Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Survey on safe robot control via learning

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 To make learned controllers safe on real robots, formal guarantees from classical control theory must be carried through learning and down to the timing of the embedded system.

desk verdict A useful, broad survey of safe robot control that needs its worked Lyapunov example fixed before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01432 v1 pith:IOZBJPJS submitted 2024-12-16 cs.RO cs.AI

Bassel El Mabsout This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords saferobotcontrollearning-basedLyapunovfunctionsreinforcementlearningmodelpredictivereal-timesystemsneuralnetworkverificationsystemidentification
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 survey sets out to map how robotic systems can learn high-performance control without sacrificing safety. It argues that no single method is enough: classical control theory supplies formal guarantees such as stability, learning-based methods supply adaptation and expressive power, and embedded-system design supplies the timing guarantees that make those guarantees real on physical hardware. The paper develops this thesis through a worked oven example and through three representative methods: the Neural Lander, neural Lyapunov certificates, and SINDY, together with a real-time scheduler study. The sympathetic reader will see the central message as a compromise: learning can be made safe when it is embedded inside a structure that already carries a certificate, rather than trusted as an unconstrained black box.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the combination of a formal certificate of stability with a learned component that is constrained so the certificate survives. In the worked oven example, the certificate is the control Lyapunov function that measures distance to the desired temperature; the Neural Lander extension adds a learned disturbance model with a bounded Lipschitz constant, so the control input can be found by fixed-point iteration and stability is retained up to an $O(\epsilon)$ ball. On the embedded side, the equivalent mechanism is a real-time scheduler that bounds jitter and guarantees the control loop's timing, as demonstrated in the smARTflight study. These pieces work together because each layer converts one kind of uncertainty into a bound that the next layer can respect.

What would settle it

Train the Neural Lander-style disturbance model on oven trajectories, then sample or adversarially search the operating temperature range for states where the model's prediction error exceeds the assumed bound; if any reachable state has error greater than that bound, the claimed convergence to the small ball around the desired temperature does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its own words, is that the problem is 'learning high-performance control on real robots while maintaining various notions of safety.' Its contribution is to organize the landscape and to show, by worked example, how safety can survive the introduction of learning. In the Neural Lander case, a neural network that predicts unmodeled disturbances is constrained by spectral normalization, and a fixed-point iteration then computes a control input that cancels the predicted disturbance; the controller is proved exponentially stable up to an $O(\epsilon)$ ball, provided the network's error stays bounded. In the neural Lyapunov case, a network is trained to be a control Lyapunov function and an SMT solver checks the conditions across the state space, giving stability guarantees for nonlinear systems. The survey concludes that safety benefits from predictable systems and well-understood controller specifications, while the black-box nature of machine learning makes the trade-off between understanding and expressive power the central obstacle.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, flagged in Section 3.2.1, is that a learned disturbance model's prediction error remains below a fixed bound on every state, including states it never saw during training; the paper itself notes that adversarial examples make this assumption questionable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A learned component can keep formal safety guarantees only when it is constrained and its error bound is known, so the practical route to safe learning-enabled control is to embed learning inside a certified architecture rather than to certify an arbitrary policy afterward.
  • Deep reinforcement learning alone is not yet a safety solution: model-free and policy-gradient methods are data-hungry, and their exploration is unsafe without extra mechanisms such as constrained MDPs or reward shaping.
  • Neural network certificates are computationally expensive; checking Lyapunov conditions over a continuous state space is NP-complete, which limits these methods to small systems such as a single quadrotor rather than large ones.
  • On physical robots, formal stability claims depend on the embedded system meeting its timing assumptions, because jitter and deadline misses turn the model error from a small perturbation into a violation of the certificate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The survey's implicit recipe points to an extension it names but does not develop: training the disturbance model online while updating the controller, with safety retained, would remove the Neural Lander's need for a large offline dataset.
  • A testable extension is to make the neural controller scheduler-aware by feeding the predicted time between control invocations into the network, so it can choose more conservative behavior when timing guarantees weaken.
  • The bounded-error assumption could be probed directly by adversarially searching the operating region for states where the learned model's error exceeds its claimed bound; the frequency and size of such states would settle whether a Lipschitz constraint is sufficient in practice.
  • Read broadly, the survey implies that the bottleneck for safe learned control is less about new learning algorithms and more about cheap certificates and timing isolation, both of which are engineering problems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript is a survey of safe robot control via learning. It introduces classical control concepts (model-free/model-based control, system identification, stability, control Lyapunov functions, temporal logics), surveys deep reinforcement learning and robustness issues, and discusses augmentations of classical control with learned components (Neural Lander, Neural Lyapunov functions with dReal, SINDY). A final section covers embedded-system timing and scheduling considerations for retaining safety guarantees. The survey is organized around a running oven example and aims to provide an accessible overview of how classical control, learning, and embedded systems can be combined for safe real-robot control.

