robust
controller design. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(8):4618–4633
56. van Waarde HJ, Eising J, Camlibel MK, Trentelman HL. 2024. A behavioral approach to data-
driven control with noisy input-output data. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 69(2):813–827
57. Alsalti M, Lopez VG, Müller MA. 2023. Notes on data-driven output-feedback control of linear
MIMO systems. arXiv:2311.17484
58. Bongard J, Berberich J, Köhler J, Allgöwer F. 2023. Robust stability analysis of a simple data-
driven model predictive control approach. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(5):2625–2637
59. Lazar M. 2021. A dissipativity-based framework for analyzing stability of predictive controllers.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 54(6):159–165
60. Lazar M, Verheijen PCN. 2023. Generalized data-driven predictive control: merging subspace
and Hankel predictors. Mathematics 11(9):2216
61. Limón D, Alvarado I, Alamo T, Camacho EF. 2008. MPC for tracking piecewise constant
references for constrained linear systems. Automatica 44(9):2382–2387
62. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2020. Data-driven tracking MPC for changing
setpoints. IFAC-PapersOnLine 53(2):6923–6930
63. Cai C, Teel AR. 2008. Input–output-to-state stability for discrete-time systems. Automatica
44(2):326–336
64. Favoreel W, Moor BD, Gevers M. 1999. SPC: Subspace predictive control. IFAC Proceedings
Volumes 32(2):4004–4009
65. Huang B, Kadali R. 2008. Dynamic modeling, predictive control and performance monitoring:
a data-driven subspace approach. Springer
66. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2020. Robust constraint satisfaction in data-
driven MPC. In Proc. 59th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1260–1267
67. Grüne L, Palma VG. 2015. Robustness of performance and stability for multistep and updated
multistep MPC schemes. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems 35(9):4385–4414
68. Berberich J. 2022. Stability and robustness in data-driven predictive control. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Stuttgart
69. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2022. Stability in data-driven MPC: an inherent
robustness perspective. In Proc. 61st IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1105–1110
70. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2022. Linear tracking MPC for nonlinear sys-
tems part II: the data-driven case. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 67(9):4406–4421Extended
version on arXiv:2105.08567
71. Yu S, Reble M, Chen H, Allgöwer F. 2014. Inherent robustness properties of quasi-infinite
horizon nonlinear model predictive control. Automatica 50(9):2269–2280
72. Klöppelt C, Berberich J, Allgöwer F, Müller MA. 2022. A novel constraint tightening ap-
proach for robust data-driven predictive control. Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control Doi:
10.1002/rnc.6532

22 Berberich & Allgöwer

73. Coulson J, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2022. Distributionally robust chance constrained data-enabled
predictive control. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 67(7):3289–3304
74. Yin M, Iannelli A, Smith RS. 2021. Maximum likelihood signal matrix model for data-driven
predictive conntrol. In Proc. 3rd Conf. Learning for Dynamics and Control (L4DC), vol. 144,
pp. 1004–1014. PMLR
75. Yin M, Iannelli A, Smith RS. 2021. Maximum likelihood estimation in data-driven modeling
and control. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control Doi: 10.1109/TAC.2021.3137788
76. Yin M, Iannelli A, Smith RS. 2023. Stochastic data-driven predictive control: regularization,
estimation, and constraint tightening. arXiv:2312.02758
77. Breschi V, Chiuso A, Formentin S. 2023. Data-driven predictive control in a stochastic setting:
a unified framework. Automatica 152:110961
78. Breschi V, Fabris M, Formentin S, Chiuso A. 2023. Uncertainty-aware data-driven predictive
control in a stochastic setting. IFAC-PapersOnLine 56(2):10083–10088
79. Breschi V, Chiuso A, Fabris M, Formentin S. 2023. On the impact of regularization in data-
driven predictive control. arXiv:2304.00263
80. Chiuso A, Fabris M, Breschi V, Formentin S. 2023. Harnessing the final control error for
optimal data-driven predictive control. arXiv:2312.14788
81. Sader M, Wang Y, Huang D, Shang C, Huang B. 2023. Causality-informed data-driven pre-
dictive control. arXiv:2311.09545
82. Klädtke M, Schulze Darup M. 2024. Towards a unifying framework for data-driven predictive
control with quadratic regularization. arXiv:2404.02721
83. Huang L, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2022. Robust and kernelized data-enabled predictive control
for nonlinear systems. arXiv:2206.01866
84. Dörfler F, Coulson J, Markovsky I. 2023. Bridging direct & indirect data-driven control for-
mulations via regularizations and relaxations. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(2):883–897
85. Shang X, Zheng Y. 2023. Convex aproximations for a bi-level formulation of data-enabled
predictive control. arXiv:2312.15431
86. Klädtke M, Schulze Darup M. 2023. Implicit predictors in regularized data-driven predicive
control. IEEE Control Systems Lett. 7:2479–2484
87. Mattsson P, Schön TB. 2023. On the regularization in DeePC. IFAC-PapersOnLine 56(2):625–
631
88. Mattsson P, Bonassi F, Breschi V, Schön TB. 2024. On the equivalence of direct and indirect
data-driven predictive control approaches. arXiv:2403.05860
89. Pan G, Ou R, Faulwasser T. 2022. On a stochastic fundamental lemma and its use for data-
driven MPC. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(10):5922–5937
90. Faulwasser T, Ou R, Pan G, Schmitz P, Worthmann K. 2023. Behavioral theory for stochastic
systems? A data-driven journey from Willems to Wiener and back again. Annual Reviews in
Control 55:92–117
91. Pan G, Ou R, Faulwasser T. 2022. Towards data-driven stochastic predictive control.
arXiv:2212.10663
92. Pan G, Ou R, Faulwasser T. 2022. On data-driven stochastic output-feedback predictive con-
trol. arXiv:2211.17074
93. Pan G, Ou R, Faulwasser T. 2023. Data-driven stochastic output-feedback predictive control:
recursive feasibility through interpolated initial conditions. In Proc. 5th Conf. Learning for
Dynamics and Control (L4DC), vol. 211, pp. 980–992. PMLR
94. Ou R, Pan G, Faulwasser T. 2022. Data-driven multiple shooting for stochastic optimal control.
IEEE Control Systems Lett. 7:313–318
95. Kerz S, Teutsch J, Brüdigam T, Wollherr D, Leibold M. 2023. Data-driven tube-based stochas-
tic predictive control. IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems 2:185–199
96. Teutsch J, Kerz S, Wollherr D, Leibold M. 2024. Sampling-based stochastic data-driven pre-
dictive control under data uncertainty. arXiv:2402.00681

