Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: one of the purposes of investigating the nucleon resonances(@xmath7 ) is to understand the non - perturbative dynamics of quantum chromodynamics(qcd ) . one possible approach to realize this is to compare the predictions of qcd - inspired models with the resonance parameters which can be extracted from the data of pion photoproduction and electroproduction reactions . in recent years , precise data including polarization observables have been obtained in the @xmath8 region for pion photoproduction at legs@xcite and mainz@xcite , and for pion electroproduction at thomas jefferson national accelerator facility(jlab)@xcite , mit - bates@xcite and nikhef@xcite . these data now allow us to investigate more precisely the electromagnetic excitation of the @xmath8 resonance .    in ref.@xcite we have developed a dynamical model(henceforth called the sl model ) to extract the magnetic dipole(m1 ) and electric quadrapole(e2 ) strengths of the @xmath1 transition from the pion photoproduction data . the precise polarization data from legs and mainz were essential in our analysis . in this paper , we report on the progress we have made in extending the sl model to investigate the pion electroproduction reactions in the @xmath8 excitation region . we will make use of the recent data from jlab and mit - bates to explore the q@xmath2-dependence of the @xmath9 transition and make predictions for future experimental tests . the dynamical content of the sl model has been given in detail in ref.@xcite . the essential feature of the model is to have a consistent description of both the @xmath10 scattering and the electromagnetic production of pions . this is achieved by using a unitary transformation method to derive an effective hamiltonian defined in the subspace @xmath11 from the interaction lagrangians for @xmath12 and photon fields . the resulting model has given a fairly successful description of the very extensive data for pion photoproduction . the extension of the sl model to investigate pion electroproduction is straightforward . the formulae needed for calculating the current matrix elements of pion electroproductions are identical to that given in ref.@xcite except that a form factor must be included at each photon vertex . therefore no detailed presentation of our model will be repeated here . similarly , we will not give detailed formulae for calculating the electroproduction cross sections since they are well documented@xcite . the sl model is one of the dynamical models developed @xcite in recent years . compared with other approaches based on the tree - diagrams of effective lagrangians@xcite or dispersion - relations@xcite , the main objective of a dynamical approach is to separate the reaction mechanisms from the excitation of the internal structure of the hadrons involved . within the sl model , this has been achieved by applying the well - established reaction theory within the hamiltonian formulation(see , for example , ref.@xcite ) . in particular , the off - shell non - resonant contributions to the @xmath1 form factors can be calculated explicitly in a dynamical approach . only when such non - resonant contributions are separated , the determined `` bare '' @xmath1 form factors can be compared with the predictions from hadron models . within the sl model , this was explored in detail and provided a dynamical interpretation of the long - standing discrepancy between the empirically determined magnetic m1 strength of the @xmath1 transition and the predictions from constituent quark models . in this work , we further explore this problem utilizing the @xmath6-dependence accessible to electroproduction reactions . furthermore , the coulomb(scalar ) component @xmath13(@xmath14 ) of the @xmath1 form factor will be determined .    in section ii , we briefly review the essential ingredients of the sl model and define various form factors which are needed to describe pion electroproduction reactions . with the mainz data@xcite , we have slightly refined our model at the @xmath5 photon point . this will be reported in section iii . the electroproduction results are presented and compared with the data in section iv . in section v , we give a summary and discuss possible future developments . within the sl model , the pion photoproduction and electroproduction reactions are described in terms of photon and hadron degrees of freedom . the starting hamiltonian is @xmath15 with @xmath16 where @xmath17 is the free hamiltonian and @xmath18 describes the absorption and emission of a meson(@xmath19 ) by a baryon(@xmath20 ) . in the sl model , such a hamiltonian is obtained from phenomenological lagrangians for @xmath21 and photon fields . in a more microscopic approach , this hamiltonian can be defined in terms of a hadron model , as attempted , for example , in ref . @xcite . it is a non - trivial many body problem to calculate @xmath10 scattering and @xmath22 reaction amplitudes from the hamiltonian eq . ( [ hamilt ] ) . to obtain a manageable reaction model , a unitary transformation method@xcite is used up to second order in @xmath23 to derive an effective hamiltonian . the essential idea of the employed unitary transformation method is to eliminate the unphysical vertex interactions @xmath24 with @xmath25 from the hamiltonian and absorb their effects into @xmath26 two - body interactions . in the sl model , the resulting effective hamiltonian is defined in a subspace spanned by the @xmath10 , @xmath27 and @xmath8 states and has the following form @xmath28 where @xmath29 is a non - resonant @xmath10 potential , and @xmath30 describes the non - resonant @xmath31 transition . the @xmath8 excitation is described by the vertex interactions @xmath32 for the @xmath33 transition and @xmath34 for the @xmath35 transition . the vertex interaction @xmath36 is illustrated in fig . the non - resonant @xmath30 consists of the usual pseudo - vector born terms , @xmath37 and @xmath38 exchanges , and the crossed @xmath8 term , as illustrated in fig . 2(the non - resonant term due to an intermediate anti-@xmath8 state was found to be very weak and can be neglected ) . most of the dynamical models have the above form of the hamiltonian . however , the sl model has an important feature that the deduced effective hamiltonian @xmath39 is energy independent and hermitian . hence , the unitarity of the resulting reaction amplitudes is trivially satisfied . furthermore , the non - resonant interactions @xmath30 and @xmath29 are derived from the same @xmath23 of eq . ( [ hamilt ] ) , and hence the @xmath10 and @xmath27 reactions can be described consistently . such a consistency is lost if @xmath29 is either constructed purely phenomenologically as done in refs.@xcite or taken from a different theoretical construction as done in refs.@xcite . this consistency is essential in interpreting the extracted @xmath1 form factors since the non - resonant interactions @xmath29 and @xmath30 can dress the @xmath1 vertex . as discussed in refs.@xcite , only the dressed @xmath1 transition can be identified with the data . the importance of the non - resonant effects on the @xmath40 transition is also stressed recently in ref.@xcite .    from the effective hamiltonian eq . ( [ hamile ] ) , it is straightforward to derive a set of coupled equations for @xmath10 and @xmath27 reactions . the resulting pion photoproduction amplitude can be written as @xmath41 where @xmath42 is the current operator and @xmath43 is the photon polarization vector . it can be decomposed into two parts @xmath44 the non - resonant amplitude @xmath45 is calculated from @xmath30 by @xmath46 where the @xmath10 free propagator is defined by @xmath47 the amplitude @xmath48 in eq . ( [ tmatg ] ) is calculated from the non - resonant @xmath10 interaction @xmath29 by solving the following equation @xmath49    the dressed vertices in eq . ( [ tmatt ] ) are defined by @xmath50\gamma_{\delta\rightarrow\pi n}. \label{vertp}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in eq.([vertg ] ) , we also have defined @xmath51 . \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the @xmath8 self - energy in eq . ( [ tmatt ] ) is then calculated from @xmath52    as seen in the above equations , an important consequence of the dynamical model is that the influence of the non - resonant mechanisms on the resonance properties can be identified and calculated explicitly . the resonance position of the amplitude defined by eq . ( [ tmatt ] ) is shifted from the bare mass @xmath53 by the self - energy @xmath54 . the bare vertex @xmath55 is modified by the non - resonant interaction @xmath30 to give the dressed vertex @xmath56 , as defined by eq . ( [ vertg ] ) . in the sl model , it was found that the extracted m1 strength of the bare vertex @xmath57 is very close to the values predicted by the constituent quark models@xcite , while the empirical values given by the particle data group(pdg)@xcite can only be identified with the dressed vertex @xmath58 . the above equations can be solved for arbitrary photon four - momentum @xmath59 . for investigating the electroproduction reactions , we only need to define a form factor at each photon vertex in figs . 1 - 2 . for the non - resonant interactions(fig . 2 ) , we follow the previous work@xcite . the usual electromagnetic nucleon form factors(given explicitly in the appendix a of ref.@xcite ) are used in evaluating the direct and crossed nucleon terms . to make sure that the non - resonant term @xmath30 is gauge invariant , we set @xmath60 where @xmath61 is the form factor for the contact term , @xmath62 is the pion form factor for the pion - exchange term , and @xmath63 is the nucleon isovector form factor(also given explicitly in the appendix a of ref.@xcite ) . the form factors for the vector meson - exchange terms are chosen to be @xmath64 where @xmath65 is the vector meson mass and the coupling constants @xmath66 for @xmath67 are deduced from the @xmath68 decay widths and are given in ref.@xcite . the prescriptions eqs . ( [ formv])-([coupv ] ) have been commonly used in most of the previous investigations such as that in refs.@xcite . undoubtly , this is an unsatisfactory aspect of this work . on the other hand , `` dynamically '' sound progress in solving the gauge invariance problem can not be made unless a microscopic theory of hadron structure is implemented consistently into our model . this is beyond the scope of this work .    