Data-Driven Multi-step Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Industrial Heavy Load Hydraulic Robot

Bo Zhou; Dexian Ma

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Data-Driven Multi-step Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Industrial Heavy Load Hydraulic Robot

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By combining an offline LSTM-MLP predictor with an online mismatch-correcting network, the paper claims a data-driven NMPC can control both motion and energy use of a 22-ton hydraulic excavator at 50 Hz.

desk verdict A practical data-driven NMPC with real 22-ton excavator validation; the optimizer story is under-supported, but the engineering result is credible and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13859 v1 pith:QCAEVJ7C submitted 2024-11-21 cs.RO

Dexian Ma , Bo Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords data-drivenNMPCnonlinearmodelpredictivecontrolLSTM-MLPpredictiononlinelearninghydraulicexcavatorreal-timeenergymanagementmulti-step

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a data-driven nonlinear model predictive controller can take over the motion and power management of a heavy hydraulic robot, and it demonstrates this on a 22-ton excavator. Instead of building a physics-based model, the controller learns a neural predictor offline from collected motion data and couples it with a small online network that learns prediction mismatches when the machine picks up or drops loads. The predictive model outputs the whole horizon in one shot—predicting changes in joint states rather than absolute states—so it avoids error accumulation and keeps the optimization cheap. The control sequence is found by gradient descent with an adaptive learning rate, and the average of the sequence is applied rather than the first value. The paper argues that if this works as demonstrated, the approach generalizes to other industrial systems that need nonlinear control plus energy management.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SSMP (single-shot multi-step prediction) model, a layered LSTM-MLP network that maps a block of historical states and a block of future control inputs to a block of predicted state increments $\Delta \hat{X}_{t+1:t+i}$. An LSTM encodes the history, and an MLP combines that encoding with the planned future inputs, so the derivative $\partial G/\partial U$ is available through the chain rule; this makes gradient-descent optimization practical. Around it, a small online MLP $H$ is trained online on the mismatch between the offline prediction and the measured state, and the NMPC cost function is minimized over the full input sequence. Two operational choices carry much of the argument: predicting state changes instead of absolute states, and applying the average of the optimized control sequence instead of the first element.

What would settle it

On a logged or simulated trajectory of the same excavator, rerun the NMPC optimization from several different initial control sequences, including nonzero starts, and compare the resulting commands; if the gradient descent settles into materially different control sequences, or tracking error diverges on one start, the fixed-iteration assumption is not reliable. A cheaper check is to record the cost function value over the 30 iterations and see whether it is still changing substantially at iteration 30.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a hybrid offline-online neural predictor can serve as the dynamics model inside a real-time NMPC for a heavy hydraulic excavator, without needing explicit physical equations. The offline LSTM-MLP model, called SSMP, is trained to predict the sequence of state changes over a horizon in one forward pass; the online MLP learns the difference between the offline model's predictions and the measured states during operation, acting as a correction for load-induced changes. Because the whole predictor is built from layers whose derivatives are chain-rule computable, the NMPC cost function—combining tracking error, velocity error, and engine speed—can be minimized by gradient descent with a learning rate that shrinks when position error is small. The controller then applies the mean of the optimized control sequence rather than its first element. Simulations and experiments with a 22-ton hydraulic excavator are presented as evidence that this scheme tracks reference trajectories, handles a 1500 kg load at the end joint, reduces hydraulic flow overflow compared with fixed-gear PID control, and computes fast enough for 50 Hz command updates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that thirty iterations of gradient descent with the adaptive learning rate always produce a good enough control sequence from the zero initial guess; the paper gives no proof, and if the optimization stalls in a bad local optimum the commands to the 22-ton machine would degrade.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