www.annualreviews.org • 23
 97. Allibhoy A, Cortés J. 2021. Data-based receding horizon control of linear network systems.
IEEE Control Systems Lett. 5(4):1207–1212
98. Alonso CA, Yang F, Matni N. 2022. Data-driven distributed and localized model predictive
control. IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems 1:29–40
99. Köhler M, Berberich J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2022. Data-driven distributed MPC of dy-
namically coupled linear systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 55(30):365–370
100. Breschi V, Sassella A, Formentin S. 2023. On the design of regularized explicit predictive
controllers from input-output data. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(8):4977–4983
101. Xie Y, Berberich J, Allgöwer F. 2023. Linear data-driven economic MPC with generalized
terminal constraint. IFAC-PapersOnLine 56(2):5512–5517
102. Liu W, Sun J, Wang G, Bullo F, Chen J. 2023. Data-driven resilient predictive control under
denial-of-service. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(8):4722–4737
103. Liu W, Sun J, Wang G, Bullo F, Chen J. 2023. Data-driven self-triggered control via trajectory
prediction. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(11):6951–6958
104. Deng L, Shu Z, Chen T. 2024. Event-triggered robust MPC with terminal in-
equality constraints: a data-driven approach. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control Doi:
10.1109/TAC.2024.3357417
105. Bajelani M, van Heusden K. 2023. Data-driven safety filter: An input-output perspective.
arXiv:2309.00189
106. Bajelani M, van Heusden K. 2024. From raw data to safety: reducing conservatism by set
expansion. arXiv:2403.15883
107. Schmitz P, Lanza L, Worthmann K. 2023. Safe data-driven reference tracking with prescribed
performance. In Proc. 27th Int. Conf. on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC),
pp. 454–460
108. Khaledi M, Tooranjipour P, Kiumarsi B. 2023. Data-driven safety-certified predictive control
for linear systems. IEEE Control Systems Lett. 7:3687–3692
109. van Waarde HJ, Camlibel MK, Mesbahi M. 2022. From noisy data to feedback controllers:
non-conservative design via a matrix S-lemma. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 67(1):162–175
110. Nguyen HH, Friedel M, Findeisen R. 2023. LMI-based data-driven robust model predictive
control. IFAC-PapersOnLine 56(2):4783–4788
111. Xie Y, Berberich J, Allgöwer F. 2024. Data-driven min-max MPC for linear systems: robust-
ness and adaptation. arXiv:2404.19096
112. Schmitz P, Faulwasser T, Worthmann K. 2022. Willems’ fundamental lemma for linear de-
scriptor systems and its use for data-driven output-feedback MPC. IEEE Control Systems
Lett. 6:2443–2448
113. Zhang K, Zuliani R, Balta EC, Lygeros J. 2024. Data-enabled predictive iterative control.
IEEE Control Systems Lett. Doi: 10.1109/LCSYS.2024.3408073
114. Wolff TM, Lopez VG, Müller MA. 2022. Robust data-driven moving horizon estimation for
linear discrete-time systems. arXiv:2210.09017
115. Berberich J, Allgöwer F. 2020. A trajectory-based framework for data-driven system analysis
and control. In Proc. European Control Conf. (ECC), pp. 1365–1370
116. Rueda-Escobedo JG, Schiffer J. 2020. Data-driven internal model control of second-order dis-
crete Volterra systems. In Proc. 59th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 4572–4579
117. Verhoek C, Tóth R, Haesart S, Koch A. 2021. Fundamental Lemma for data-driven analysis
of linear parameter-varying systems. In Proc. 60th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC),
pp. 5040–5046
118. Martinelli A, Gargiani M, Draskovic M, Lygeros J. 2022. Data-driven optimal control of affine
systems: a linear programming perspective. arXiv:2203.12044
119. Mishra VK, Markovsky I, Fazzi A, Dreesen P. 2021. Data-driven simulation for NARX sys-
tems. In Proc. European Signal Processing Conference, pp. 1055–1059
120. Yuan Z, Cortés J. 2022. Data-driven optimal control of bilinear systems. IEEE Control Systems