for the @xmath1 form factors , we extend eq . ( 4.15 ) of ref.@xcite to write in the rest frame of the @xmath8 @xmath69 , \label{vertgd}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath70 , @xmath71 is the photon four - momentum , and @xmath72 is the photon polarization vector . the transition operators @xmath73 and @xmath74 are defined by the reduced matrix element @xmath75 in edmonds convention@xcite . the parameterizations of the form factors @xmath76 , @xmath77 and @xmath78 will be specified in section iv .    with the form factors defined in eqs.(12)-(14 ) , both the non - resonant term @xmath30 and the bare vertex @xmath57 are gauge invariant . however the full amplitude defined by eq . ( [ tmatt ] ) involves off - shell @xmath10 scattering , as defined by eqs . ( [ tmatg])-([self ] ) , is not gauge invariant . there exists a simple prescription to eliminate this problem phenomenologically . this amounts to defining the conserved currents for eq.([tj ] ) as @xmath79 where @xmath80 is calculated from our model defined above , and @xmath81 is an arbitrary four vector . it is obvious that the currents @xmath82 defined by eq . ( [ gauj ] ) satisfies the gauge invariance condition @xmath83 . if we use the standard choice of the photon momentum @xmath84 and choose @xmath85 , we then have @xmath86 and @xmath87 the above equations mean that within our approach any @xmath88 observable depending on the z - component of the current is determined by eq . ( [ gau00 ] ) using the time component of the sl model , not by @xmath89 . this is very similar to the prescription used in many nuclear calculations . we find that the data we have considered in this work can be described by the conserved currents @xmath82 defined by eqs . ( [ gau0 ] ) and ( [ gau00 ] ) . we have briefly investigated the model dependence due to the freedom in choosing @xmath81 . we have found that the choice @xmath90 , which leads to @xmath91 and @xmath92 gives very similar results at high @xmath6 . the differences at low @xmath6 also appear to be not so large . all results presented in this paper are from using the choice eqs . ( [ gau0])-([gau00 ] ) . we emphasize that this choice is a phenomenological part of our model , simply because we have not implemented any substructure dynamics of hadrons into our formulation . in fact this is also the case for all existing approaches based on the prescription similar to the form of eq . ( [ gauj ] ) . for example @xmath93 is chosen in the recent work by kamalov and yang@xcite using the dynamical model developed in ref.@xcite . there exist other prescriptions to fix the gauge invariance problem , such as those suggested in refs.@xcite . we have not explored those possibilities , since they are also not related microscopically to the substructure of the hadrons involved , and are as phenomenological as the prescription defined by eqs.(16)-(17 ) . we will return to this problem when our model is further developed , as discussed in section v.    for our later discussions on the @xmath1 transition , we define some quantities in terms of more commonly used conventions . as discussed in detail in ref.@xcite , if we replace the @xmath10 propagator @xmath94 in eqs . ( [ tmatt])-([self ] ) by @xmath95 with @xmath96 denoting the principal - value integration , the resulting dressed vertex @xmath97 is real and can be directly compared with the bare vertex @xmath55 . the usual e2/m1 ratio and c2/m1 ratio for the dressed @xmath1 vertex are then defined by @xmath98_{e2 } } { { } [ \bar{\gamma}^{k}_{\gamma n \rightarrow \delta}]_{m1 } } , \label{remg } \\ \rsmeq&=&\frac{[\bar{\gamma}^{k}_{\gamma n \rightarrow \delta}]_{c2 } } { { } [ \bar{\gamma}^{k}_{\gamma n \rightarrow \delta}]_{m1}}.   \label{rsmg}\end{aligned}\ ] ] one can also show@xcite that at the resonant energy where the invariant mass @xmath991236 mev and the @xmath10 phase shift in the @xmath100 channel goes through 90 degrees , the multipole components of the dressed vertex @xmath97 are related to the imaginary(@xmath101 ) parts of the @xmath22 multipole amplitudes(as defined in ref.@xcite in the @xmath10 @xmath100 channel @xmath102_{m1}=   n \times \mbox{im}(m_{1+}^{3/2 } ) , \label{am}\\ a_{e }   & = & [ \bar{\gamma}^k_{\gamma n \rightarrow \delta}]_{e2}=   n \times \mbox{im}(e_{1+}^{3/2 } ) ,   \label{ae}\\ a_{c }   & = & [ \bar{\gamma}^k_{\gamma n \rightarrow \delta}]_{c2}=   n \times \mbox{im}(s_{1+}^{3/2 } ) ,    \label{ac } \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath103 is a kinematic factor . from the above relations , we obtain a very useful relation that the e2/m1 ratio @xmath104 and c2/m1 ratio @xmath105 of the dressed @xmath1 transition at @xmath106 mev can be evaluated directly by using the @xmath22 multipole amplitudes @xmath107    the formula for calculating the multipole amplitudes and various cross sections from the total amplitudes @xmath108 will not be given here , since they are well documented@xcite . to determine the @xmath1 form factors defined by eq . ( [ vertgd ] ) , it is necessary to first fix their values at @xmath109 by investigating the pion photoproduction reactions . this was done in ref.@xcite by applying the formulation outlined in section ii . the first step was to investigate the @xmath10 scattering from threshold to the @xmath8 excitation region . by fitting the @xmath10 phase shifts , the parameters characterizing the strong interaction vertices except the @xmath110 vertex in fig.2 were determined . the pion photoproduction data were then used to determine @xmath111 and @xmath112 of the @xmath113 transition(eq . ( [ vertgd ] ) ) and the coupling constant @xmath114 of the @xmath110 vertex of fig . 2 . in ref.@xcite we considered previous pion photoproduction data@xcite and the legs data@xcite of photon asymmetry defined by @xmath115 where @xmath116(@xmath117 ) are the cross sections with photons linearly polarized in the direction perpendicular(parallel ) to the reaction plane . to refine our model , we consider the recent mainz data@xcite here . for the photon asymmetry @xmath118 , the data from mainz agree very well with that from legs . the main improvement we have made is from using the mainz differential cross section(@xmath119 ) data which are much more precise than the data@xcite used in ref.@xcite .    with the @xmath10 amplitudes calculated from the model - l of ref.@xcite , we find that the mainz data can be best reproduced by setting @xmath120 , @xmath121 , and @xmath122 . these values of @xmath111 and @xmath112 are identical to that determined in ref.@xcite . the @xmath110 coupling constant is also only slightly larger than the value @xmath123 determined there . such a small change in the determined parameters is due to the fact that the previous photoproduction data@xcite are close to the mainz data except that their errors are larger . our results for @xmath124 and @xmath125 reactions are compared with the data in figs . 3 and 4 respectively . clearly the agreement is satisfactory in general . for the @xmath126 production(fig . 3 ) , we also show the dependence of the calculated asymmetry @xmath118 on the e2/m1 ratio of the bare @xmath1 vertex . the value @xmath127 , which corresponds to @xmath120 and @xmath121 , seems to be favored by the data . on the other hand , such a dependence is much less for the @xmath128 production(fig . 4 ) since the non - resonant interactions play a more important role in this channel . there are still some discrepancies with the data . in particular , the differential cross sections at high energies @xmath129 mev are underestimated . this could be due to the neglect of the coupling with higher mass nucleon resonances and two - pion production channels . for the @xmath128 production(fig . 4 ) , the cross sections at low energies are also underestimated slightly . this could be mainly due to the deficiency of our nonresonant amplitude which plays a much more important role in @xmath128 production than in @xmath126 production . possible improvements of our model will be discussed in section iv . the results presented in the rest of this paper are from calculations with @xmath120 and @xmath121 . in fig . 5 , we show that the predicted @xmath130 and @xmath131 amplitudes of the @xmath22 reactions agree very well with the data from the mainz98@xcite and sm95@xcite analyses . by using eqs.([rema])-([rsma ] ) and reading the results at resonant energy @xmath132 mev displayed in fig . 5 , we find that the e2/m1 ratio for the dressed @xmath1 transition is @xmath133 . the dotted curves in fig . 5 are obtained from setting the non - resonant interaction @xmath134 to zero in the calculations . clearly the non - resonant mechanism has a crucial role in determining the electromagnetic excitation of the @xmath8 . at the resonance energy @xmath135 mev the bare @xmath8 amplitude is about 60% of the full amplitude for the m1 transition and almost a half for the e2 transition . as discussed in refs.@xcite , this large difference between the bare @xmath8 and full amplitudes is the source of the discrepancies between the quark model predictions of the @xmath1 transition and the values determined from the empirical amplitude analyses such as those listed by pdg@xcite .    in table i , we list our results for the helicity amplitude @xmath136 and e2/m1 ratio of the @xmath1 transition and compare them with the results from other approaches . we see that the dressed e2/m1 values from different approaches are very close . for our model and the model of ref.@xcite , the large differences between the dressed and bare values are evident , indicating the importance of the non - resonant mechanisms in determining the @xmath1 transition . the bare values are clearly close to the quark model predictions . with @xmath111 and @xmath112 determined , we can then investigate the pion electroproduction reactions . with the matrix element @xmath108 calculated by using the formula outlined in section ii , it is straightforward to calculate various observables for pion electroproduction reactions . the needed formulation is well documented ; see , for example , refs.