Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Optimal Control Operator Perspective and a Neural Adaptive Spectral Method

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims optimal control can be solved by learning the operator that maps instances to solutions, and that its NASM architecture approximates this operator with bounded error and order-of-magnitude speedups.

desk verdict NASM is a real architectural step for learning control operators, but the theoretical guarantee rests on unverified Sobolev regularity and an omitted proof, so the paper is solid-conditioned rather than solid-outright. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12469 v1 pith:RYWNI6OY submitted 2024-12-17 eess.SY cs.AIcs.LGcs.SYmath.OC

Mingquan Feng , Zhijie Chen , Yixin Huang , Yizhou Liu , Junchi Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.AIcs.LGcs.SYmath.OC MSC 49J1546E3541A2568T07
keywords optimalcontrolneuraloperatorspectralmethodlearningadaptivebasisapproximationerrorout-of-distributiongeneralizationamortizedsolving
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

This paper tries to establish that optimal control problems can be solved by learning one operator that maps a problem instance — the cost functional, dynamics, and initial condition — directly to the optimal control function, without iterative optimization or an explicit dynamics model. The authors argue this instance-solution operator perspective makes optimal-control solvers reusable and fast, and they instantiate it with NASM, a neural operator that generalizes classical spectral methods by making both coefficients and basis functions adaptive. They prove that, under Sobolev regularity conditions, NASM can approximate the operator to any desired error tolerance with bounded network size and depth. Empirically, NASM matches or beats other neural operators in accuracy on five synthetic systems and a real robot-pushing dataset while running over 6000 times faster than a direct collocation solver, and it generalizes out of distribution, especially after few-shot fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Neural Adaptive Spectral Method (NASM), a generalization of classical spectral approximations in which the solution is built from basis functions whose coefficients and whose adaptation parameters are both produced by a network: NNASM(i)(t) = aggregation of c_j(t, i) b_j(t; θ(t,i)). The adaptive parameters θ scale and shift the basis (e.g., sin(π[(1+θ1)t+θ2])) while being bounded to avoid overlap, which lets the same Fourier family represent non-periodic controls. The argument is carried by an error decomposition stating that the relative cost error of the full operator is bounded by a Lipschitz constant times the reconstructor error plus the approximator error, and each of those terms is then bounded separately using Fourier approximation theory and Sobolev-space neural approximation bounds. This decomposition is what turns the abstract operator-learning claim into a concrete guarantee with explicit rates and parameter counts.