According to the paper, the SSMP predictor reports consistently lower ARMSE on random trajectories than the DBN multi-step baseline trained on the same data, so direct multi-step change prediction is presented as a more accurate predictive model.
With the online compensation model, prediction error under an added end-effector load falls by at least 50% across joints and gear settings, so the hybrid model is claimed to adapt to load changes without retraining the offline network.
The NMPC tracks reference joint trajectories under no-load and 1500 kg load conditions while choosing among low, medium, and high engine gears, and it cuts flow overflow compared with fixed-gear PID; the paper uses this to argue the method handles both motion control and energy efficiency.
Timing measurements on a laptop CPU put one NMPC update between about 5 and 16 ms for the tested configurations, which the paper says is fast enough for the 50 Hz excavator interface.
Because the cost function can be written in convex form and solved by gradient descent, the paper claims the same controller structure can be reused for other industrial systems with multiple objectives, including energy management.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An extension the paper leaves implicit: the same offline-online predictor could be applied to other load-varying hydraulic machines such as telehandlers or wheel loaders, but the claimed generality would need testing on machines with different actuator dynamics and sensor suites.
The paper does not analyze what happens when the gradient descent hits a poor local optimum; one could stress-test the controller by initializing the optimization from several different control sequences and checking whether the final commands and tracking stay consistent.
The adaptive learning rate in Eq. (12) is a heuristic that scales the step by position error; a testable refinement would compare it with a line-search or momentum rule on the same excavator dataset to see whether the fixed 30-iteration budget remains adequate.
The average-of-sequence control law is unusual relative to standard receding-horizon MPC; one implication is that it effectively low-pass filters the optimized sequence, which might trade aggressiveness for stability—an effect worth isolating by ablating exactly this choice.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you care about learning-based control on real heavy machinery. The standout fact is that this controller ran on an actual 22-ton hydraulic excavator at 50 Hz, with measured computation times of 5–15 ms in Table VI. That alone separates it from most DD-NMPC papers, which stop at simulation. The energy-efficiency plots also show real reductions in oil overflow relative to a compensated PID baseline, which is the kind of evidence an industrial reader will care about.

What is genuinely new is the specific combination: a single-shot LSTM-MLP that predicts multi-step state increments (not states directly), an online MLP that learns the residual mismatch between the offline model and reality, and a gradient-descent NMPC that uses an adaptive learning rate and outputs the average of the control sequence. Each component is known, but putting them together in this architecture and demonstrating it on a load-carrying excavator is a legitimate engineering contribution.

The paper does several things well. The data-collection strategy is sensible, mixing open-loop and closed-loop data with a safety monitor. The offline/online hybrid is pragmatic: rather than retraining the LSTM online, they train a small MLP on the prediction error, which is a reasonable way to handle load-induced dynamics changes. The computational complexity analysis is honest, with measured timings repeated 1000 times.

The soft spots are real but concentrated in the optimization section. Section IV.D says the cost function is "generally convex" without proof, and Eq. (10) is quadratic in the outputs of ReLU networks, so as a function of the control sequence it is piecewise quadratic and generally nonconvex. More concretely, the discrete gear constraint ω_engine in {low, medium, high} with a 1 s dwell time appears in Eq. (11), but the gradient update in Eq. (8) has no mechanism to handle discrete variables; no rounding or mixed-integer scheme is described. Fixed 30 iterations with no convergence check is also asserted, not justified. That is the load-bearing weakness, and the stress-test note correctly identifies it. It does not sink the paper because the real-machine results suggest the optimizer behaved acceptably in practice, but the paper should explain what it actually does about the discrete gears and ideally add a restart or iteration-termination check.

Also worth flagging: Tables II–IV do not clearly separate training and test trajectories, there are no error bars, and no code or data are provided. The conclusion honestly admits there is no detailed theoretical validation, which is good to see. These issues lower confidence but do not undermine the central empirical claim.