@xcite . we therefore will only give explicit formula which are needed for discussing our results . we first consider the unpolarized differential cross sections of the @xmath137 transition , where @xmath138 denotes the virtual photon . in the usual convention@xcite , it is defined by @xmath139 where various differential cross sections depend on the pion scattering angle @xmath140 , photon momentum - square @xmath141 , and the invariant mass @xmath142 of the final @xmath10 system . @xmath143 is the off - plane scattering angle between the @xmath144 plane and the @xmath145 plane . the dependence of eq.(26 ) on the angle @xmath146 between the outgoing and incoming electrons is in the parameter @xmath147^{-1}$ ] . recalling eq.(2.14 ) of ref.@xcite , we note here that the transverse cross section @xmath148 and polarization cross section @xmath149 are only determined by the transverse currents @xmath150 and @xmath151 and the longitudinal cross section @xmath152 only by the longitudinal current @xmath153 . on the other hand , the interference cross section @xmath154 is determined by the real part of the product @xmath155 . in general , the contributions from the longitudinal current are much weaker than that from the transverse currents . thus the longitudinal current can be more effectively studied by investigating the observables which are sensitive to @xmath154 . this has been achieved in the recent experiments at mit - bates and jlab by utilizing the @xmath156-dependence in eq . ( [ crse ] ) .    to proceed , we need to define the strength of the charge form factor at @xmath109 . first we use the low momentum limit to set @xmath157 . with @xmath158 determined in section iii , we thus have @xmath159 . next we consider the jlab @xmath160 data@xcite at @xmath161 , 4 ( gev / c)@xmath2 . since the data are extensive enough , we are able to extract each @xmath162dependent term in eq . ( [ crse ] ) . we then adjust @xmath163 and @xmath164 to fit the data of these extracted components . our best fits are the solid curves shown in fig . we also show that the interference cross section @xmath165(which is determined by @xmath166 ) is sensitive to the charge form factor @xmath167 of the bare @xmath9 vertex . in figs . 7 and 8 , we show the comparison with the original data at several off - plane - angle @xmath156 . clearly the agreement is satisfactory . similar good agreement with the data at different w are also found . some typical results are shown in fig.9 for w=1115 , 1145 , 1175 , 1205 mev . we follow refs.@xcite to fit the determined form factor values at @xmath5 , 2.8 and 4 ( gev / c)@xmath2 with the following simple parameterization @xmath168 with @xmath169 and @xmath170 is the usual proton form factor . we find that our results can be fitted by choosing @xmath171 with @xmath172 and @xmath173 ( gev / c)@xmath2 for @xmath174 and @xmath175 . the unpolarized cross section data are less sensitive to @xmath176 . nevertheless , the allowed @xmath177 values at @xmath5 , 2.8 and 4 ( gev / c)@xmath2 seem to also follow eq.([frme ] ) . for simplicity , we use eq.([frme ] ) for @xmath178 and @xmath175 in all of the calculations presented below . this simple parameterization is similar to that used in ref.@xcite . ( [ frmd ] ) then allows us to make predictions for other values of @xmath6 . note that with @xmath172 and @xmath173 ( gev / c)@xmath2 , the @xmath6-dependence due to @xmath179 is very small compared with the dipole form factor @xmath180 in eq.([frmdip ] ) .    to further explore the @xmath8 excitation within our model , we show in fig . 10 the @xmath6-dependence of the predicted @xmath137 multipole amplitudes @xmath181 , @xmath182 and @xmath183 at @xmath106 mev where the @xmath10 phase shift in @xmath100 channel reaches @xmath184 . hence , their real parts are negligibly small and are omitted in fig.10 . these amplitudes are proportional to the dressed @xmath1 transition strengths @xmath185 , @xmath186 and @xmath187 , as defined by eqs . ( [ am])-([ac ] ) . we also show the results(dotted curves ) from neglecting the non - resonant interaction @xmath30 in the calculations . it is interesting to note from fig . 10 that the non - resonant interaction @xmath30 enhances strongly these amplitudes at low @xmath6 , but much less at high @xmath6 .    from the results(solid curves ) shown in fig . 10 and eqs . ( [ rema ] ) and ( [ rsma ] ) , we obtain the the @xmath6-dependence of the e2/m1 ratio and c2/m1 ratio for the dressed @xmath1 transition . the results are shown in fig . 11 and table ii . we see that drops significantly with @xmath6 and reaches @xmath188 at @xmath189 ( gev / c)@xmath2 , while remains @xmath190 in the entire considered @xmath6 region . this difference reflects an non - trivial consequence of our dynamical treatment of the non - resonant interaction , as seen in eq.(9 ) . it will be interesting to test our predictions in the entire @xmath6 region . clearly , the q@xmath191 ( gev / c)@xmath2 region is still far away from the perturbative qcd region where is expected to approach unity @xcite . the dressed @xmath1 vertex defined by eq . ( [ vertg ] ) can be cast into the form of eq . ( [ vertgd ] ) at the resonance energy @xmath106 mev . this allows us to extract the dressed m1 form factor @xmath192 from our results and compare it with the bare form factor @xmath193 of eq . ( [ vertgd ] ) . this is shown in fig . 12 where we measure their @xmath6-dependence against the proton dipole form factor @xmath180 defined in eq.([frmdip ] ) . we see that both bare and dressed m1 form factors drop faster than the proton form factor . the difference between the solid and dotted curves is due to the non - resonant term(see eq . ( [ vertg ] ) ) which can be interpreted as the effect due to the pion cloud around the bare quark core . this meson cloud effect accounts for about 40 @xmath3 of the dressed form factor at @xmath5 , but becomes much weaker at high @xmath6 . this implies that the future data at higher q@xmath2 will be more effective in exploring the structure of the bare quark core which can be identified with the current hadron models , as discussed in ref.@xcite .    with the @xmath1 form factors given by eqs . ( [ frmd])-([frme ] ) , we then can test our model by comparing our predictions with the data at other values of @xmath6 . we first consider the mit - bates data@xcite at @xmath194 ( gev / c)@xmath2 . in fig . 13 , we show the results(solid curves ) for @xmath195 which is defined as(see eq.(26 ) ) @xmath196 in the same figure , we also show the results(dotted curves ) from setting @xmath197 for the bare @xmath198 vertex(eq . ( [ vertgd ] ) ) . the differences between the solid and dotted curves indicate the accuracy needed to extract these two quantities of the bare @xmath1 transition within our model .    clearly , our predictions are close to the data at @xmath199 , 1.232 gev . the result at @xmath991.292 gev appears to disagree with the data . however our model is expected to be insufficient at this higher energy , as already seen in the results figs . 3 - 4 for photoproduction . it is necessary to extend our model to include additional reaction mechanisms such as the @xmath200 transition and higher mass nucleon resonances .    in fig . 14 , we compare our results(solid curve ) with the data for @xmath201_{\theta_\pi=180 ^ 0 } ,   \label{rtt}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath202 and @xmath203 are the momenta for the pion and photon in the @xmath10 center of mass frame . in the same figure , we also show the results(dotted curve ) obtained from neglecting the nonresonant interaction @xmath30 which renormalizes the @xmath1 vertex and generate non - resonant amplitude @xmath204 , as seen in eqs . ( [ tmatt ] ) , ( [ tmatg ] ) and ( [ vertg ] ) . the importance of the non - resonant interaction is evident . our predictions reproduce the position of the @xmath8 peak which is shifted significantly by the non - resonant interaction , but underestimate the magnitude at the peak by about 15 @xmath3 .    in fig . 15 , we present our results for the the induced proton polarization @xmath205 for @xmath206 and the polarization vector @xmath207 perpendicular to the momentum of the recoiled proton . the data at @xmath991232 mev is also from the measurement at mit - bates . our model clearly only agrees with the data in sign , but not in magnitude . more experimental data for this observable are needed to test the energy - dependence of our predictions . the results shown in figs . 13 - 15 are from the calculations using the @xmath8 form factors given by eqs . ( [ frmd])-([frme ] ) and fitted to the data at @xmath208 0 , 2.8 , 4.0 ( gev / c)@xmath2 . the chosen parameterization is rather arbitrary and there is no strong reason to believe it should give reliable predictions for the @xmath8 form factors at the considered @xmath194 ( gev / c)@xmath2 . we therefore have explored whether the discrepancies seen in figs . 13 - 15 can be removed by adjusting @xmath163 and @xmath164 for the bare @xmath1 transition . it turns out that we are not able to improve our results . it is necessary to also modify the nonresonant amplitude @xmath45 . we will discuss possible improvements in the next section .    in fig . 16 , we compare our predictions with some of the bonn data@xcite at @xmath209 , 0.75 gev / c@xmath2 . our predictions are in good agreement with these data , but these data have large errors . the new high - accuracy data@xcite from jlab in this @xmath6 region will give a more critical test of our predictions . for the forthcoming inclusive @xmath210 data from nikhef , we also have made the predictions at q@xmath2=0.11 ( gev / c)@xmath2 for two polarization observables @xmath211 and @xmath212 which are clearly defined by eqs . ( 2.25b ) and ( 2.25c ) of ref.@xcite . our predictions(solid curves ) are given in fig . the dotted curves are from setting the @xmath137 multipole amplitudes @xmath213 and @xmath214 to zero . this gives an estimate of the required experimental accuracy in using the forthcoming data of @xmath211 and @xmath212 to extract these two amplitudes which contain information about @xmath176 and @xmath167 of the @xmath1 transition . in this work , we have extended the dynamical model developed in ref.@xcite to investigate th pion electroproduction reactions . the model is first refined at the @xmath5 photon point by taking into account the recent pion photoproduction data from mainz@xcite . it is found that the extracted m1 strength @xmath120 and e2 strength @xmath121 of the bare @xmath1 vertex are identical to that determined in ref.