What would settle it

Estimate the Sobolev regularity s of the optimal controls generated by the direct method for the paper's benchmarks; if some benchmark controls have s ≤ 0, the claimed $p^{{-s}}$ reconstruction bound does not apply to them, and a stronger test would be to run a family of OCPs with provably discontinuous optimal controls and check whether NASM's error decays with the number of basis functions at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a well-posed optimal control problem can be treated as an infinite-dimensional operator G that takes an instance i = (f, d, xinit) and returns the optimal control function u*. This operator perspective is then realized by NASM, whose output at time t is an aggregation of coefficients c_j(t, i) times adaptive basis functions b_j(t; θ(t,i)), where the network infers both coefficients and basis parameters. The main theoretical result decomposes the total approximation error into encoder, approximator, and reconstructor errors and bounds each: the Fourier reconstructor error decays as $p^{{-s}}$ for controls in H^s(T), and the MLP/CNN approximator error can be driven below any positive tolerance with bounded size and depth. The consequence is that a single trained NASM can output near-optimal controls for unseen problem instances in one forward pass. Experiments confirm the claim in practice: on the Quadrotor benchmark, NASM reaches an in-distribution MAPE of 6.17e-6 and an out-of-distribution MAPE of 1.21e-4 while taking about 6.5e-5 seconds per instance versus 9.2e-2 seconds for the direct method, and fine-tuning on 20% OOD data restores accuracy under extreme distribution shifts.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on optimal controls being reasonably smooth as functions of time and on cost functionals being Lipschitz with bounded relative growth; if a problem family has discontinuous bang-bang controls or active state and input constraints, these conditions can fail and the stated error bounds do not cover it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained NASM can replace iterative optimal-control solving at inference time, yielding the reported over 6000x speedup while maintaining solution quality on in-distribution and many out-of-distribution instances.
  • Because the dynamics are never explicitly modeled, the same operator framework applies to systems whose equations are unknown or too noisy to write down, as demonstrated on the planar-pushing dataset.
  • The error bounds mean the approximation improves predictably with the number of basis functions when optimal controls are sufficiently smooth, and the architecture needs no more parameters than DeepONet to reach the same reconstructor accuracy.
  • If a few out-of-distribution samples are available, fine-tuning the operator restores accuracy even for large distribution shifts, making the learned solver reusable beyond its training distribution.
  • The framework is solver-agnostic: any numerical solver that produces (instance, control) pairs can provide training data, so the operator can inherit and potentially improve on the reference solver's solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the control-operator perspective holds up, it suggests a general amortization strategy — expensive optimal-control computation is paid once during training and then replayed at essentially zero marginal cost, which could change real-time control practice; the paper does not test closed-loop deployment.
  • Inference: the H^s regularity premise is the natural place to probe the theory; for bang-bang or otherwise discontinuous optimal controls, one would expect the p^{-s} decay to fail, suggesting a testable extension is to add basis families that represent discontinuities (e.g., wavelets) or to validate the regularity empirically from solver data.
  • Inference: the error decomposition implies a principled architecture-selection rule — pick fixed bases for periodic smooth problems and adaptive bases for non-periodic ones — which could be automated per instance rather than chosen by hand.
  • Inference: because the operator is learned from labels produced by a reference solver, an iterative self-improvement loop (train on the model's own solutions, then with a better solver) could push accuracy beyond the reference, matching the paper's observation that some neural operators beat the direct method on out-of-distribution Brachistochrone benchmarks.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an instance-solution operator perspective for optimal control problems (OCPs), in which a neural operator maps an encoded OCP instance directly to the optimal control function, thereby avoiding iterative optimization at test time. The authors instantiate this operator with a new architecture, the Neural Adaptive Spectral Method (NASM), which combines a coefficient network, time-dependent coefficients, and adaptive basis functions. The theoretical part decomposes the approximation error into encoder, approximator, and reconstructor errors (Theorem 2) and states bounds on the reconstructor and approximator errors under Sobolev regularity assumptions on the control operator and its encoded coefficient map (Theorems 3 and 4). The experimental part compares NASM with direct and indirect solvers and with several neural operators on five synthetic systems and a real planar-pushing dataset, reporting large speedups relative to the direct method and competitive or better MAPE on in- and out-of-distribution benchmarks, including two problems with analytical solutions.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would make a useful practical contribution: a reusable neural operator that solves families of OCPs in one forward pass, without knowledge of the dynamics, is attractive for real-time and model-free settings. The error-decomposition proof in Theorem 2 is clean and correctly reduces the overall bound to reconstructor and approximator errors. The use of two benchmarks with analytical optimal solutions (Brachistochrone and Zermelo) is a genuine check against circularity, since the neural models are still trained on direct-method data but evaluated against ground truth. The public code link and systematic baselines are also strengths. However, the advertised approximation guarantee is currently not established at the advertised level of generality: the key reconstructor bound is stated with its proof omitted, and the regularity assumptions on the optimal-control operator are asserted rather than verified or derived from OCP structure. These are load-bearing gaps.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Theorem 3] The Fourier reconstructor error bound bER ≤ C p^{-s} is the backbone of the claimed arbitrary-accuracy result, but the proof is explicitly omitted: the text says 'The proof (omitted here) is based on an observation that a smooth function... has small (exponentially decaying) coefficients.' For a central theorem this is not sufficient. Please provide a complete proof or a precise citation with the constant C spelled out as a function of s, M, and the time interval T, including the case of vector-valued controls u: T→R^{d_u}.
  2. [Section 2 and Appendix C, Theorem 4] There is a mismatch between the architecture analyzed and the approximator error bound. The NASM definition in Eq. (4) uses time-dependent coefficients c_j(t,i), but Theorem 4 bounds the approximation of a map e ↦ A(e) with A(e) ∈ R^p, with error measured in ℓ2(R^p). The proof of Theorem 2 then uses Lip(R) bEA with bEA defined on R^p only. Please formalize how the coefficient map produced by the network is identified with the finite-dimensional vector A(e), and state the corresponding norm; otherwise the size and depth bounds in Eq. (10) do not apply to the architecture actually used in the experiments.
  3. [Appendix C, 'Estimation of Decomposed Errors'] The regularity assumptions G: I → H^s(T) and P ∘ G ∘ E^{-1} ∈ H^s(E#μ) are load-bearing, but they are neither derived from the OCP structure nor verified on the benchmark problems. The claim that these assumptions are 'trivial in many real-world continuous OCPs' is unsupported. For OCPs with active control or state constraints, optimal controls are frequently bang-bang or discontinuous, so G(i) need not belong to H^s for s>0, as the paper itself concedes in Appendix I where constraints are only 'satisfied approximately.' Please either restrict the formal theorems to a class of unconstrained or sufficiently regular OCPs, or provide sufficient conditions on f, d, X, and U under which the optimal control operator satisfies the required Sobolev regularity, and check those conditions on the benchmark instances.
  4. [Section 2, Theorem 1] Theorem 1 is presented only informally, and no formal counterpart appears in the appendix. The formal content is distributed among Theorems 2-5, but the appendix does not assemble these into a single statement with explicit constants, network size, depth, and the exact regularity assumptions under which 'for any ε there exists a NASM' holds. Please state and prove a formal version of Theorem 1 that makes the dependency on the regularity parameters (s, M, m, p) and on the encoder error explicit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix D, proof of Lemma 7] In the size calculation for the block-diagonal p-dimensional MLP, each layer i≥2 has p blocks of size size(W^{i,j}), so the total size is p·size(N_j), not p^2·size(N_j); the displayed p^2 bound is a valid but loose upper bound. Please correct the accounting or state explicitly that the p^2 factor is an overestimate.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The adaptive Fourier basis restricts |θ_k| ≤ 0.5 'to avoid overlapping the adaptive range of basis functions,' but no precise condition is given that guarantees the parameterized basis remains a basis or that the reconstruction Lipschitz constant stays bounded. Please state the condition formally.
  3. [Theorem 2 statement] The theorem assumes fi > 0 and the finiteness of C = sup_i Lip(f_i)/(f_i∘G(i)), but these assumptions are only introduced in text before Eq. (2). Please include them in the theorem statement itself, since the bound is not meaningful when the optimal cost can vanish.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Table 7] For the Pushing dataset, MAPE is defined as ||u - u*||/||u*||, whereas for the synthetic environments it is defined through costs. This difference is noted in the text but not discussed; a sentence explaining why the two metrics support the same conclusions would improve clarity.
  5. [Appendix F] The description of the FNO variant used is brief: 'we slightly modify it by adding time indices to its input.' Since FNO is a central baseline and the modification affects the validity of the comparison, please describe the modification in enough detail to be reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the approximation bounds are imported from external approximation theory and the empirical evaluation includes analytical benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 1) is an existence/expressivity result assembled from Theorem 2's error decomposition, Theorem 3's Fourier projection bound, and Theorem 4's MLP approximation bound. Theorem 2 is a generic triangle-inequality decomposition that treats the approximator, reconstructor, and encoder as separate components; no input is identified with the output by construction. Theorem 3 restates the standard Fourier projection error for H^s functions, with the proof omitted but the result taken from classical approximation theory, and Theorem 4 imports the ReLU MLP Sobolev approximation bound of Gühring, Kutyniok, and Petersen (2020) for the coefficient map P∘G∘E^{-1}. Both sources are external and not self-citations; no load-bearing premise is justified by a citation to the present authors. There is also no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: NASM is trained on (instance, time, optimal control) triplets and evaluated on held-out instances, and the Brachistochrone and Zermelo benchmarks are scored against analytical solutions rather than the same direct-method solver used to generate training labels. The flagged limitations in the paper—Theorem 3's omitted proof, the unverified Sobolev regularity assumptions on G and on P∘G∘E^{-1}, and Appendix I's concession that constraints are only satisfied approximately—are completeness and premise-validation issues, not circular reductions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard approximation-theoretic tools plus strong, unverified regularity assumptions about the control operator. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the architecture itself is a design choice.