Who is this for? People working on control of hydraulic construction equipment, and researchers looking for a data-driven NMPC case study with real hardware. It deserves a serious referee, but the major revision should focus on the optimizer: either prove convexity, handle the discrete gear decision explicitly, or present a fallback strategy. I would not desk-reject this.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) framework for a 22-ton hydraulic excavator. The dynamics model combines an offline single-shot multi-step prediction (SSMP) network built from LSTM and MLP with an online MLP that learns prediction mismatches caused by load or environmental interaction. The control sequence is obtained by gradient descent with an adaptive learning rate on a cost function that penalizes joint position error, velocity error, and engine speed, subject to input saturation, three discrete engine gear levels, and a one-second gear-switching constraint. The controller applies the average of the optimized control sequence rather than its first element. The authors validate the approach in simulation with a PID-like baseline and on the real excavator, reporting improved tracking and flow efficiency under load.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would make a useful engineering contribution: it demonstrates a full-scale industrial validation of a learning-based NMPC, proposes an interesting offline-online hybrid prediction architecture that avoids retraining the LSTM online, and gives practical computational timings showing that the scheme can run at 50 Hz on a laptop CPU. The real-machine experiment on a 22-ton excavator is a notable strength, as is the explicit treatment of energy efficiency via engine-speed optimization. However, the paper's central methodological claims—that the cost is convex and that fixed-iteration gradient descent reliably solves the optimization—are not justified, and the empirical evaluation lacks a clear train/test separation, error bars, and a comparison against another NMPC solver or baseline. These issues limit the strength of the generalizability claims until addressed.

major comments (4)

[§IV.D, Eq. (10)–(12), Algorithm 1] The statement that the cost function is 'generally convex' is not supported. The cost in Eq. (10) is a quadratic function of the outputs of ReLU MLPs G and H, which are piecewise-linear functions of U; as a function of the control sequence, J is piecewise quadratic and generally nonconvex. The paper provides no proof, and the self-stated limitation in the Conclusions ('has yet to undergo detailed theoretical validation') is directly relevant. The reviewer should ask for either a proof for a restricted setting or, more practically, empirical evidence of optimizer reliability: report the distribution of the terminal cost over many NMPC cycles, test multiple random initializations or restarts, and compare against a standard nonlinear optimizer (e.g., SQP or IPOPT) on a subset of cycles. Without this, the 50 Hz real-time result is a heuristic outcome rather than a validated NMPC solution.
[§IV.D, Eq. (11) and Eq. (8)] The optimization problem in Eq. (7)–(11) contains the discrete constraint ω_engine ∈ {low, medium, high} and the 1 s switching constraint t_switch > 1 s, but the gradient descent update in Eq. (8) operates on continuous variables and no rounding, projection, or mixed-integer handling is described. A plain gradient step cannot move between discrete gear levels in a meaningful way, and the switching constraint is not included in the cost or in the gradient. The paper should explain how the gear decision is actually made in Algorithm 1, and how the discrete constraint is enforced during the 30 iterations. A concrete demonstration that the discrete decision is not merely post-hoc rounding would be needed to support the claimed multi-objective optimization.
[§VI, Tables II–IV and Fig. 7] The evaluation does not clearly separate training and test trajectories. The text says that random sinusoidal signals generate motion trajectories and that Tables II–IV report ARMSE on 'various random trajectories,' but it is not stated whether these trajectories were excluded from the offline training set or from the online model's update data. Without this separation, the reported ARMSE values may partly reflect in-sample fitting. The authors should specify the train/test split, report the number of evaluation trajectories, and include error bars or confidence intervals across repeated runs. This is important because the paper claims robustness and generalization, but Tables II–IV currently show single point estimates.
[§VI.C, Figs. 8–10] The control comparison is only against a PID baseline (with dead-zone compensation). The PID controller cannot optimize engine speed, so the comparison conflates the benefit of having engine speed as an optimized control input with the benefit of the proposed NMPC formulation itself. To support the claim that the proposed NMPC is effective as an NMPC, the paper should compare against at least one standard NMPC baseline using the same cost function and constraints—for example, an SQP-based NMPC with the same predictive model, or a linearized-MPC variant. Without such a baseline, the experimental plots do not isolate the contribution of the proposed optimization method.

minor comments (6)