@xcite . by using the long wave length limit , we then obtain @xmath215 for the charge form factor of the bare @xmath1 transition .    for the investigation of pion electroproduction , we follow the previous work to define the form factor at each photon vertex in the non - resonant interaction @xmath30 illustrated in fig . 2 . at each value of @xmath6 , the @xmath1 transition strengths @xmath193 , @xmath177 and @xmath164 are the only free parameters in our calculations . we find that the recent @xmath160 data at @xmath208 2.8 , 4 ( gev / c)@xmath2 from jlab@xcite , and at @xmath194 ( gev / c)@xmath2 from mit - bates@xcite can be described to a very large extent if the bare @xmath1 form factors defined by eqs . ( [ frmd])-([frme ] ) are used in the calculations . it is found that the remaining discrepancies can not be resolved by only adjusting these @xmath8 form factors . we focus on the investigation of the @xmath6-dependence of the @xmath8 excitation mechanism . it is found that the non - resonant interactions can dress the @xmath1 vertex to enhance strongly its strength at low @xmath6 , but much less at high @xmath6(fig . the determined c2/m1 ratio ( ) drops significantly with @xmath6 and reaches @xmath188 at @xmath189 ( gev / c)@xmath2 , while the e2/m1 ratio ( ) remains at @xmath4 of the value at the @xmath5 photon point(fig . 11 and table ii ) . the determined m1 form factor drops faster than the usual dipole form factor of the proton(fig . this is in agreement with the previous findings@xcite . to end , we turn to discussing possible future developments within our formulation . the model we developed in ref.@xcite and applied in this work is defined by the effective hamiltonian eq . ( [ hamile ] ) . it is derived from using a unitary transformation method up to second order in the vertex interaction @xmath23(eq . ( [ hamili ] ) ) . we further assume that the @xmath10 and @xmath27 reactions can be described within a subspace @xmath216 . from the point of view of the general hamiltonian eqs . ( [ hamilt])-([hamili ] ) , which can be identified@xcite with a hadron model , our model is clearly just a starting model . for this reason , no attempt is made here to adjust the parameters of the non - resonant interaction @xmath30 to perform a @xmath217fit to the electroproduction data . to resolve the remaining discrepancies between our predictions and the data , it is necessary to improve our model in several directions .    to improve our results in the higher energy region(figs . 3 - 4,13 ) , we need to include the coupling with other reaction channels . an obvious step is to extend the effective hamiltonian eq . ( [ hamile ] ) to include the transitions to @xmath218 , @xmath219 and @xmath220 states and to include some higher mass @xmath7 states . the resulting scattering equations will be more complex than what are given in ref.@xcite and outlined in eqs . ( [ tmatt])-([self ] ) . in particular , it will have the @xmath221 cut structure due to the @xmath222 decay in the @xmath219 channel and the @xmath223 decay in the @xmath220 channel . this @xmath221 cut must be treated exactly in any attempt to explore the structure of @xmath7 resonances . this was well recognized in the early investigations@xcite and must be pursued in a dynamical approach . the second necessary improvement is to use more realistic form factors in defining the photon vertices of non - resonant interaction @xmath30 . the prescription eq . ( [ formv ] ) must be relaxed . in particular we should use a form factor @xmath224 predicted from a calculation which accounts for the off - mass - shell properties of the exchange pion in fig . 2 . similarly , the vector meson form factor @xmath66(eq . ( [ coupv ] ) ) must also be improved since the exchanged vector meson is also off its mass - shell . the improvement in this direction could be possible in the near future , since the calculations for such off - mass - shell form factors can now be performed within some qcd models of light mesons@xcite .              c. mertz et al.,to be published ; + t. botto and c. papanicolas , proceedings of 16th international conference on few - body problems in physics , 6 - 10 march , 1999 , taipei , taiwan , to be published ; + a.m. bernstein , seventh conference on the intersection between particle and nuclear physics , cinanp 2000 , quebec , canada , to be published . .helicity amplitude @xmath136 and e2/m1 ratio for the @xmath1 transition at @xmath5 photon point . @xmath136 is in unit of @xmath225 and in % . the references are : a(this work ) , b(@xcite ) , c(@xcite ) , d(@xcite ) , e(@xcite ) , f(@xcite ) , g(@xcite ) . [ cols="<,^,^,^,^ , < " , ]
Abstract:

Answer: the dynamical model developed in [ phys . rev . c * 54 * , 2660 ( 1996 ) ] has been applied to investigate the pion electroproduction reactions on the nucleon . it is found that the model can describe to a very large extent the recent data of @xmath0 reaction from jefferson laboratory and mit - bates . the extracted magnetic dipole(m1 ) , electric dipole(e2 ) , and coulomb(c2 ) strengths of the @xmath1 transition are presented . it is found that the c2/m1 ratio drops significantly with q@xmath2 and reaches about -13@xmath3 at q@xmath2=4 ( gev / c)@xmath2 , while the e2/m1 ratio remains close to the value @xmath4 at the @xmath5 photon point . the determined m1 transition form factor drops faster than the usual dipole form factor of the proton . we also find that the non - resonant interactions can dress the @xmath1 vertex to enhance strongly its strength at low @xmath6 , but much less at high @xmath6 . predictions are presented for future experimental tests . possible developments of the model are discussed .


Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: model predictive control ( mpc ) is a consolidated control technique that can efficiently handle constraints on the process to be controlled . nevertheless , its application is not yet widespread in many domains where real - time computational constraints and requirements of certified solutions are of major concern , such as aerospace or automotive applications . there is a growing interest in both industry and academia for exploring parallel solutions to mpc problems  ( @xcite ) , especially in light of the emerging many - core architectures , aiming to improve the computational efficiency of solving the underlying optimization problem . * contribution*. in this paper , we explore the use of parallelization techniques to efficiently solve a typical mpc problem for a linear discrete - time system , with a substantial computational speedup compared to nonparallel implementations . our proposed algorithm combines the use of alternating direction method of multipliers ( admms  @xcite , @xcite ) to handle the coupling constraints that arise from the dynamics of the system and inexact solvers ( i.e. , solvers that guarantee feasibility and optimality only _ asymptotically _ with the number of iterations ) , such as the nesterov s dual fast gradient ( dfg ) method  @xcite . in particular , the first step of the proposed algorithm is to split the original mpc problem over the length @xmath0 of the prediction horizon into @xmath1 independent subproblems ( _ time - splitting _ @xcite ) solved by @xmath1 parallel _ workers _ periodically exchanging information at predetermined synchronization points . then , the second step is to solve these subproblems in parallel using an inexact solver and guarantee , at the same time , that the solution of the original mpc problem is _ recursively feasible _ and the system is _ closed - loop stable_. the combination of parallelization and inexact solvers can result in infeasibility and closed - loop instability . we rely on an algorithm based on constraint tightening to overcome these issues . loosely speaking , constraint - tightening algorithms solve an alternative problem in which the constraints have been tightened by a certain amount to compensate for the accuracy loss ( and possible related infeasibility ) introduced by the solver . we rely on an _ adaptive _ tightening strategy to select an appropriate amount of tightening for our algorithm . every time new measurements are available from the plant , our algorithm chooses the amount of tightening required for each subproblem in order to compensate for the error introduced by the time - splitting combined with the inexact solver .    * related work*. the _ time - splitting _ technique has been proposed in  @xcite . in contrast to  @xcite , we combine admm with inexact solvers and focus on the requirements for recursive feasibility and closed - loop stability of the original problem . other constraint - tightening schemes have been proposed in the literature ( outside the parallel framework ) . for example , the authors in  @xcite propose an algorithm in which the amount of tightening is chosen offline to guarantee suboptimality and feasibility of the solution for all the initial states of the mpc problem . solutions based on adaptive constraint tightening have been recently proposed in @xcite , where the tightening parameter is chosen adaptively . compared to  @xcite , our tightening update rule allows for a nonuniform amount of tightening ( the tightening varies along the prediction horizon ) . furthermore , thanks to the modular structure of our approach , the optimizer solves simpler problems of fixed dimension , which is independent from @xmath0 . as a consequence , an increase of @xmath0 does not affect the conditioning of the problem and the convergence of the solver . hence , our approach leads to a performance improvement even when forcing full serialization of the parallel operations ( i.e. , _ serialized _ mode  @xcite ) .    _ * outline*_. in the following , section  [ sec : problem_formulation ] presents the initial problem formulation . section  [ sec : subproblem_reformulation ] introduces the auxiliary subproblems and our proposed solver . section  [ sec : tightening_improvements ] describes our strategy to select the tightening of each subproblem to handle the parallelization error . section  [ sec : closed_loop_certification ] proposes an online update strategy of the tightening parameters that guarantees recursive feasibility , suboptimality , and closed - loop stability . section  [ sec : evaluation ] presents numerical results using an academic example . finally , section  [ sec : conclusion ] concludes the paper . _ * notation*_. for @xmath2 , @xmath3 is the euclidean norm and @xmath4_+$ ] is the projection onto non - negative orthant @xmath5 . given a matrix @xmath6 , @xmath7_i$ ] denotes the @xmath8-th row of a and @xmath7_{i , j}$ ] the entry @xmath9 of a. furthermore , @xmath10 is the vector of ones in @xmath11 and @xmath12 the identity matrix in @xmath13 . in addition , @xmath14 and @xmath15 denote the largest and the smallest ( modulus ) eigenvalues of the matrix a , respectively . @xmath16 denotes that @xmath17 is positive definite . consider the discrete - time linear system described below : @xmath18 where @xmath19 denotes the state of the system and @xmath20 denotes the control input . the sets @xmath21 and @xmath22 are simple proper convex sets ( i.e. , convex sets that contain the origin in their interior ) . our goal is to steer @xmath23 to the origin and satisfy the plant constraints . we use mpc to achieve these objectives . in this respect , consider the following finite - time optimal control problem :    [ eq : initial_problem ] @xmath24    where @xmath25 and @xmath26 are more compact notations for @xmath23 and @xmath27 , respectively . for @xmath28 ( @xmath0 denotes the prediction horizon ) , the states and the control inputs are constrained in the polyhedral set described by  , where @xmath29 , @xmath30 , @xmath31 . note that can include constraints on the state only , i.e. , @xmath32 , and/or constraints on the control inputs only , i.e. , @xmath33 . in  , @xmath34 and @xmath35 . our problem formulation considers also a terminal cost @xmath36 associated with a terminal polyhedral set @xmath37 .    through the remaining of the paper , we assume :    [ ass : stabilizability ] the pair @xmath38 is stabilizable . [ ass : terminalset ] suppose assumption  [ ass : stabilizability ] holds . given the gain @xmath39 obtained by the infinite - horizon linear quadratic regulator ( ih - lqr)characterized by the matrices @xmath6 , @xmath40 , @xmath41 , and @xmath42the following holds : @xmath43 in addition , the terminal penalty @xmath44 in the stage cost   is defined by the solution of the algebraic riccati equation associated with the ih - lqr . in general , the mpc controller solves the optimization problem   every time new measurements are available from the plant and returns an optimal sequence of states and control inputs that minimizes the cost  . let the optimal sequence be defined as follows : @xmath45 only the first element of @xmath46 is implemented in closed - loop , i.e. , the control law obtained using the mpc controller is given by : @xmath47 and the closed - loop system is described by @xmath48      we aim to solve problem   in parallel . hence , we exploit a similar approach as the one proposed in  @xcite . specifically , as in  @xcite , problem   is decomposed along the length of the prediction horizon @xmath0 into @xmath1 independent subproblems to be solved by @xmath1 _ parallel workers _ @xmath49 ( @xmath50 ) . each @xmath49 is allowed to communicate with its neighbours @xmath51 and @xmath52 at predefined synchronization points . the decomposition is possible thanks to the introduction of @xmath0 auxiliary variables @xmath53 used to break the dynamic coupling that arises from  . these @xmath54 can be seen as the global variables of the algorithm . in particular , each @xmath54 stores the local predicted state @xmath55 of each subproblem and exchanges this stored information to guarantee consensus between neighboring subproblems , i.e. , to ensure that the predicted state of the @xmath56-th subproblem , namely @xmath57 , is equal to the current state of the @xmath58-st subproblem , namely @xmath59 . specifically , by introducing the _ consensus constraints _ @xmath60 , defining @xmath61^t$ ] , @xmath62 $ ] , @xmath63 $ ] , @xmath64 problem   becomes :    [ eq : consensus_problem ] @xmath65    where , defining @xmath66^t$ ] :    * @xmath67 , where @xmath68 . * @xmath69 , @xmath70 , . * @xmath71 , where @xmath72 .    furthermore , @xmath73 and @xmath74 vary for each subproblem as follows :    * @xmath75 $ ] and @xmath76 , @xmath77 . * @xmath78 $ ] and @xmath79 . note that we introduced a quadratic penalty in the cost of the form @xmath80 , according to the admm strategy  @xcite . this penalty has no impact on the cost of the original problem  , if the consensus constraints are satisfied .    in the following , we introduce the subproblems that derive from problem  . let @xmath81 ( @xmath28 ) and @xmath82 ( @xmath83 ) be the lagrange multipliers associated with the equality constraints   and  , respectively . then , let the augmented lagrangian with respect to the multipliers @xmath81 and @xmath84 be defined as follows : @xmath85.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence , we obtain the following @xmath1 independent subproblems , called _ original _ subproblems , associated with the @xmath1 workers @xmath49 ( @xmath50 ) : @xmath86      figure  [ fig : steps ] summarizes the main steps that lead to a suboptimal solution of the aforementioned problem and introduces the keywords used in the remaining of the paper . consider the mpc problem   and refer to this problem as the _ original _ mpc problem . the first step ( _ parallelization _ , detailed in section  [ subsec : parallelization ] ) is to rewrite the original problem in @xmath1 independent subproblems ( the _ original _ subproblems ) . the aim is to use a dual fast gradient ( dfg ) method to solve these subproblems in order to certify  in terms of suboptimality and recursive primal feasibility , along with closed - loop stability  the mpc solution . the use of the inexact solver will eventually cause a violation of the consensus constraints  - introduced to define the subproblems  . hence , the second step ( _ relaxation equality constraints _ detailed in section  [ subsec : equality_relaxation ] ) is introduced to relax the consensus constraints by a quantity indicates that @xmath87 varies along the prediction horizon . this also holds for the later - defined @xmath88 , @xmath89 , and @xmath90 . ] @xmath87 , preventing the occurrence of consensus - constraint violations . we refer to these subproblems as the _ equality relaxed _ ( er ) subproblems . the set of inequality constraints of the er subproblems includes the inequality constraints of the original subproblems   and the inequality constraints due to the relaxation of the consensus constraints  - . the third step ( _ definition tightening parameters _ detailed in sections  [ subsec : up_lagrange_multiplier ] ,  [ sec : tightening_improvements ] , and  [ sec : closed_loop_certification ] ) is required to address the following remaining issues . first , the solution of each er subproblem computed by the dual fast gradient method might violate the inequality constraints , due to the termination of the solver after a finite number of iterations . hence , the constraints of the er subproblems must be tightened by a quantity @xmath88 proportional to the desired level of suboptimality @xmath90 chosen by the algorithm . second , due to the relaxation of the consensus constraints , the _ consolidated _ prediction , i.e. , the predicted evolution of the state computed ( a posteriori ) using the control sequence obtained by the independent subproblems , might deviate from the predicted _ local _ solution computed by the independent subproblems and , eventually , violate the inequality constraints of the original problem . hence , an additional tightening ( dependent on @xmath87 ) must be introduced on the subset of inequality constraints of the er subproblems that corresponds to the original inequality constraints . the proposed algorithm addresses the aforementioned issues by exploiting the _ inequality tightened _ ( it ) subproblems . the it subproblems differ from the er subproblems in the definition of the feasibility region , which is tightened by a quantity @xmath91 that depends on both @xmath88 and @xmath87 . the last step ( _ set solver accuracy _ ) selects a suboptimality level @xmath90 for each subproblem , that guarantees a primal feasible and suboptimal solution for the original mpc problem within a fixed number of iterations . in the following , we introduce the er subproblems and the proposed algorithm to solve them using @xmath1 parallel workers . furthermore , we introduce an initial formulation of the it subproblems and derive conditions on the choice of the relaxation and tightening parameters to guarantee primal feasible and suboptimal solutions for of each subproblem . our goal is to obtain a solution for problem   by solving the independent subproblems   in parallel using inexact solvers , such as the nesterov s dfg  @xcite . in order to use our proposed solver ( introduced in section  [ sec : alg1 ] ) , which relies on first - order methods , we introduce a reformulation of problem   to take into account that the constraints   and   can not be satisfied at the equality due to the iterative nature of the proposed solver and its asymptotic convergence properties . in particular , introducing the relaxation parameters @xmath92 , for each subproblem ( @xmath28 ) , the former equality constraints  - are replaced by the following inequality constraints :      or , in a more compact notation : @xmath94 where @xmath95 and @xmath96 .    