free parameters (2)
  • number of basis functions p = 11 (synthetic); adaptive Chebyshev (pushing)
    The number of basis functions is a hand-selected hyperparameter in all experiments; the theory bounds error as O(p^{-s}) but does not specify p, so the reported accuracy depends on this choice.
  • adaptive basis parameter bound |theta|<=0.5 = 0.5
    The paper restricts the scaling and shifting parameters of the Fourier basis to avoid overlapping the adaptive range; this is a design choice that affects the representable function space and is not derived from first principles.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Fourier basis reconstructor error: smooth functions in H^s have O(p^{-s}) truncation error
    Used in Theorem 3 to bound the reconstructor error; proof omitted but cited to classical approximation theory (Davis 1975, Powell et al. 1981).
  • standard math MLP approximation of Sobolev functions: a ReLU MLP can approximate any H^s function with error epsilon and bounded size
    Used in Lemmas 6 and 7 to bound the approximator error; cited from Gühring et al. 2020 and extended to multi-output MLPs.
  • domain assumption The control operator G maps instances into H^s(T) with s>0 and is Lipschitz continuous
    This is the regularity premise behind the reconstructor and approximator bounds; the paper asserts it is trivial for many real-world continuous OCPs but provides no verification for the benchmark problems.
  • domain assumption The encoder has an approximate inverse with bounded error
    The main proof assumes zero encoder error (Appendix D); the extension to non-zero error requires a decoder D that approximates E^{-1}, which is not constructed for the encoders used in experiments.
  • ad hoc to paper Adaptive basis with |theta|<=0.5 is sufficient for the optimal control functions in question
    The restriction on theta is a specific inductive bias chosen by the authors; its adequacy is only tested on the benchmark problems, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Control Operator Perspective and a Neural Adaptive Spectral Method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RYWNI6OY