[§IV.C, Eq. (6)] In Eq. (6), the derivatives ∂M/∂U appear in the update rules for wH and bH; these should presumably be ∂M/∂wH and ∂M/∂bH. Please correct the notation.
[§IV.C, paragraph after Eq. (12)] The sentence 'Conversely, when the positional error is minimal, the learning rate is decreased appropriately to prevent the risk of over-regulation signals' is repeated verbatim two sentences later. Please remove the duplicate.
[§V.B] The offline MLP input dimension is stated as (128 + 4i) × 1, while the online MLP input is stated as (13h + 4i) × 1. Please clarify why the offline model uses the LSTM hidden state (128) rather than the raw history length h, and define all dimensions consistently in the notation table.
[§VI.A and Conclusions] The baseline in Table II is referred to as 'DBN [24]' in the experiment but the Conclusions describe the comparison as against 'standard MLP.' Please make the baseline identification consistent.
[§VI.B, Fig. 7] The y-axis label 'AMRSE' appears to be a typo for 'ARMSE'. Also, the figure caption says 'real-time AMRSE' while the text discusses ARMSE over a sliding window; please clarify the definition used in the plot.
[§V.A] The sentence 'To enable remote control functionality, we use two laptops, referred to as transmission and control' is clear, but it is followed by 'The user datagram protocol (UDP) is designed to meet our communication needs.' The phrase 'is designed' should be 'was used' or 'is used' for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the predictive model, online compensator, and NMPC optimizer are each trained or evaluated on their own data; the convexity and train/test issues are correctness risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The offline SSMP model is trained from collected motion data (Sec. V.B) and evaluated against the DBN baseline on random trajectories (Sec. VI.A); nothing in Eqs. (1)-(4) defines the target prediction in terms of the model's own output. The online MLP H is trained on past mismatch X - Xhat (Eqs. 5-6) and then used for future predictions, which is standard causal online learning rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The NMPC cost (Eq. 10) is minimized by gradient descent (Eq. 8), and the claimed performance is checked against a PID baseline in simulation and on a 22-ton excavator (Figs. 8-10); the real-machine experiment is an external check not determined by the controller's own formulation. The only overlapping-author citation is [37], used as a baseline comparator, not as load-bearing support for the method's validity. The paper's weaknesses -- the unproven global convexity of the piecewise-quadratic ReLU-network cost and the discrete engine-gear constraint with a 1 s switching rule -- are correctness/robustness concerns, and the absence of an explicit train/test split in Tables II-IV is a reproducibility risk, but neither reduces a prediction to its own input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted under the hard-evidence rule.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the success of the trained neural predictors and the fixed-iteration gradient optimizer. The free parameters are mostly hyperparameters and cost weights that are not reported. The axioms include standard discretization assumptions, the additive mismatch model, and the unjustified convexity assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Cost weight coefficients a, b, c = not reported
In Eq. (10), these weights balance position error, velocity error, and engine speed; no numerical values are given, but they are hand-tuned.
Adaptive learning rate base and threshold e = not reported
In Eq. (12), the base learning rate and the threshold e are chosen to suppress over-regulation; values are not provided.
Online model hyperparameters = learning rates not reported; loops 10/30/50 tested, 30 used
Section VI.B (Table V) shows the authors tune learning rate and iteration count to maximize ARMSE reduction.
History length h and prediction horizon N = h=20, N=10 in main results
Section V.B and VI.A choose h and N to balance accuracy and computation; Table III explores alternatives.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Discrete-time dynamics with zero-order hold input (Eq. 1)
Section III.A discretizes the continuous system with a zero-order hold; a standard sampling assumption for digital control.
domain assumption Taylor expansion justifies free/forced response decomposition
Section IV.A, Eq. (3) expands the dynamics around a historical operating point; the paper assumes higher-order terms can be absorbed by the neural network.
domain assumption Additive offline-online mismatch model
Section IV.C models prediction error as a sum of the offline model output plus an online error term; assumes the load-induced variation is additive and learnable by an MLP.
ad hoc to paper Cost function is convex in the control sequence
Section IV.D and the Abstract assert convexity, but neural-network predictions make J non-convex; no proof is given.
ad hoc to paper Fixed-iteration gradient descent yields a satisfactory suboptimal solution
Algorithm 1 runs 30 gradient iterations and the paper states it may not reach the global optimum; it assumes this is sufficient for control.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-Driven Multi-step Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Industrial Heavy Load Hydraulic Robot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QCAEVJ7C