24 Berberich & Allgöwer

 Lett. 6:2479–2484
121. Li R, Simpson-Porco JW, Smith SL. 2022. Data-driven model predictive control for linear
time-periodic systems. In Proc. 61st IEEE Conf. Decision and Control, pp. 3661–3668
122. Alsalti M, Lopez VG, Berberich J, Allgöwer F, Müller MA. 2023. Data-based control of feed-
back linearizable systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(11):7014–7021
123. Lazar M. 2023. Basis functions nonlinear data-enabled predictive control: consistent and com-
putationally efficient formulations. arXiv:2311.05360
124. Lian Y, Wang R, Jones CN. 2021. Koopman based data-driven predictive control.
arXiv:2102.05122
125. Huang L, Zhen J, Lygeros J, Dörfler F. 2023. Robust data-enabled predictive control: tractable
formulations and performance guarantees. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 68(5):3163–3170
126. Molodchyk O, Faulwasser T. 2024. Exploring the links between the Fundamental Lemma and
kernel regression. arXiv:2403.05368
127. Alsalti M, Lopez VG, Berberich J, Allgöwer F, Müller MA. 2023. Data-driven nonlinear pre-
dictive control for feedback linearizable systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 56(2):617–624
128. Alsalti M, Lopez VG, Berberich J, Allgöwer F, Müller MA. 2022. Practical exponential stability
of a robust data-driven nonlinear predictive control scheme. arXiv:2204.01150 Supplementary
material
129. Verhoek C, Abbas HS, Tóth R, Haesart S. 2021. Data-driven predictive control for linear
parameter-varying systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine 54(8):101–108
130. Verhoek C, Berberich J, Haesaert S, Tóth R, Abbas HS. 2023. A linear parameter-varying
approach to data predictive control. arXiv:2311.07140
131. Berberich J, Köhler J, Müller MA, Allgöwer F. 2022. Linear tracking MPC for nonlinear
systems part I: the model-based case. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 67(9):4390–4405
132. Dörfler F. 2023. Data-driven control: part two of two: hot take: why not go with models?
IEEE Control Systems Magazine 43(6):27–31
133. Fiedler F, Lucia S. 2021. On the relationship between data-enabled predictive control and
subspace predictive control. In Proc. European Control Conf. (ECC), pp. 222–229
134. Lazar M, Verheijen PCN. 2022. Offset-free data-driven predictive control. In Proc. 61st IEEE
Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1099–1104
135. Smith RS, Abdalmoaty M, Yin M. 2024. Optimal data-driven prediction and predictive control
using signal matrix models. arXiv:2403.15329
136. Krishnan V, Pasqualetti F. 2021. On direct vs indirect data-driven predictive control. In Proc.
60th IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 736–741
137. Sathyanarayanan KK, Pan G, Faulwasser T. 2023. Towards data-driven predictive control
using wavelets. IFAC-PapersOnLine 56(2):632–637
138. O’Dwyer E, Kerrigan EC, Falugi P, Zagorowska M, Shah N. 2023. Data-driven predictive con-
trol with improved performance using segmented trajectories. IEEE Trans. Control Systems
Technology 31(3):1355–1365
139. Zhang K, Zheng Y, Shang C, Li Z. 2023. Dimension reduction for efficient data-enabled pre-
dictive control. IEEE Control Systems Lett. 7:3277–3282
140. Alsalti M, Barkey M, Lopez VG, Müller MA. 2023. Sample- and computationally efficient
data-driven predictive control. arXiv:2309.11238
141. Schmitz P, Schaller M, Voigt M, Worthmann K. 2024. Fast and memory-efficient optimization
for large-scale data-driven predictive control. arXiv:2402.13090
142. Zhou Y, Lu Y, Li Z, Yan J, Mo Y. 2024. Learning-based efficient approximation of data-enabled
predictive control. arXiv:2404.16727
143. Köhler J, Wabersich KP, Berberich J, Zeilinger MN. 2022. State space models vs. multi-step
predictors in predictive control: Are state space models complicating safe data-driven designs?
In Proc. 61st IEEE Conf. Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 491–498

www.annualreviews.org • 25