Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Can Learning Deteriorate Control? Analyzing Computational Delays in Gaussian Process-Based Event-Triggered Online Learning

Systems and Control · Submitted 14 May 2023

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Based on this result, we propose a novel event trigger for GP-based online learning with computational delays, which we show to offer advantages over offline trained GP models for sufficiently small computation times.

how it is stated · asserted 0.99 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2305.08169 (version 1)
Pith IDTF6DQAEV, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationArmin Lederer, Sandra Hirche, Xiaobing Dai, Zewen Yang. "Can Learning Deteriorate Control? Analyzing Computational Delays in Gaussian Process-Based Event-Triggered Online Learning." arXiv:2305.08169 (2023). https://pith.science/paper/TF6DQAEV
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,503 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.15 · states limitation 0.70 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.76 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.48 · compares with prior results 0.91 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

When the dynamics of systems are unknown, supervised machine learning techniques are commonly employed to infer models from data. Gaussian process (GP) regression is a particularly popular learning method for this purpose due to the existence of prediction error bounds. Moreover, GP models can be efficiently updated online, such that event-triggered online learning strategies can be pursued to ensure specified tracking accuracies. However, existing trigger conditions must be able to be evaluated at arbitrary times, which cannot be achieved in practice due to non-negligible computation times. Therefore, we first derive a delay-aware tracking error bound, which reveals an accuracy-delay trade-off. Based on this result, we propose a novel event trigger for GP-based online learning with computational delays, which we show to offer advantages over offline trained GP models for sufficiently small computation times. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed event trigger for online learning in simulations.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 When the dynamics of systems are unknown, supervised machine learning techniques are commonly employed to infer models from data. background 1.00 0.03 0.01 asserted 0.99
s1 Gaussian process (GP) regression is a particularly popular learning method for this purpose due to the existence of prediction error bounds. background 1.00 0.04 0.02 asserted 1.00
s2 Moreover, GP models can be efficiently updated online, such that event-triggered online learning strategies can be pursued to ensure specified tracking accuracies. background 0.99 0.07 0.03 asserted 0.63
s3 However, existing trigger conditions must be able to be evaluated at arbitrary times, which cannot be achieved in practice due to non-negligible computation times. gap 0.90 0.07 0.03 asserted 1.00
s4 Therefore, we first derive a delay-aware tracking error bound, which reveals an accuracy-delay trade-off. result 0.56 0.96 0.19 asserted 1.00
s5 Based on this result, we propose a novel event trigger for GP-based online learning with computational delays, which we show to offer advantages over offline trained GP models for sufficiently small computation times. contribution 0.92 0.96 0.60 asserted 0.99
s6 Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed event trigger for online learning in simulations. contribution 0.46 0.96 0.17 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 0.97 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.58.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

When the dynamics of systems are unknown, supervised machine learning techniques are commonly employed to infer models from data. Gaussian process (GP) regression is a particularly popular learning method for this purpose due to the existence of prediction error bounds. Moreover, GP models can be efficiently updated online, such that event-triggered online learning strategies can be pursued to ensure specified tracking accuracies. However, existing trigger conditions must be able to be evaluated at arbitrary times, which cannot be achieved in practice due to non-negligible computation times. Therefore, we first derive a delay-aware tracking error bound, which reveals an accuracy-delay trade-off. Based on this result, we propose a novel event trigger for GP-based online learning with computational delays, which we show to offer advantages over offline trained GP models for sufficiently small computation times. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed event trigger for online learning in simulations.

Human review
How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.