@misc{pith2026241212469,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Control Operator Perspective and a Neural Adaptive Spectral Method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RYWNI6OY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12469}
}
read the original abstract

Optimal control problems (OCPs) involve finding a control function for a dynamical system such that a cost functional is optimized. It is central to physical systems in both academia and industry. In this paper, we propose a novel instance-solution control operator perspective, which solves OCPs in a one-shot manner without direct dependence on the explicit expression of dynamics or iterative optimization processes. The control operator is implemented by a new neural operator architecture named Neural Adaptive Spectral Method (NASM), a generalization of classical spectral methods. We theoretically validate the perspective and architecture by presenting the approximation error bounds of NASM for the control operator. Experiments on synthetic environments and a real-world dataset verify the effectiveness and efficiency of our approach, including substantial speedup in running time, and high-quality in- and out-of-distribution generalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12469 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Phase-2 cost curves of two failed instances of two-phase control (Hwang et al. 2022) on Pendulum system. The control func￾tion gradually moves outside the training distribution of phase 1. As a result, the control function converges w.r.t. the cost predicted by the surrogate model (blue), but diverges w.r.t. true cost (red). defined on a continuous domain (typically time) despite be￾ing intractable for numerical sol… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The architecture of NASM. The network takes two inputs: OCP instance i and time index t. The input i is pre-processed by the Encoder. Then both t and encoding e are fed into the Coefficient Network to obtain coefficients c and adaptive parameters θ. The adaptive basis (e.g. Fourier series) outputs function values b, which is multiplied with c and aggregated to the final output uˆ(t), the estimation of optimal contro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inference time and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) on in-distribution (ID) and OOD benchmarks. NASM (red bars) achieves higher or comparable accuracy, with the fastest or second fastest speed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: gives an overview of input variables. We apply NASM to learn a mapping from a pushing OCP instance (represented by variables above) to the optimal con￾trol function. The input now is no longer the parameters of cost functional f only, but parameters and representations…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: List of variables explored in Pushing dataset, credited to (Yu et al. 2016) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.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