@misc{pith2026241113859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-Driven Multi-step Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Industrial Heavy Load Hydraulic Robot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QCAEVJ7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13859}
}

read the original abstract

Automating complex industrial robots requires precise nonlinear control and efficient energy management. This paper introduces a data-driven nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) framework to optimize control under multiple objectives. To enhance the prediction accuracy of the dynamic model, we design a single-shot multi-step prediction (SSMP) model based on long short-term memory (LSTM) and multilayer perceptrons (MLP), which can directly obtain the predictive horizon without iterative repetition and reduce computational pressure. Moreover, we combine offline and online models to address disturbances stemming from environmental interactions, similar to the superposition of the robot's free and forced responses. The online model learns the system's variations from the prediction mismatches of the offline model and updates its weights in real time. The proposed hybrid predictive model simplifies the relationship between inputs and outputs into matrix multiplication, which can quickly obtain the derivative. Therefore, the solution for the control signal sequence employs a gradient descent method with an adaptive learning rate, allowing the NMPC cost function to be formulated as a convex function incorporating critical states. The learning rate is dynamically adjusted based on state errors to counteract the inherent prediction inaccuracies of neural networks. The controller outputs the average value of the control signal sequence instead of the first value. Simulations and experiments on a 22-ton hydraulic excavator have validated the effectiveness of our method, showing that the proposed NMPC approach can be widely applied to industrial systems, including nonlinear control and energy management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13859 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Data Collection Method. The workspace is a subset of the robot’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Block diagram representation of the NMPC. After the manager issues a task, trajectory planning and online model resetting are initiated concurrently. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The experimental machine and corresponding simulation model. The simulation model is constructed based on AMESim demo and using the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The predictions of trajectories under random sine input signal. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Online learning process. The diagram illustrates the real-time AMRSE, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison between the NMPC and a PID controller for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Comparison between the NMPC and a PID controller for the hydraulic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Learning a System-Level Surrogate for Hydraulic Excavators: A Simulation-to-Real LSTM Approach
cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A Kalman-cleaned LSTM trained on sensor data reproduces the closed-loop joint motion of a full-size hydraulic excavator over hundreds of seconds, in simulation and on the physical machine.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

An autonomous excavator system for material loading tasks,

L. Zhang, J. Zhao, P. Long, L. Wang, L. Qian, F. Lu, X. Song, and D. Manocha, “An autonomous excavator system for material loading tasks,” Sci. Robot., vol. 6, no. 55, p. eabc3164, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Fuzzy pid control of a flexible-joint robot arm with uncertainties from time-varying loads,

H. A. Malki, D. Misir, D. Feigenspan, and G. Chen, “Fuzzy pid control of a flexible-joint robot arm with uncertainties from time-varying loads,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 371–378, 1997

work page 1997
[3]

Fuzzy pid supervised online anfis based speed controller for brushless dc motor,

K. Premkumar and B. Manikandan, “Fuzzy pid supervised online anfis based speed controller for brushless dc motor,” Neurocomputing, vol. 157, pp. 76–90, 2015

work page 2015
[4]

Self-tuning fuzzy pid- nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode control for robust fault tolerant control of robot manipulators,

M. Van, X. P. Do, and M. Mavrovouniotis, “Self-tuning fuzzy pid- nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode control for robust fault tolerant control of robot manipulators,” ISA Trans., vol. 96, pp. 60–68, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Modeling and velocity-field control of autonomous excavator with main control valve,