Significance. If the technical exposition is corrected, the survey would be a useful and fairly broad map of the safe-learning landscape, and it is valuable for connecting Lyapunov-based certification, learned dynamics, and real-time embedded constraints in one place. The paper gives credit to concrete prior work, works through the Neural Lander and Neural Lyapunov methods in detail, and honestly flags the strong generalization assumption in the Neural Lander bounded-error condition. However, the core CLF definition and the worked oven proof in Section 2.4.1 contain mathematical errors, and there are additional inaccurate statements about PID stability and the Neural Lander algebra. These issues make the survey unreliable as a reference in its current form, so the central claim of providing a useful overview is not yet met.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4.1, [def.b] and the oven proof] The discrete-time CLF condition (3), V(f(x,u)) ≤ V(x), only enforces non-increase of V and does not by itself imply convergence to the setpoint p; the text's assertion that this condition means the system will eventually reach p is not justified. The proposed exponential-stability modification is also sign-wrong: it should read V(f(x,u)) - V(x) ≤ -α V(x) for some α > 0, not V(f(x,u)) - V(x) < α V(x). In the oven verification, the expression V(x e^{-kΔt} + temp_desired) treats x as an error variable while V was defined on absolute temperature; the subsequent equivalence |x e^{-kΔt}| ≤ |x| ↔ -kΔt < ln(1) is invalid, because the inequality follows from e^{-kΔt} < 1 for k,Δt > 0 and is not equivalent to that logarithmic statement. Since this is the paper's main worked demonstration of a Lyapunov proof, the derivation must be corrected.
  2. [Section 2.1] The sentence claiming that the existence of a control Lyapunov function guarantees that a PID controller is stable for the inverted pendulum 'from any starting angle' is incorrect on two counts: a CLF certifies the existence of some stabilizing feedback, not the stability of a particular PID controller, and a fixed linear PID cannot globally stabilize the inverted pendulum from every initial angle. Please remove or substantially rephrase this statement.
  3. [Section 3.2.1] The equations defining the disturbance-rejecting controller are algebraically garbled. The display `−k(temp(t) − u(tempon − tempoff) = − fa_hat(temp(t), u, θ)` has unbalanced parentheses and omits tempoff, and the displayed solution `ut = temp(t) − fa_hat(temp(t), ut−1, θ)/k / (tempon − tempoff)` does not transparently solve the preceding equation. Because this worked example is meant to show how the Neural Lander's components interact, the derivation should be redone and checked.
  4. [Section 3.2.2] The closing sentence of Section 3.2.2 claims that the method also enforces 'the lack of adversarial examples.' A δ-complete SMT check of Lyapunov conditions on a dynamical model does not by itself guarantee absence of adversarial examples or robustness to distribution shift; this claim is unsupported and should be removed or backed by a citation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript has many OCR/typing issues that interrupt readability: missing spaces ('affects t he', 'in dustries'), malformed citations ('cle [2022]', 'tra [2022]', 'Danjun et al. [2015]' for a ground-effect model), and inconsistent reference formatting. A thorough copyedit is needed.
  2. [Section 2.3] The Maclaurin-series derivation is correct but overly long; more importantly, the controller definition and the rewritten ODE should be labeled with equation numbers so the proof in Section 2.4.1 can refer to them precisely.
  3. [Section 2.4.2] The temporal-logic notation `F[0,1s](G[0,10s](x(t)<400))` is used without a precise recursive syntax; the informal explanation is helpful, but a formal grammar or a citation for STL would make the definitions self-contained.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence beginning 'the issue of unpredictability and non-determinism within the defined control tasks' is a run-on with inconsistent tense; it also describes the cited paper's contribution without a page or experiment reference, which makes the claim harder to verify.
  5. [References] Some references are incomplete: the CleanFlight reference has no access date, and the entry for Westervelt et al. is missing the full author list. Please normalize all references to the journal's style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's self-citations are illustrative rather than load-bearing, and the worked examples are direct applications of cited methods.