  1. Neural Co-state Regulator: A Data-Driven Paradigm for Real-time Optimal Control with Input Constraints

    eess.SY 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A model-based neural network trained with a cost-based loss predicts co-states and, via a QP, produces constrained control that matches or beats nonlinear MPC on a unicycle at far lower compute.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Abdolazimi, O.; Shishebori, D.; Goodarzian, F.; Ghasemi, P.; and Appolloni, A. 2021. Designing a new mathematical model based on ABC analysis for inventory control problem: A real case study. RAIRO-operations research, 55(4): 2309--2335

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    L.; and Abu-Khalaf, M

    Al-Tamimi, A.; Lewis, F. L.; and Abu-Khalaf, M. 2008. Discrete-time nonlinear HJB solution using approximate dynamic programming: Convergence proof. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 38(4): 943--949

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    K.; Villalonga, M

    Alet, F.; Jeewajee, A. K.; Villalonga, M. B.; Rodriguez, A.; Lozano-Perez, T.; and Kaelbling, L. 2019. Graph element networks: adaptive, structured computation and memory. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 212--222. PMLR

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Anandkumar, A.; Azizzadenesheli, K.; Bhattacharya, K.; Kovachki, N.; Li, Z.; Liu, B.; and Stuart, A. 2020. Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations. In ICLR 2020 Workshop on Integration of Deep Neural Models and Differential Equations

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Andersson, J. A. E.; Gillis, J.; Horn, G.; Rawlings, J. B.; and Diehl, M. 2019. CasADi -- A software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control. Mathematical Programming Computation, 11(1): 1--36

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    S.; Sherali, H

    Bazaraa, M. S.; Sherali, H. D.; and Shetty, C. M. 2013. Nonlinear programming: theory and algorithms. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2013

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Bellman, R.; and Kalaba, R. 1960. Dynamic programming and adaptive processes: mathematical foundation. IRE transactions on automatic control, (1): 5--10

    1960

  2. [10]

    Bettiol, P.; and Bourdin, L. 2021. Pontryagin maximum principle for state constrained optimal sampled-data control problems on time scales. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 27: 51

    2021

  3. [11]

    T.; and Zavala, V

    Biegler, L. T.; and Zavala, V. M. 2009. Large-scale nonlinear programming using IPOPT: An integrating framework for enterprise-wide dynamic optimization. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 33(3): 575--582

    2009

  4. [12]

    G.; and Plitt, K.-J

    Bock, H. G.; and Plitt, K.-J. 1984. A multiple shooting algorithm for direct solution of optimal control problems. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 17(2): 1603--1608

    1984

  5. [13]

    T.; and Tolle, J

    Boggs, P. T.; and Tolle, J. W. 1995. Sequential quadratic programming. Acta numerica, 4: 1--51

    1995

  6. [14]

    J.; and Frank, B

    B \"o hme, T. J.; and Frank, B. 2017 a . Direct Methods for Optimal Control, 233--273. Cham: Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-51317-1