K. Kim, M. Kim, D. Kim, and D. Lee, “Modeling and velocity-field control of autonomous excavator with main control valve,” Automatica, vol. 104, pp. 67–81, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Active disturbance rejection adaptive control of hydraulic servo systems,

J. Yao and W. Deng, “Active disturbance rejection adaptive control of hydraulic servo systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. , vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 8023–8032, 2017

work page 2017
[7]

Information theoretic mpc for model-based reinforcement learning,

G. Williams, N. Wagener, B. Goldfain, P. Drews, J. M. Rehg, B. Boots, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information theoretic mpc for model-based reinforcement learning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2017, pp. 1714–1721

work page 2017
[8]

Global finite time active disturbance rejection control for parallel manipulators with unknown bounded uncertainties,

V .-T. Nguyen, C.-Y . Lin, S.-F. Su, W. Sun, and M. J. Er, “Global finite time active disturbance rejection control for parallel manipulators with unknown bounded uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. -Syst. , vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 7838–7849, 2020

work page 2020

Show all 37 references

[9]

Robust model predictive tracking control for robot manipulators with disturbances,

L. Dai, Y . Yu, D.-H. Zhai, T. Huang, and Y . Xia, “Robust model predictive tracking control for robot manipulators with disturbances,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. , vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 4288–4297, 2020

2020
[10]

Stochastic mpc with learning for driver-predictive vehicle control and its application to hev energy management,

S. Di Cairano, D. Bernardini, A. Bemporad, and I. V . Kolmanovsky, “Stochastic mpc with learning for driver-predictive vehicle control and its application to hev energy management,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1018–1031, 2013

2013
[11]

Trajectory tracking control of an autonomous underwater vehicle using lyapunov-based model predictive control,

C. Shen, Y . Shi, and B. Buckham, “Trajectory tracking control of an autonomous underwater vehicle using lyapunov-based model predictive control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. , vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 5796–5805, 2017. 14

2017
[12]

Modeling of complex pre- mixed burner systems by using flamelet-generated manifolds,

J. Van Oijen, F. Lammers, and L. De Goey, “Modeling of complex pre- mixed burner systems by using flamelet-generated manifolds,” Combust. Flame, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 2124–2134, 2001

2001
[13]

Sensorless human-robot collaborative assembly considering load and friction compensation,

J. Xiao, S. Dou, W. Zhao, and H. Liu, “Sensorless human-robot collaborative assembly considering load and friction compensation,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5945–5952, 2021

2021
[14]

Modeling and experimental validation of the effective bulk modulus of a mixture of hydraulic oil and air,

H. Gholizadeh, D. Bitner, R. Burton, and G. Schoenau, “Modeling and experimental validation of the effective bulk modulus of a mixture of hydraulic oil and air,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control-Trans. ASME , vol. 136, no. 5, p. 051013, 2014

2014
[15]

Oscillatory yaw motion control for hydraulic power steering articulated vehicles considering the influence of varying bulk modulus,

Y . Gao, Y . Shen, T. Xu, W. Zhang, and L. G ¨uvenc ¸, “Oscillatory yaw motion control for hydraulic power steering articulated vehicles considering the influence of varying bulk modulus,”IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1284–1292, 2018

2018
[16]

Safe data- driven model predictive control of systems with complex dynamics,

I. Mitsioni, P. Tajvar, D. Kragic, J. Tumova, and C. Pek, “Safe data- driven model predictive control of systems with complex dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 3242–3258, 2023

2023
[17]

Force control of a hydraulic actuator with a neural network inverse model,

S.-W. Kim, B. Cho, S. Shin, J.-H. Oh, J. Hwangbo, and H.-W. Park, “Force control of a hydraulic actuator with a neural network inverse model,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2814–2821, 2021

2021
[18]

Approximate scenario-based economic model predictive control with application to wind energy conversion system,

J. Cui, X. Liu, and T. Chai, “Approximate scenario-based economic model predictive control with application to wind energy conversion system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 5821–5829, 2022

