Performance Gaps Between Open-Loop, Certainty-Equivalent, and Optimal Control Under Action-Dependent Observations

Abstract

In dynamical systems, feedback can improve performance by allowing decisions to depend on past observations, rather than being designed a priori. Under full observation, the current state is sufficient for decision-making; under partial observation, the controller must instead estimate the state from measurements. When actions also affect observations, control can have a dual role: actions influence both the state and the information available for future decisions. This interaction can invalidate certainty-equivalent (CE) control, a widely used strategy that applies state feedback policies as if the estimated state were the true state. We ask when this suboptimality leads to a quantitative performance gap that grows with the horizon. We study this question in a linear-quadratic system with bilinear observations by comparing the optimal policy, certainty-equivalent control, and the optimal open-loop (OL) policy. We identify an instance-dependent information-strength parameter $q$ and establish distinct performance regimes as $q$ varies. When $q$ is sufficiently small, we show that no policy can improve over OL control by more than $O(1)$ cumulative cost. For large values of $q$, we find that CE achieves an $Ω(T)$ advantage over OL control. Our main finding is that for intermediate values of $q$, we can construct a policy that occasionally probes for information and achieves an $Ω(T)$ advantage over OL control while CE only achieves an $O(1)$ advantage, establishing an $Ω(T)$ gap between CE and optimal control. Our analysis relies on a regret decomposition that captures the tradeoff between the immediate cost of gathering information and its future benefit.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.