    2017

  7. [15]

    J.; and Frank, B

    B \"o hme, T. J.; and Frank, B. 2017 b . Indirect Methods for Optimal Control, 215--231. Cham: Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-51317-1

    2017

  8. [16]

    Chang, Y.-C.; Roohi, N.; and Gao, S. 2019. Neural lyapunov control. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  9. [17]

    Chen, T.; and Chen, H. 1995. Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 6(4): 911--917

    1995

  10. [18]

    Chen, Y.; Shi, Y.; and Zhang, B. 2018. Optimal control via neural networks: A convex approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11835

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cheng, L.; Wang, Z.; Song, Y.; and Jiang, F. 2020. Real-time optimal control for irregular asteroid landings using deep neural networks. Acta Astronautica, 170: 66--79

    2020

  12. [20]

    Cohen, L. 1995. Time-frequency analysis, volume 778. Prentice hall New Jersey

    1995

  13. [21]

    G.; and Gluzman, M

    Dai, J. G.; and Gluzman, M. 2022. Queueing network controls via deep reinforcement learning. Stochastic Systems, 12(1): 30--67

    2022

  14. [22]

    Davis, P. J. 1975. Interpolation and approximation. Courier Corporation

    1975

  15. [23]

    L.; and Zolezzi, T

    Dontchev, A. L.; and Zolezzi, T. 2006. Well-posed optimization problems. Springer

    2006

  16. [24]

    D’ambrosio, A.; Schiassi, E.; Curti, F.; and Furfaro, R. 2021. Pontryagin neural networks with functional interpolation for optimal intercept problems. Mathematics, 9(9): 996

    2021

  17. [25]

    Effati, S.; and Pakdaman, M. 2013. Optimal control problem via neural networks. Neural Computing and Applications, 23(7): 2093--2100

    2013

  18. [26]

    Fanaskov, V.; and Oseledets, I. 2022. Spectral Neural Operators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10573

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gao, S.; Kong, S.; and Clarke, E. M. 2013. dReal: An SMT solver for nonlinear theories over the reals. In Automated Deduction--CADE-24: 24th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lake Placid, NY, USA, June 9-14, 2013. Proceedings 24, 208--214. Springer

    2013

  20. [28]

    Ghosh, S.; Birrell, P.; and De Angelis, D. 2021. Variational inference for nonlinear ordinary differential equations. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2719--2727. PMLR

    2021

  21. [29]

    D.; and Karniadakis, G

    Goswami, S.; Kontolati, K.; Shields, M. D.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2022. Deep transfer operator learning for partial differential equations under conditional shift. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1--10

    2022

  22. [30]

    G \"u hring, I.; Kutyniok, G.; and Petersen, P. 2020. Error bounds for approximations with deep ReLU neural networks in W s, p norms. Analysis and Applications, 18(05): 803--859

    2020

  23. [31]

    A.; Yildirim, A.; and Martins, J

    He, X.; Li, J.; Mader, C. A.; Yildirim, A.; and Martins, J. R. 2019. Robust aerodynamic shape optimization—from a circle to an airfoil. Aerospace Science and Technology, 87: 48--61

    2019

  24. [32]

    P.; Menner, M.; and Zeilinger, M

    Hewing, L.; Wabersich, K. P.; Menner, M.; and Zeilinger, M. N. 2020. Learning-based model predictive control: Toward safe learning in control. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 3: 269--296

    2020

  25. [33]

    Y.; Shin, J

    Hwang, R.; Lee, J. Y.; Shin, J. Y.; and Hwang, H. J. 2022. Solving pde-constrained control problems using operator learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 4504--4512

    2022

  26. [34]

    Jia, Y.-B. 2019. Quaternions. Com S, 477: 577

    2019

  27. [35]

    Jin, W.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Z.; and Mou, S. 2020. Pontryagin differentiable programming: An end-to-end learning and control framework. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 7979--7992