2022
[19]

Parameter estimation and adaptive control for servo mechanisms with friction compensation,

S. Wang and J. Na, “Parameter estimation and adaptive control for servo mechanisms with friction compensation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. , vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 6816–6825, 2020

2020
[20]

Fast direct methods for gaussian processes,

S. Ambikasaran, D. Foreman-Mackey, L. Greengard, D. W. Hogg, and M. O’Neil, “Fast direct methods for gaussian processes,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 252–265, 2015

2015
[21]

Lstm-mpc: A deep learning based predictive control method for multimode process control,

K. Huang, K. Wei, F. Li, C. Yang, and W. Gui, “Lstm-mpc: A deep learning based predictive control method for multimode process control,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. , vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 11 544–11 554, 2022

2022
[22]

Active learn- ing of discrete-time dynamics for uncertainty-aware model predictive control,

A. Saviolo, J. Frey, A. Rathod, M. Diehl, and G. Loianno, “Active learn- ing of discrete-time dynamics for uncertainty-aware model predictive control,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , 2023

2023
[23]

Neural-network- based nonlinear model predictive control for piezoelectric actuators,

L. Cheng, W. Liu, Z.-G. Hou, J. Yu, and M. Tan, “Neural-network- based nonlinear model predictive control for piezoelectric actuators,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. , vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 7717–7727, 2015

2015
[24]

Deep learning-based model predictive control for continuous stirred-tank reactor system,

G. Wang, Q.-S. Jia, J. Qiao, J. Bi, and M. Zhou, “Deep learning-based model predictive control for continuous stirred-tank reactor system,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 3643–3652, 2020

2020
[25]

Rbfnn-based adaptive sliding mode control design for delayed nonlinear multilateral telerobotic system with cooperative manipulation,

Z. Chen, F. Huang, W. Chen, J. Zhang, W. Sun, J. Chen, J. Gu, and S. Zhu, “Rbfnn-based adaptive sliding mode control design for delayed nonlinear multilateral telerobotic system with cooperative manipulation,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. , vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1236–1247, 2019

2019
[26]

Physics-informed machine learning,

G. E. Karniadakis, I. G. Kevrekidis, L. Lu, P. Perdikaris, S. Wang, and L. Yang, “Physics-informed machine learning,” Nat. Rev. Phys., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 422–440, 2021

2021
[27]

Echo state networks for practical nonlinear model predictive control of unknown dynamic systems,

J. P. Jordanou, E. A. Antonelo, and E. Camponogara, “Echo state networks for practical nonlinear model predictive control of unknown dynamic systems,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 2615–2629, 2021

2021
[28]

Precision motion control of robotized industrial hydraulic excavators via data- driven model inversion,

M. Lee, H. Choi, C. Kim, J. Moon, D. Kim, and D. Lee, “Precision motion control of robotized industrial hydraulic excavators via data- driven model inversion,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1912–1919, 2022

1912
[29]

Leveraging forward model prediction error for learning control,

S. Bechtle, B. Hammoud, A. Rai, F. Meier, and L. Righetti, “Leveraging forward model prediction error for learning control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2021, pp. 4445–4451

2021
[30]

Feedback control by online learning an inverse model,

T. Waegeman, B. Schrauwen et al., “Feedback control by online learning an inverse model,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. , vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1637–1648, 2012

2012
[31]

Model predictive control of nonlinear systems with unmodeled dynamics based on feedforward and recurrent neural networks,

Z. Yan and J. Wang, “Model predictive control of nonlinear systems with unmodeled dynamics based on feedforward and recurrent neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 746–756, 2012

2012
[32]

Nonlinear model predictive control of single-link flexible-joint robot using recurrent neural network and differential evolution optimization,

A. Zhang, Z. Lin, B. Wang, and Z. Han, “Nonlinear model predictive control of single-link flexible-joint robot using recurrent neural network and differential evolution optimization,” Electronics, vol. 10, no. 19, p. 2426, 2021