in the remaining of the paper , we consider the following _ equality relaxed _ ( er ) subproblems : @xmath97 hence , let @xmath98^t\in \mathbb r^{p_{\xi_t}}_+$ ] be the lagrange multiplier associated with the new set of inequality constraints defined by  , where @xmath99 , @xmath100 @xmath101 , @xmath102 , and @xmath103 are the multipliers associated with the constraints  ,  ,  ,  , and  , respectively . then , to handle the complicated constraints  , define , for each subproblem , the dual function @xmath104 as follows : @xmath105 where @xmath106 . we refer to as the _ inner subproblem_. hence , we aim to solve the following dual subproblems ( _ outer subproblem _ ) in parallel to obtain a solution for problem  : @xmath107    [ rem : modularity ] the size of the er subproblems remains unaffected if @xmath0 increases . intuitively , this _ modularity _ is an additional feature that can be exploited to preserve some favorable numerical properties of the problem ( e.g. , conditioning , lipschitz constant , etc . ) even when the algorithm is running in serialized mode . this section introduces algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] that we use to solve the mpc problem   exploiting @xmath1 parallel workers @xmath49 . note that , at this stage , we can not yet ensure that the computed solution is feasible and suboptimal for problem  . algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] relies on nesterov s dfg in which the inner problem is solved in an admm fashion , as explained below . specifically ,  at each iteration of the algorithm_{1:n}=x_0 $ ] and @xmath108 to initialize algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] . ] , @xmath49 computes a minimizer @xmath109 for @xmath110 ( steps 1 - 4 ) , i.e. , the algorithm returns a solution for each inner subproblem  . in particular , our algorithm , in compliance with the admm strategy , first minimizes @xmath111 with respect to @xmath112 in parallel for each subproblem ( step 1 ) . then , using the information received by @xmath52 , i.e. , the updated value of @xmath113 ( synchronization step 2 ) , our algorithm computes  in parallel for each subproblem  the value of the global variable @xmath54 according to the following rule ( step 3 ) : @xmath114 note that this strategy allows to handle the coupling introduced by the 2-norm in the cost function of  . then , ( synchronization step 4 ) @xmath49 receives ( sends ) the updated value of @xmath115 ( @xmath116 ) from @xmath52 ( to @xmath117 ) , respectively . finally , the worker  @xmath49 computes the new values of the multipliers @xmath118 ( steps 5 - 7 ) . we compute offline ( for each subproblem ) the lipschitz constant @xmath119 associated with @xmath120 to perform the multipliers update :    * @xmath121 . * @xmath122 , ( @xmath70 ) . * @xmath123 . [ sec : alg1 ]     of algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] . ] note that our update rule is different from the one proposed in  @xcite , where admm is used in combination with nesterov s fast gradient methods . at each iteration , the algorithm proposed in  @xcite , first computes the exact minimizer @xmath112 and then updates @xmath124 and @xmath84 . our algorithm does not wait until the dfg returns a minimizer @xmath112 to update the multipliers @xmath124 and @xmath84 , but starts updating their values along with the dfg iterations , encouraging the information exchange between neighboring subproblems . this algorithm is also different from the one proposed in  @xcite . in particular , the workers exchange the necessary pieces of information before the update of the lagrange multipliers and none of the dual variables is exchanged between the neighboring workers . furthermore , the information exchange between neighboring workers is unidirectional , i.e. , @xmath52 sends the updated information to @xmath49 , but @xmath49 does not send any updated information to @xmath52 .    using an argument similar to the one of theorem 1 in  @xcite , we can compute the primal feasibility violation and the level of suboptimality of the solution of each er subproblem returned by algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] . [ thm : thm1 ] ( @xcite ) let @xmath125 be strongly convex , the sequences ( @xmath126 , @xmath127 , @xmath128 ) be generated by algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] , and @xmath129 . then , an estimate on the primal feasibility violation for the er subproblem   is given by the following : @xmath130_+\|\le \frac{8r_{t}{\max\{l_{\mu_t}\}}}{(k+1)^2}=:\eta_t,\ ] ] where @xmath131 . moreover , an estimate on primal suboptimality is given by the following : @xmath132    algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] terminates after a fixed number of iterations that depends on @xmath90 and @xmath133  @xcite : @xmath134      in order to guarantee the primal feasibility of each subproblem using algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] , we introduce @xmath1 auxiliary subproblems , namely the _ inequality tightened _ ( it ) subproblems , which differ from the er subproblems   in the definition of the feasible region . in particular , each it subproblem can be defined as follows : @xmath135 where @xmath136 is the tightening parameter , which depends on the suboptimality level  @xmath90 that the proposed algorithm can reach within @xmath137 iterations  . according to  @xcite , solving   using algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] ensures , with a proper choice of @xmath88 , that the solution of   is primal feasible and suboptimal for subproblem  .    to define an @xmath88 similar to the one introduced in  @xcite , we must compute an upper bound for the optimal lagrange multiplier , namely @xmath138 , associated with the it subproblem  . we use an argument similar to the one of lemma 1 in  @xcite . in particular , we compute the aforementioned upper bound for @xmath138 according to the following lemma .    [ lem : lemma_up_bound ] assume that there exists a slater vector @xmath139 such that @xmath140 . then , there exists @xmath141 , @xmath142 , @xmath143 , such that the upper bound for @xmath138 is given by @xmath144_j\}}},\ ] ] where @xmath145 [ 2\rho(\epsilon_{z_t}-\epsilon_t)\operatorname{\mathbf{1}}_{n}^t ] [ 2\rho(\epsilon_{z_{t+1}}-\epsilon_t)\operatorname{\mathbf{1}}_{n}^t]\big]^t\in \mathbb r^{p_t+2n}$ ] , and @xmath146 is the dual function for the original subproblem   evaluated at @xmath147 .    see appendix  [ app : lemma1 ] . see appendix i in  @xcite . lemma  [ lem : lemma_up_bound ] does not only provide an upper bound for @xmath148 , but it also provides guidelines to select the values of @xmath149 and @xmath150 as a function of @xmath151 , which only depends on the primal variable @xmath152 . an alternative way to determine the relaxation parameters is to include @xmath149 and @xmath150 in the set of decision variables and penalize them in the cost function as it is usually done to handle soft constraints . this will , however , increase the number of decision variables in the problem formulation and it will have an impact on the original cost . , the blue color refers to subproblem handled by worker  @xmath153 , etc . ) . ] the previous section showed how to choose the tightening parameter @xmath88 of each it subproblem to ensure that the @xmath154-th _ local _ solution , i.e. , the solution computed by the @xmath154-th it subproblem  , is primal feasible for the @xmath154-th er subproblem . this section provides guidelines to improve the choice of the tightening parameter of each it subproblem   in order to guarantee the primal feasibility of the _ consolidated _  solution , i.e. , the predictions obtained , starting from the initial state @xmath155 , using the control sequence @xmath156 where the elements of @xmath157 are computed by the independent it subproblems  . in particular , when a new measurement is available from the plant , the subsystems   compute in parallel @xmath158 @xmath159,@xmath160 and @xmath161 , respectively . according to the results of the previous section , the pair @xmath162 is primal feasible for the @xmath154-th subproblem  , thanks to the introduction of the it subproblems . nevertheless , due to the relaxation introduced on the equality constraints  - , there is a bounded mismatch between @xmath57 and @xmath59 ( @xmath28 ) . hence , starting from the initial state @xmath155 , when the control sequence @xmath163 is applied to compute the consolidated state prediction   @xmath164 the feasibility of @xmath165 is no longer guaranteed . note , however , that @xmath166 , i.e. , @xmath157 is feasible . hence , no additional tightening is needed on the input constraints .    in the following , section  [ subsec : upbound ] defines an upper bound on the maximal feasibility violation of @xmath165 . this feasibility violation is a consequence of the local relaxations of the equality constraints . then , section  [ subsec : improve_tightening ] introduces sufficient conditions to ensure the primal feasibility of the _ consolidated _  prediction and provides guidelines for the choice of the tightening parameters for each it subproblem . let @xmath168 and @xmath169 be defined by   and  , respectively . moreover , from   and  , the following holds : @xmath170 our goal is to characterize how far the _ consolidated _  predicted state is from the _ local _  predicted state . [ lem : upper_bound_global_prediction ] let the @xmath154-step - ahead _ consolidated _  prediction @xmath171 be defined by   and assume that   holds . then , there exists @xmath172 , such that the mismatch between @xmath171 and the state of the @xmath154-th subproblem @xmath173 is bounded , as follows : @xmath174 . see appendix  ii in  @xcite . [ rem : after_lemma_2_a ] according to lemma  [ lem : upper_bound_global_prediction ] a possible choice of @xmath175 is the following : @xmath176      according to lemma  [ lem : upper_bound_global_prediction ] , @xmath171 differs from @xmath173 by a quantity bounded by @xmath175 . thus , @xmath171 might violate the constraints of the @xmath154-th subproblem   by as much as @xmath175 , in the worst - case scenario . in particular , we must ensure that @xmath177 . using the computed upper bound  , the following holds : @xmath178 where @xmath179 indicates the absolute value of @xmath180 . recall that these mismatches are caused by the use of inexact solvers and that @xmath175 depends on @xmath87 . in the following , we provide guidelines to improve the choice of @xmath88 for each subproblem . furthermore , we provide a modified upper bound for the optimal lagrange multiplier associated with the tightened subproblems  , which considers the additional tightening introduced by @xmath175 . [ lem : improve_epsilon_t ] consider the following it subproblems : @xmath181 for @xmath182 , where @xmath89@xmath183@xmath184  @xmath185^t$ ] . consider the assumptions of lemma  [ lem : lemma_up_bound ] and the existence of @xmath175 for all @xmath83 according to lemma  [ lem : upper_bound_global_prediction ] . then , for each subproblem , there exist @xmath141 , @xmath186 such that the upper bound for the optimal lagrange multiplier associated with the it subproblems   is described by @xmath187_j\}}},~{\ensuremath{t\!