    2020

  28. [36]

    Kafash, B.; Delavarkhalafi, A.; and Karbassi, S. 2014. A numerical approach for solving optimal control problems using the Boubaker polynomials expansion scheme. J. Interpolat. Approx. Sci. Comput, 3: 1--18

    2014

  29. [37]

    Khoo, Y.; Lu, J.; and Ying, L. 2021. Solving parametric PDE problems with artificial neural networks. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 32(3): 421--435

    2021

  30. [38]

    P.; and Ba, J

    Kingma, D. P.; and Ba, J. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kirk, D. E. 2004. Optimal control theory: an introduction. Courier Corporation

    2004

  33. [41]

    G.; Modares, H.; and Lewis, F

    Kiumarsi, B.; Vamvoudakis, K. G.; Modares, H.; and Lewis, F. L. 2017. Optimal and autonomous control using reinforcement learning: A survey. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 29(6): 2042--2062

    2017

  34. [42]

    o rkel*, S.; Kostina, E.; Bock, H. G.; and Schl \

    K \"o rkel*, S.; Kostina, E.; Bock, H. G.; and Schl \"o der, J. P. 2004. Numerical methods for optimal control problems in design of robust optimal experiments for nonlinear dynamic processes. Optimization Methods and Software, 19(3-4): 327--338

    2004

  35. [43]

    Krimsky, E.; and Collins, S. H. 2020. Optimal control of an energy-recycling actuator for mobile robotics applications. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 3559--3565. IEEE

    2020

  36. [44]

    Lanthaler, S.; Mishra, S.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2022. Error estimates for deeponets: A deep learning framework in infinite dimensions. Transactions of Mathematics and Its Applications, 6(1): tnac001

    2022

  37. [45]

    Lapin, A.; Zhang, S.; and Lapin, S. 2019. Numerical solution of a parabolic optimal control problem arising in economics and management. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 361: 715--729

    2019

  38. [46]

    Lasota, A. 1968. A discrete boundary value problem. In Annales Polonici Mathematici, volume 20, 183--190. Institute of Mathematics Polish Academy of Sciences

    1968

  39. [47]

    L.; Vrabie, D.; and Syrmos, V

    Lewis, F. L.; Vrabie, D.; and Syrmos, V. L. 2012. Optimal control. John Wiley & Sons

    2012

  40. [48]

    Li, W.; and Todorov, E. 2004. Iterative linear quadratic regulator design for nonlinear biological movement systems. In ICINCO (1), 222--229. Citeseer

    2004

  41. [49]

    B.; Azizzadenesheli, K.; Bhattacharya, K.; Stuart, A.; Anandkumar, A.; et al

    Li, Z.; Kovachki, N. B.; Azizzadenesheli, K.; Bhattacharya, K.; Stuart, A.; Anandkumar, A.; et al. 2020. Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  42. [50]

    Lu, L.; Jin, P.; Pang, G.; Zhang, Z.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2021. Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(3): 218--229

    2021

  43. [51]

    B.; Yang, B.; and Hu, J

    Mathiesen, F. B.; Yang, B.; and Hu, J. 2022. Hyperverlet: A Symplectic Hypersolver for Hamiltonian Systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 4575--4582

    2022

  44. [52]

    Mehrotra, S. 1992. On the implementation of a primal-dual interior point method. SIAM Journal on optimization, 2(4): 575--601

    1992

  45. [53]

    o hler, J.; Berenz, V.; Allg \

    Nubert, J.; K \"o hler, J.; Berenz, V.; Allg \"o wer, F.; and Trimpe, S. 2020. Safe and fast tracking on a robot manipulator: Robust mpc and neural network control. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5(2): 3050--3057

    2020

  46. [54]

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in neural information processing systems

    2019

  47. [55]

    Petersen, P.; and Voigtlaender, F. 2020. Equivalence of approximation by convolutional neural networks and fully-connected networks. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 148(4): 1567--1581