2021
[33]

Differentiable predictive control: Deep learning alternative to explicit model predictive control for unknown nonlinear systems,

J. Drgo ˇna, K. Ki ˇs, A. Tuor, D. Vrabie, and M. Klau ˇco, “Differentiable predictive control: Deep learning alternative to explicit model predictive control for unknown nonlinear systems,” J. Process Control , vol. 116, pp. 80–92, 2022

2022
[34]

Tracking of uncertain robotic manipulators using event-triggered model predictive control with learning terminal cost,

E. Kang, H. Qiao, Z. Chen, and J. Gao, “Tracking of uncertain robotic manipulators using event-triggered model predictive control with learning terminal cost,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 2801–2815, 2022

2022
[35]

A practical approach to predictive control for nonlinear processes,

A. Plucenio, D. J. Pagano, A. Bruciapaglia, and J. E. Normey-Rico, “A practical approach to predictive control for nonlinear processes,” IFAC Proc. Volumes, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 210–215, 2007

2007
[36]

Safe learning in robotics: From learning-based control to safe reinforcement learning,

L. Brunke, M. Greeff, A. W. Hall, Z. Yuan, S. Zhou, J. Panerati, and A. P. Schoellig, “Safe learning in robotics: From learning-based control to safe reinforcement learning,” Annu. Rev. Control, Robot., Auton. Syst., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 411–444, 2022

2022
[37]

Robust adaptive precision motion control of hydraulic actuators with valve dead-zone compensation,

W. Deng, J. Yao, and D. Ma, “Robust adaptive precision motion control of hydraulic actuators with valve dead-zone compensation,” ISA Trans., vol. 70, pp. 269–278, 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

An autonomous excavator system for material loading tasks,

L. Zhang, J. Zhao, P. Long, L. Wang, L. Qian, F. Lu, X. Song, and D. Manocha, “An autonomous excavator system for material loading tasks,” Sci. Robot., vol. 6, no. 55, p. eabc3164, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Fuzzy pid control of a flexible-joint robot arm with uncertainties from time-varying loads,

H. A. Malki, D. Misir, D. Feigenspan, and G. Chen, “Fuzzy pid control of a flexible-joint robot arm with uncertainties from time-varying loads,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 371–378, 1997

work page 1997

[3] [3]

Fuzzy pid supervised online anfis based speed controller for brushless dc motor,

K. Premkumar and B. Manikandan, “Fuzzy pid supervised online anfis based speed controller for brushless dc motor,” Neurocomputing, vol. 157, pp. 76–90, 2015

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Self-tuning fuzzy pid- nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode control for robust fault tolerant control of robot manipulators,

M. Van, X. P. Do, and M. Mavrovouniotis, “Self-tuning fuzzy pid- nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode control for robust fault tolerant control of robot manipulators,” ISA Trans., vol. 96, pp. 60–68, 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Modeling and velocity-field control of autonomous excavator with main control valve,

K. Kim, M. Kim, D. Kim, and D. Lee, “Modeling and velocity-field control of autonomous excavator with main control valve,” Automatica, vol. 104, pp. 67–81, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Active disturbance rejection adaptive control of hydraulic servo systems,

J. Yao and W. Deng, “Active disturbance rejection adaptive control of hydraulic servo systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. , vol. 64, no. 10, pp. 8023–8032, 2017

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Information theoretic mpc for model-based reinforcement learning,

G. Williams, N. Wagener, B. Goldfain, P. Drews, J. M. Rehg, B. Boots, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information theoretic mpc for model-based reinforcement learning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2017, pp. 1714–1721

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Global finite time active disturbance rejection control for parallel manipulators with unknown bounded uncertainties,

V .-T. Nguyen, C.-Y . Lin, S.-F. Su, W. Sun, and M. J. Er, “Global finite time active disturbance rejection control for parallel manipulators with unknown bounded uncertainties,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. -Syst. , vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 7838–7849, 2020

work page 2020