full rationale

This paper is a survey, not a derivation of new safety guarantees. Its central claim is to organize existing safe-control and learning methods, and the load-bearing content is attributed to external works (e.g., Shi et al. for the Neural Lander, Chang et al. for neural Lyapunov functions, Brunton et al. for SINDY). The only self-citations are Mysore et al. [2021a] and [2021b], where the author is a co-author; these are used as examples of quadrotor control, regularization, and reward shaping, and they are not used to justify any methodological premise of the survey. The worked oven example in Section 2.4.1 contains mathematical exposition errors, such as conflating absolute temperature with error in the Lyapunov condition and writing an incorrect logarithmic equivalence, but these are correctness problems, not circular reductions: the proof verifies the chosen controller directly using the closed-form solution rather than defining the conclusion into the assumptions. The Neural Lander discussion in Section 3.2.1 explicitly flags the bounded-error assumption |fa - fa_hat| <= epsilon as strong and notes the adversarial-example concern, so it does not hide a fitted input as a prediction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via a self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, and the circularity score is low.

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

The paper is a survey and introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard mathematics and on assumptions of the methods it surveys, chiefly the bounded-error assumption for learned disturbance models.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Oven temperature follows Newton's law of cooling: ˙temp(t) = -k(temp(t) - temp_ambient).
    Used in Section 2.3 as the running example; not a general assumption of the survey, but load-bearing for the illustrative Lyapunov proof.
  • domain assumption The neural-network disturbance model error is bounded: |fa - fa_hat| ≤ ε.
    Adopted from Shi et al. 2019 in Section 3.2.1; the paper explicitly calls this the strongest assumption.
  • domain assumption The dynamics are represented as a Markov Decision Process for RL.
    Standard RL assumption mentioned in Section 3.1.
  • standard math Standard mathematical results are assumed, e.g., Maclaurin series expansion of the exponential function.
    Used in the oven derivation in Section 2.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Survey on safe robot control via learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOZBJPJS

@misc{pith2026250101432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Survey on safe robot control via learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOZBJPJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01432}
}
read the original abstract

Control systems are critical to modern technological infrastructure, spanning industries from aerospace to healthcare. This survey explores the landscape of safe robot learning, investigating methods that balance high-performance control with rigorous safety constraints. By examining classical control techniques, learning-based approaches, and embedded system design, the research seeks to understand how robotic systems can be developed to prevent hazardous states while maintaining optimal performance across complex operational environments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    http://cleanflight.com/, 2022

    CleanFlight . http://cleanflight.com/, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    http://iml.univ-mrs.fr/ kolyada/opds/, 2022

    Open Problems In Dynamical Systems . http://iml.univ-mrs.fr/ kolyada/opds/, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    https://ai.bu.edu/visda-2022/, 2022

    Visual Domain Adaptation Challenge . https://ai.bu.edu/visda-2022/, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    E. Altman. Constrained Markov decision processes. Stochastic modeling. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton ; London, 1999. ISBN 9780849303821

