aiqbench analysis
This research establishes that "consistent model chasing" is minimax optimal for regulating scalar systems under large parametric uncertainty, providing the first exact value certificate where standard exploration or optimism strategies fail. The study reveals that passive learning without explicit probing mechanisms achieves optimality by selecting control actions at the midpoint of consistent intervals to avoid fatal commitment errors against adversarial disturbances.
Consistent Model Chasing Is Minimax Optimal: The Exact Value of Scalar Adversarial Adaptive Control under Large Parametric Uncertainty
arXiv:2608.13651v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We solve exactly a fundamental problem of adaptive control against adversarial disturbances: regulate the scalar system $x_{t+1} = ax_t + u_t + w_t$, $x_0=0$, $\|w\|_\infty \le 1$, where the constant pole $a \in [-\Delta, \Delta]$ is unknown in sign and magnitude and $\Delta$ is arbitrarily large. Elementary as the system looks, the least worst-case peak $\|x\|_\infty$ that a causal controller can guarantee against an adversarial pair $(a, w)$ (the value of this game) has, to our knowledge, never been determined for any adaptive control problem with parametric uncertainty of arbitrary size under this criterion; existing theory supplies stability certificates, gain bounds, and regret rates, not the value. That value is $\gamma^\star(\Delta) = 1 + \Delta$ for every $\Delta>0$. The summand $1$ is the irreducible price of the disturbance, and $\Delta$ the exact price of a single, unavoidable identification spike. The optimal policy is certainty-equivalent deadbeat control at the midpoint of the set-membership consistent interval, an instance of the robust oracle $\times$ consistent model chasing architecture. The architecture is forced, not merely sufficient: writing $\theta_t := -u_t/x_t$ exhibits every causal controller as an oracle-selector composition, and optimality pins the selector to the midpoint at the critical histories. The standard tools, classical and modern, each fail quantifiably: probing is punished before it pays, commitment is fatal at sub-disturbance excitation once adaptation is necessary, optimism degenerates to tie-breaking or pays asymptotically at least twice the optimum, and regret certificates are blind to the worst-case peak in both directions. The optimal law contains no exploration mechanism, its learning purely passive. These results give the first exact optimality certificate for consistent model chasing as a design principle for adversarial adaptive control.
Abstract:We solve exactly a fundamental problem of adaptive control against adversarial disturbances: regulate the scalar system $x_{t+1} = ax_t + u_t + w_t$, $x_0=0$, $\|w\|_\infty \le 1$, where the constant pole $a \in [-\Delta, \Delta]$ is unknown in sign and magnitude and $\Delta$ is arbitrarily large. Elementary as the system looks, the least worst-case peak $\|x\|_\infty$ that a causal controller can guarantee against an adversarial pair $(a, w)$ (the value of this game) has, to our knowledge, never been determined for any adaptive control problem with parametric uncertainty of arbitrary size under this criterion; existing theory supplies stability certificates, gain bounds, and regret rates, not the value. That value is $\gamma^\star(\Delta) = 1 + \Delta$ for every $\Delta>0$. The summand $1$ is the irreducible price of the disturbance, and $\Delta$ the exact price of a single, unavoidable identification spike. The optimal policy is certainty-equivalent deadbeat control at the midpoint of the set-membership consistent interval, an instance of the robust oracle $\times$ consistent model chasing architecture. The architecture is forced, not merely sufficient: writing $\theta_t := -u_t/x_t$ exhibits every causal controller as an oracle-selector composition, and optimality pins the selector to the midpoint at the critical histories. The standard tools, classical and modern, each fail quantifiably: probing is punished before it pays, commitment is fatal at sub-disturbance excitation once adaptation is necessary, optimism degenerates to tie-breaking or pays asymptotically at least twice the optimum, and regret certificates are blind to the worst-case peak in both directions. The optimal law contains no exploration mechanism, its learning purely passive. These results give the first exact optimality certificate for consistent model chasing as a design principle for adversarial adaptive control.
Systems and Control (eess.SY); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Optimization and Control (math.OC)
arXiv:2608.13651 [eess.SY]
(or arXiv:2608.13651v1 [eess.SY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.13651 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 378 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026
Productionizing TurboQuant on AMD GPUs for KV-Cache-Bound LLM Inference
AMD · Jun 11, 2026

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · Jul 21, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026