    2020

  48. [56]

    Pontryagin, L. S. 1987. Mathematical theory of optimal processes. CRC press

    1987

  49. [57]

    Powell, M. J. D.; et al. 1981. Approximation theory and methods. Cambridge university press

    1981

  50. [58]

    Raissi, M.; Perdikaris, P.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2019. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational physics, 378: 686--707

    2019

  51. [59]

    Raissi, M.; Yazdani, A.; and Karniadakis, G. E. 2020. Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations. Science, 367(6481): 1026--1030

    2020

  52. [60]

    Rao, A. V. 2009. A survey of numerical methods for optimal control. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, 135(1): 497--528

    2009

  53. [61]

    Savitzky, A.; and Golay, M. J. 1964. Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analytical chemistry, 36(8): 1627--1639

    1964

  54. [62]

    Shen, Z.; Liu, J.; He, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xu, R.; Yu, H.; and Cui, P. 2021. Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.13624

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    W.; Hutchinson, S.; and Vidyasagar, M

    Spong, M. W.; Hutchinson, S.; and Vidyasagar, M. 2020. Robot modeling and control. John Wiley & Sons

    2020

  56. [64]

    Tassa, Y.; Mansard, N.; and Todorov, E. 2014. Control-limited differential dynamic programming. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1168--1175. IEEE

    2014

  57. [65]

    Tedrake, R. 2022. Underactuated Robotics

    2022

  58. [66]

    Truesdell, C. A. 1992. A First Course in Rational Continuum Mechanics V1. Academic Press

    1992

  59. [67]

    A.; and Perdikaris, P

    Wang, S.; Bhouri, M. A.; and Perdikaris, P. 2021. Fast PDE-constrained optimization via self-supervised operator learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.13297

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Wang, S.; Teng, Y.; and Perdikaris, P. 2021. Understanding and mitigating gradient flow pathologies in physics-informed neural networks. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43(5): A3055--A3081

    2021

  61. [69]

    Wang, S.; Wang, H.; and Perdikaris, P. 2021. Learning the solution operator of parametric partial differential equations with physics-informed deeponets. Science advances, 7(40): eabi8605

    2021

  62. [70]

    Xie, S.; Hu, X.; Qi, S.; and Lang, K. 2018. An artificial neural network-enhanced energy management strategy for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy, 163: 837--848

    2018

  63. [71]

    Xiu, D.; and Hesthaven, J. S. 2005. High-order collocation methods for differential equations with random inputs. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 27(3): 1118--1139

    2005

  64. [72]

    Yu, B.; et al. 2018. The deep Ritz method: a deep learning-based numerical algorithm for solving variational problems. Communications in Mathematics and Statistics, 6(1): 1--12

    2018

  65. [73]

    Yu, K.; Bauza, M.; Fazeli, N.; and Rodriguez, A. 2016. More than a Million Ways to be Pushed. A High-Fidelity Experimental Data Set of Planar Pushing In: IEEE/RSJ IROS

    2016

  66. [74]

    Zhou, D.-X. 2020. Universality of deep convolutional neural networks. Applied and computational harmonic analysis, 48(2): 787--794

    2020

  67. [75]

    Zhou, R.; Quartz, T.; De Sterck, H.; and Liu, J. 2022. Neural Lyapunov Control of Unknown Nonlinear Systems with Stability Guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01913

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Zhu, Y.; and Zabaras, N. 2018. Bayesian deep convolutional encoder--decoder networks for surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification. Journal of Computational Physics, 366: 415--447

    2018

  69. [77]

    Zhu, Y.; Zabaras, N.; Koutsourelakis, P.-S.; and Perdikaris, P. 2019. Physics-constrained deep learning for high-dimensional surrogate modeling and uncertainty quantification without labeled data. Journal of Computational Physics, 394: 56--81

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.