TL;DR
This paper develops a sharp input-output analysis framework for nonlinear dynamical systems under adversarial disturbances, extending beyond traditional Gaussian noise assumptions to include correlated, nonzero-mean attacks.
Contribution
It introduces a novel reformulation as a basis function linear combination and proves the effectiveness of an $ ext{l}_2$-norm estimator under adversarial attack probability constraints.
Findings
Estimator's error bound decays with input memory length
Bound is proven optimal through constructed worst-case instances
Framework applies to general nonlinear, partially observed systems
Abstract
This paper is concerned with learning the input-output mapping of general nonlinear dynamical systems. While the existing literature focuses on Gaussian inputs and benign disturbances, we significantly broaden the scope of admissible control inputs and allow correlated, nonzero-mean, adversarial disturbances. With our reformulation as a linear combination of basis functions, we prove that the -norm estimator overcomes the challenges as long as the probability that the system is under adversarial attack at a given time is smaller than a certain threshold. We provide an estimation error bound that decays with the input memory length and prove its optimality by constructing a problem instance that suffers from the same bound under adversarial attacks. Our work provides a sharp input-output analysis for a generic nonlinear and partially observed system under significantly…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
Indeed, quite a bit of work in this area in either on linear systems, or for IID perturbations. So this addresses a novel facet of the sysid problem. The final bound is quite interpretable.
I am fine with most assumptions in the paper, to the extent such assumptions (like spectral radius like condition) are also required in the linear case. However, Assumption 2.8 sticks out like a sore thumb. In general, it is a reasonable expectation that works dealing with adversarial disturbances generalize the stochastic case; for example, this is the case for Simchowitz et al who can handle an oblivious adversary (I can give more example here if needed). But, Assumption 2.8 implies that most
Overall, the paper considers an interesting problem and proposes an effective numerical method.
The presentation of the paper need to be revised based on the comments in the Questions part.
S1: The paper relax the range of control inputs for the task of identifying nonlinear dynamic systems, and require only partial observed outputs, allowing adversarial disturbances with nonzero-mean. S2: The related work of this paper is fully investigated and the research gap in related fields is accurately grasped. Meanwhile, researchers propose the appropriate problem formulation and theoretical analysis. S3: The paper has a clear framework and the writing is fluent. The problem positionin
W1: The outline of your analysis is clear, but some parts lack specific details. Moving some of the reasoning from the appendix to the main body might make this section more readable. W2: In addition to proving that the l2 norm estimation is optimal, the experiment should also compare the effect of partial observation output and full observation output on the error. W3: Some symbols lack interpretation, leading to a reduction in the readability of parts, such as E for Equation (10) and ψ2 for
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