=\!0,\ldots , n}},\ ] ] @xmath188 [ 2\rho ( \epsilon_{z_{t}}-\epsilon_t)\mathbf{1}_n^t ] [ 2\rho(\epsilon_{z_{t+1}}-\epsilon_t)\mathbf{1}_n^t]\big]^t\in \mathbb r^{p_t+2n}$ ] . see appendix  [ app : lemma3 ] . see appendix  iii in  @xcite . [ rem : after_lemma_3 ] the choice of @xmath88 ( @xmath182 ) is not unique and depends on the choice of @xmath87 ( @xmath83 ) . for example , given @xmath175 in  , a possible choice of @xmath87 ( @xmath83 ) is : @xmath189_{j , i}|\big\}}}}\!\bigg\}. \label{eq : choice_epsilon_z}\end{aligned}\ ] ] consequently , the tightening parameters are given by : @xmath190 for @xmath182 . this choice implies that first we select the relaxation parameters and then we _ adapt _ the tightening parameters on the original inequality constraints based on the choice of @xmath87 for all @xmath83 . an alternative is to fix @xmath88 for the inequality constraints and consequently compute @xmath87 . in general , the choice of the parameters strongly depends on the system - state matrix @xmath6 in  . [ rem : offline_computation_parameters ] in the context of this work , algorithm  [ alg : alg2 ] , described in the next section , adapts the above derived parameters at each problem instance . if we consider a fixed tightening scheme , such as the one proposed by  @xcite , @xmath191 and @xmath87 can be computed offline ( for all the initial states in the region of attraction ) .    in the following , we show that by using @xmath192@xmath193 is the control sequence obtained by solving the it subproblems   and @xmath194 is the corresponding consolidated prediction  the inequality constraints of the original mpc problem   are satisfied . consequently , the predicted final state is in the terminal set of the original problem . if the desired level of suboptimality of algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] is chosen as : @xmath195 then , according to theorem  [ thm : thm1 ] , there exists @xmath196^t$ ] such that @xmath197_+\| \leq\eta_t<\epsilon_t$ ] . using similar arguments as in  @xcite , the following holds for @xmath182 : @xmath198_+<\epsilon_t\operatorname{\mathbf{1}}_{p_t+4n}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] hence , for all @xmath199 , the following holds @xmath200_j\bigg]_+\leq \epsilon_t.\end{aligned}\ ] ] consequently , exploiting the upper bound  , for all @xmath199 , we have : @xmath201_j\leq \epsilon_t\end{aligned}\ ] ] which leads to @xmath202 , where @xmath203 is the @xmath154-step - ahead _ consolidated _  prediction computed using the solution to the it subproblem   with tighening parameter @xmath89 .    in summary , this section showed that there exists a choice of the relaxation and tightening parameters that guarantee a feasible consolidated prediction with respect to the original problem  . in the following , we derive bounds for @xmath204 , i.e. , the cost obtained using @xmath192 , with respect to the optimal cost @xmath205 of the original problem . [ th : theorem2 ] assuming that there exist @xmath88 ( @xmath182 ) and @xmath87 ( @xmath83 ) selected according to lemma  [ lem : improve_epsilon_t ] , then the following holds : @xmath206 where @xmath207_{j , i}|\big\}}}\alpha_t$ ] . see appendix  [ app : proof_theorem_2 ] . see appendix iv in  @xcite . theorem  [ th : theorem2 ] established the level of suboptimality of the consolidated prediction with respect to the original problem . in particular , the sequence @xmath208 is suboptimal for the original problem and satisfies the original inequality constraints ( including those associated with @xmath209 ) . recall that for the update of @xmath210 , our algorithm requires a strictly feasible vector @xmath152 for  . hence , every time new measurements are available from the plant , our algorithm must provide a strictly feasible solution ( not necessarily optimal ) for the first @xmath211 inequality constraints of each er subproblem . the following lemma provides guidelines to compute @xmath152 . [ lem : update_y ] let @xmath212 be defined as @xmath213=[(x_{0}^t~\bar u_{0,\gamma_0}^t)\ldots(\bar x_{n-1,\gamma_{n-1}}^t~\bar u_{n-1,\gamma_{n-1}}^t)~(\bar x_{n,\gamma_n}^t))]^t$ ] . then , a feasible @xmath214 at the next problem instance , is given by : @xmath215}}((a+bk_f)\bar x_{n,\gamma_n})^t]^t \end{aligned}\ ] ]    see appendix  [ app : proof_lemma_update_y ] . see appendix v in  @xcite . we want to show that the cost decreases at each problem instance . using a similar argument as in  @xcite , under assumption  [ ass : terminalset ] on @xmath216 and ensuring that @xmath217 ( thanks to a proper choice of the tightening parameters , as the previous section showed ) , we can show that : @xmath218 where @xmath219 is the region of attraction . hence , from and , the following holds : @xmath220\!\!-\!\!{\ensuremath{\mathbf v}}_{0}(y_{0,\gamma_0})\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath221 , using @xmath222 to represent the updated values of these parameters according to @xmath223 . the inequality above shows that the total cost decreases at each problem instance if @xmath216 is defined according to assumption  [ ass : terminalset ] and if the @xmath0-step - ahead _ consolidated _  prediction lies in the terminal set . asymptotic stability of our controller follows if @xmath224 . hence , we can modify the update of @xmath88 and @xmath87 to ensure that   is satisfied . [ rem : update_z ] a possible choice of @xmath87 @xmath225 to fulfill   is the following : @xmath226 @xmath227_{j , i}|\big\}}}\bigg)}\bigg]^{-1}.\notag\end{aligned}\ ] ] consequently , @xmath88 can be selected according to   to preserve the definition of the upper bound on the optimal lagrange multipliers given in lemma  [ lem : improve_epsilon_t ] . algorithm  [ alg : alg2 ] summarizes the main steps needed to obtain a stabilizing control law when the original mpc problem is solved in parallel using inexact solvers . in particular , note that , if the measured state is in @xmath216 , from assumption  [ ass : terminalset ] , the state and the control constraints are automatically satisfied without solving the mpc problem in parallel . steps 17 - 23 are the only nonparallel ones of the algorithm ( algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] is instead fully parallelizable ) . the main reason is in the adaptive nature of the algorithm ( see also remark  [ rem : offline_computation_parameters ] ) . algorithm  [ alg : alg2 ] adapts @xmath88 and @xmath87 every time new measurements are available from the plant . a fully parallel algorithm  [ alg : alg2 ] is possible using a fixed tightening strategy , in which @xmath88 and @xmath87 can be computed offline . we evaluated algorithm  [ alg : alg2 ] using the lti system described in  @xcite . the system ( sampled at @xmath228 s ) is described by : @xmath229 where @xmath230 , @xmath231 , and the quadruple @xmath232 is given by : @xmath233 the weighting matrices @xmath41 , @xmath42 , and @xmath234 in the cost   and the ih - lqr gain @xmath235 are selected according to  @xcite . we implemented our design in matlab ( to tune the controller and test the initial design ) and in c ( to run a performance analysis ) . in particular , in matlab , we used the parallel computing toolbox  to assign the computation of algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] to 8 parallel workers , given a prediction horizon @xmath236 . furthermore , we relied on the mpt3 toolbox  @xcite to compute @xmath216 and the optimal solution of problem  . finally , we compared our design to  @xcite . we considered the following scenario . the initial state of the system is @xmath237^t$ ] . the total number of complicated constraints   for the original problem is 90 . we used   and   to initialize @xmath87 and @xmath191 , respectively . to update them , we relied on   and  . the selected @xmath155 caused @xmath238 and @xmath239 to saturate ( 12 active constraints ) . in this scenario , the state enters @xmath216 in 3 steps . figure  [ fig : upp_bound_alpha ] shows the mismatch between the _ local _  prediction and the _ consolidated _  prediction for one problem instance . as figure  [ fig : upp_bound_alpha ] depicts , the mismatch ( for both states ) is below the predicted upper bound @xmath175 for all the @xmath1 subproblems . table  [ tab : iterations ] compares the proposed technique to  @xcite . the table reports the upper bound @xmath240 on the number of iterations needed to achieve a suboptimal solution for problem   and the level of suboptimality @xmath241 . the table lists only the first four subproblems , which are the most significant due to the presence of active constraints in these subproblems . the method in  @xcite and our new proposed parallel algorithm produce a comparable behavior , thanks to an appropriate selection of the tightening parameters . the parallel algorithm , however , is able to achieve similar results to those in  @xcite using a smaller number of iterations . the larger values of @xmath240 for  @xcite are probably caused by the value of the lipschitz constant and by the problem conditioning , which affect the convergence requiring a higher accuracy for the solver . in particular , in our proposed framework , the dfg is applied to simpler problems characterized , in the worst case scenario , by a lipschitz constant @xmath242 and by a condition number @xmath243 . in  @xcite , the dfg solves a larger problem characterized by a lipschitz constant @xmath244 and by a condition number @xmath245 . hence , the modularity of our approach has positive implications on important properties for the convergence of the solver . table  [ tab : iterations ] lists the time required by the optimizer to return a suboptimal solution for problem  . to measure the performance , we implemented both algorithms in c on a linux - based os . we noticed that given the small size of the problem , running algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] in parallel did not result in significant speedups compared to our algorithm running in serialized mode  @xcite . nevertheless , in both cases , we registered a speedup ( 230x ) compared to  @xcite . the modularity of the proposed algorithm is beneficial even for problems of small size , such as the one considered in this section for the comparison with  @xcite . we expect the benefits to be even more pronounced when considering problems of larger size . .performance analysis of algorithm  [ alg : alg1 ] and  @xcite . results show the median of 11 experiments . [ cols="^ , < , < , < , < , < " , ]     [ tab : iterations ] we proposed an algorithm tailored to mpc that guarantees recursive feasibility and closed - loop stability , when the solution of the mpc problem is computed using inexact solvers in a parallel framework . in particular , our algorithm combines admm and dfg methods and relies on an adaptive constraint - tightening strategy to certify the mpc law . our numerical analysis shows performance improvements compared to state - of - the - art nonparallel techniques  @xcite . furthermore , our study shows that , for small - size problems , even if the solver is implemented in a serialized mode , there is substantial performance improvement with respect to the state of the art . we expect further benefits from the parallelization when the size of the problem increases . a scalability analysis of the proposed algorithm on many - core architectures is part of our ongoing work . this section contains the proof of lemma  [ lem : lemma_up_bound ] presented in section  [ subsec : up_lagrange_multiplier ] . assume that there exists a slater vector @xmath139 such that @xmath140 . then , there exists @xmath246 , @xmath142 , @xmath143 , such that the upper bound on @xmath138 is given by @xmath247_j\}}},\ ] ] where @xmath248 and @xmath146 is the dual function for the original subproblem   evaluated at @xmath147 . the following inequality holds : @xmath249 where the last inequality takes into account that @xmath250 . define @xmath251 and @xmath252 . consequently , using the definition of @xmath253 and @xmath254 , the following holds : @xmath255^t\|.