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Atherton and S

    D. Atherton and S. Majhi. Limitations of pid controllers. In Proceedings of the 1999 American Control Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36251), volume 6, pages 3843--3847 vol.6, 1999. doi:10.1109/ACC.1999.786236

    work page arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Berberich, J

    J. Berberich, J. Kohler, M. A. Muller, and F. Allgower. Linear tracking mpc for nonlinear systems--part i: The model-based case. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 67 0 (9): 0 4390–4405, Sep 2022. ISSN 0018-9286, 1558-2523, 2334-3303. doi:10.1109/TAC.2022.3166872. URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9756294/

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz. Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 0 (15): 0 3932--3937, 2016. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517384113. URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1517384113

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1517384113 2016

  8. [8]

    J. C. Butcher. Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations. Wiley, Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ, 2nd ed edition, 2008. ISBN 9780470723357

    work page 2008

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Chang, N

    Y.-C. Chang, N. Roohi, and S. Gao. Neural lyapunov control. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d Alch\' e -Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. URL https://proceedings.n...

    2019

  2. [10]

    B. Chen, K. Huang, S. Raghupathi, I. Chandratreya, Q. Du, and H. Lipson. Automated discovery of fundamental variables hidden in experimental data. Nat Comput Sci, 2 0 (7): 0 433--442, July 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    H. Dai, B. Landry, L. Yang, M. Pavone, and R. Tedrake. Lyapunov-stable neural-network control. In Robotics: Science and Systems XVII. Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, Jul 2021. ISBN 9780992374778. doi:10.15607/RSS.2021.XVII.063. URL http://www.roboticsproceedings.org/...

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Danjun, Z

    L. Danjun, Z. Yan, S. Zongying, and L. Geng. Autonomous landing of quadrotor based on ground effect modelling. In 2015 34th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), pages 5647--5652, 2015. doi:10.1109/ChiCC.2015.7260521

    2015

  5. [13]

    R. C. Dorf and R. H. Modern Control Systems. Prentice Hall, Philadelphia, PA, 12 edition, June 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Farrukh and R

    A. Farrukh and R. West. smartflight: An environmentally-aware adaptive real-time flight management system. In ECRTS, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, and A. Emami-Naeini. Feedback control of dynamic systems. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 4 edition, Dec. 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    Fujimoto, H

    S. Fujimoto, H. Hoof, and D. Meger. Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1587--1596, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    S. Gao, J. Avigad, and E. M. Clarke. Delta-decidability over the reals. In 2012 27th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 305--314, 2012. doi:10.1109/LICS.2012.41

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    S. Gu, L. Yang, Y. Du, G. Chen, F. Walter, J. Wang, Y. Yang, and A. Knoll. A review of safe reinforcement learning: Methods, theory and applications, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10330

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gullapalli and A

    V. Gullapalli and A. G. Barto. Shaping as a method for accelerating reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE international symposium on intelligent control, pages 554--559. IEEE, 1992

    1992

  12. [20]

    Haarnoja, A

    T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Haeussermann

    W. Haeussermann. Description and performance of the saturn launch vehicle's navigation, guidance, and control system. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 3 0 (1): 0 275--312, 1970. ISSN 1474-6670. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)68785-8. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...

    1970 doi

  14. [22]

    a gglund and K. str\

    T. H\" a gglund and K. str\" o m. An industrial adaptive pid controller. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 23 0 (1): 0 251--256, 1990. ISSN 1474-6670. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)52729-9. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474667017527299. 3rd IFAC S...

    1990 doi

  15. [23]

    M. A. Haidekker. The pid controller. Linear Feedback Controls, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    T. A. Henzinger. The theory of hybrid automata. Proceedings 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 278--292, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Huth and M

    M. Huth and M. Ryan. Logic in computer science: modelling and reasoning about systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge [U.K.] ; New York, 2nd ed edition, 2004. ISBN 9780521543101

    2004

  18. [26]

    A. Isidori. Nonlinear control systems. Communications and control engineering series. Springer, Berlin ; New York, 3rd ed edition, 1995. ISBN 9783540199168

    1995

  19. [27]

    J. Jia, A. Salem, M. Backes, Y. Zhang, and N. Z. Gong. Memguard: Defending against black-box membership inference attacks via adversarial examples. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS '19, page 259–274, New York, NY, US...