\ ] ] furthermore , recalling that @xmath256 , @xmath257 , and @xmath258 , the following holds : @xmath259^t\|\!\leq\![\lambda_{t,\epsilon_t}^{*t}~w_{t,\epsilon_t}^{*t}~v_{t+1,\epsilon_t}^{*t}]^t\!\!\operatorname{\mathbf{1}}_{p_t+2n}.\ ] ] hence , if we compute an upper bound for the vector @xmath260^t$ ] , we obtain an upper bound for @xmath148 . thus , from the inequality  , it follows that : @xmath261 notice that choosing @xmath262 , @xmath263 , i.e. , according to the assumptions of the lemma , the elements of @xmath264 are all greater than zero . thus , using   and  , it follows : @xmath265_j\}\|\mu_{t,\epsilon_t}^*\| \le\notag \\ \label{eq : lemma_1_proof } & \le \begin{bmatrix } \lambda_{t,\epsilon_t}^ { * } &   w_{t,\epsilon_t}^ { * } & v_{t+1,\epsilon_t}^{*}\end{bmatrix } \gamma_t.\end{aligned}\ ] ] consequently , the upper bound on the optimal lagrange multiplier is given by : @xmath266_j\}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this section contains the proof of lemma  [ lem : upper_bound_global_prediction ] presented in section  [ subsec : upbound ] . let the @xmath154-step - ahead _ consolidated _  prediction @xmath171 be defined by   and assume that   holds . then , there exists @xmath172 , such that the mismatch between @xmath171 and the state of @xmath154-th subproblem @xmath173 is bounded , as follows : @xmath267    in the following , we omit the dependence from @xmath88 to simplify the notation . the proof is constructive . for @xmath268 , @xmath269 . for @xmath270 , @xmath271 , which is the 1-step - ahead state computed by the local subproblem 0 , i.e. , the subproblem associated to worker @xmath272 . hence , the mismatch between @xmath273 and @xmath274 is simply given by @xmath275 for @xmath276 , the following holds : @xmath277 @xmath278 which proves the lemma . this section contains the proof of lemma  [ lem : improve_epsilon_t ] presented in section  [ sec : tightening_improvements ] .    consider the following it subproblems : @xmath279 for @xmath182 , where @xmath89@xmath183@xmath184  @xmath185^t$ ] . given the assumptions of lemma  [ lem : lemma_up_bound ] and the existence of @xmath175 for all @xmath83 according to lemma  [ lem : upper_bound_global_prediction ] . then , for each subproblem , there exist @xmath141 , @xmath186 such that the upper bound on the optimal lagrange multiplier associated with the it subproblems   is described by @xmath187_j\}}},~{\ensuremath{t\!=\!0,\ldots , n}},\ ] ] @xmath280    this lemma follows from lemma  [ lem : lemma_up_bound ] applied to the subproblems  . from inequality   formulated for subproblem  , the following must hold @xmath281 hence , in order to satisfy the inequality above , we can select the relaxation parameters @xmath87 and the tightening parameters @xmath88 according to the assumption of the lemma for @xmath182 , i.e. , the following must hold : @xmath282_{j , i}|\big\}}}\alpha_t+\epsilon_t\\ \text{\it ( ii)~ } & { \ensuremath{\max\limits_{j=1,\ldots , p_t}\!\!\!\big\{\sum_{i=1}^n|[c_{t}]_{j , i}|\big\}}}\alpha_t+\epsilon_t > 0\\ \text{\it ( iii)~}&\epsilon_{z_t},\epsilon_{z_{t+1}}\geq \epsilon_t\geq 0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath152 is a strictly feasible solution for the original @xmath154-th subproblem . hence , there exists @xmath210 such that the upper bound on the optimal lagrange multiplier @xmath283 is defined as follows : @xmath284\}}}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this section contains the proof of theorem  [ th : theorem2 ] presented in section  [ sec : closed_loop_certification ] .    assuming that there exist @xmath88 ( @xmath182 ) and @xmath87 ( @xmath83 ) selected according to lemma  [ lem : improve_epsilon_t ] , then the following holds : @xmath285 where @xmath207_{j , i}|\big\}}}\alpha_t$ ] .    due to the tightening of the original inequality constraints , @xmath286 , given that , as proved in section  [ subsec : improve_tightening ] , the feasible region of the tightened subproblems is inside the one of the original subproblems . recall that the consolidated prediction satisfies the equality constraints   by construction . hence , the following holds : @xmath287\gamma_t\right\rangle\big]\\ \leq & \mathcal v^ * + 2\sum\limits_{t=0}^n\mathcal r_t\sqrt{p_t}(\epsilon_t+\!\!\!{\ensuremath{\max\limits_{j=1,\ldots , p_t}\!\!\!\big\{\sum_{i=1}^n|[c_{t}]_{j , i}|\big\}}}\alpha_t).\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath288\gamma_t$ ] selects the first @xmath211 components of the vector @xmath89 . this section contains the proof of lemma  [ lem : update_y ] presented in section  [ sec : closed_loop_certification ] . let @xmath212 be defined as @xmath213=[(x_{0}^t~\bar u_{0,\gamma_0}^t)\ldots(\bar x_{n-1,\gamma_{n-1}}^t~\bar u_{n-1,\gamma_{n-1}}^t)~(\bar x_{n,\gamma_n}^t))]^t$ ] . then , @xmath214 at the next problem instance , is given by : @xmath289}}((a+bk_f)\bar x_{n,\gamma_n})^t]^t \end{aligned}\ ] ]    we can use a similar argument as the one of lemma 4.2 in  @xcite , recalling that @xmath290 for @xmath28 , @xmath291 for @xmath292 , @xmath293 for @xmath28 , @xmath294 for @xmath292 , and @xmath295 according to assumption  [ ass : terminalset ] . 99 s.  d.  cairano , m.  brand , and s.  a.   bortoff , `` projection - free parallel quadratic programming for linear model predictive control '' . _ international journal of control _ , vol . 86 , no . 8 , pp . 13671385 , 2013 . m.  k " ogel and r.  findeisen , `` parallel solution of model predictive control using the alternating direction multiplier method '' , proc . of the _ ifac conference on nmpc 1 , pp . 369374 , 2012 . s.  boyd et al . `` distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers '' . in  _ foundations and trends@xmath296 in machine learning _ , vol . 1 , pp . 1122 , 2011 . m.  k " ogel and r.  findeisen , `` fast predictive control of linear , time - invariant systems using an algorithm based on the fast gradient method and augmented lagrange multipliers '' , proc . of the _ ieee cca _ , pp .  780785 , 2011 . m. rubagotti , p. patrinos and a. bemporad , `` stabilizing linear model predictive control under inexact numerical optimization '' , in _ ieee trans . on automatic control _ , 59 , no . 6 , pp . 16601666 , 2014 . i.  necoara , l.  ferranti , and t.  keviczky , `` an adaptive tightening approach to linear model predictive control based on approximation algorithms for optimization '' , _ optimal control applications and methods _ , doi : 10.1002/oca.2121 , http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/oca.2121 , to appear in 2015 . 99 s.  d.  cairano , m.  brand , and s.  a.   bortoff , `` projection - free parallel quadratic programming for linear model predictive control '' . _ international journal of control _ , vol . 86 , no . 8 , pp . 13671385 , 2013 . m.  k " ogel and r.  findeisen , `` parallel solution of model predictive control using the alternating direction multiplier method '' , proc . of the _ ifac conference on nmpc 1 , pp . 369374 , 2012 . s.  boyd et al . `` distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers '' . in  _ foundations and trends@xmath296 in machine learning _ 1 , pp . 1122 , 2011 .      m.  k " ogel and r.  findeisen , `` fast predictive control of linear , time - invariant systems using an algorithm based on the fast gradient method and augmented lagrange multipliers '' , proc . of the _ ieee cca _ , pp .  780785 , 2011 . m. rubagotti , p. patrinos and a. bemporad , `` stabilizing linear model predictive control under inexact numerical optimization '' , in _ ieee trans . on automatic control _ , vol . 59 , no . 6 , pp . 16601666 , 2014 . i.  necoara , l.  ferranti , and t.  keviczky , `` an adaptive tightening approach to linear model predictive control based on approximation algorithms for optimization '' , in _ optimal control applications and methods _ , doi : 10.1002/oca.2121 , 2015 .
Abstract:

Answer: we propose a parallel adaptive constraint - tightening approach to solve a linear model predictive control problem for discrete - time systems , based on inexact numerical optimization algorithms and operator splitting methods . the underlying algorithm first splits the original problem in as many independent subproblems as the length of the prediction horizon . then , our algorithm computes a solution for these subproblems in parallel by exploiting auxiliary tightened subproblems in order to certify the control law in terms of suboptimality and recursive feasibility , along with closed - loop stability of the controlled system . compared to prior approaches based on constraint tightening , our algorithm computes the tightening parameter for each subproblem to handle the propagation of errors introduced by the parallelization of the original problem . our simulations show the computational benefits of the parallelization with positive impacts on performance and numerical conditioning when compared with a recent nonparallel adaptive tightening scheme .