    2019

  20. [28]

    V. Le, C. STOICA MANIU, T. Alamo, E. Camacho, and D. Dumur. Zonotopes: From Guaranteed State Estimation to Control. 10 2013. doi:10.1002/9781118761588

    2013 doi

  21. [29]

    F. L. Lewis. L1 adaptive control theory: Guaranteed robustness with fast adaptation (hovakimyan, n. and cao, c.; 2010 [bookshelf]. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 31 0 (5): 0 112--114, 2011. doi:10.1109/MCS.2011.941837

    2010

  22. [30]

    Y. Li, M. Danish, and R. West. Quest-v: A virtualized multikernel for high-confidence systems. Dec 2011. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5136. arXiv:1112.5136 [cs]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T. P. Lillicrap, J. J. Hunt, A. Pritzel, N. Heess, T. Erez, Y. Tassa, D. Silver, and D. Wierstra. Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    S. Liu, D. Liberzon, and V. Zharnitsky. Almost lyapunov functions for nonlinear systems. Automatica, 113: 0 108758, 2020. ISSN 0005-1098. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2019.108758. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109819306211

    2020

  25. [33]

    L. Ljung. System Identification, pages 1--19. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017. ISBN 9780471346081. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/047134608X.W1046.pub2. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/047134608X.W1046.pub2

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    T. Lugo, S. Lozano, J. Fern\' a ndez, and J. Carretero. A survey of techniques for reducing interference in real-time applications on multicore platforms. IEEE Access, 10: 0 21853--21882, 2022. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3151891

    2022

  27. [35]

    Maiza, H

    C. Maiza, H. Rihani, J. M. Rivas, J. Goossens, S. Altmeyer, and R. I. Davis. A survey of timing verification techniques for multi-core real-time systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 52 0 (3), jun 2019. ISSN 0360-0300. doi:10.1145/3323212. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3323212

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    M\" a kil\" a , J

    P. M\" a kil\" a , J. Partington, and T. Gustafsson. Worst-case control-relevant identification. Automatica, 31 0 (12): 0 1799--1819, 1995. ISSN 0005-1098. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(95)00106-3. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005109895001063....

    1995

  29. [37]

    Martins and S

    J. Martins and S. Pinto. Bao: a modern lightweight embedded hypervisor. 02 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Mitsch and A

    S. Mitsch and A. Platzer. Modelplex: verified runtime validation of verified cyber-physical system models. Formal Methods in System Design, 49 0 (1–2): 0 33–74, Oct 2016. ISSN 0925-9856, 1572-8102. doi:10.1007/s10703-016-0241-z. URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10703-016-0241-z

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    V. Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. Graves, I. Antonoglou, D. Wierstra, and M. Riedmiller. Playing atari with deep reinforcement learning, 2013. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5602

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    V. Mnih, A. P. Badia, M. Mirza, A. Graves, T. Harley, T. P. Lillicrap, D. Silver, and K. Kavukcuoglu. Asynchronous methods for deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 48, ICML'16,...

    1928

  33. [41]

    T. M. Moerland, J. Broekens, A. Plaat, and C. M. Jonker. Model-based reinforcement learning: A survey, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16712

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mysore, B

    S. Mysore, B. Mabsout, R. Mancuso, and K. Saenko. Regularizing action policies for smooth control with reinforcement learning. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1810--1816, 2021 a

    2021

  35. [43]

    Mysore, B

    S. Mysore, B. Mabsout, K. Saenko, and R. Mancuso. How to train your quadrotor: A framework for consistently smooth and responsive flight control via reinforcement learning. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst., 5 0 (4), sep 2021 b . ISSN 2378-962X. doi:10.1145/3466618. URL https://doi...

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    A. O'Dwyer. Handbook of pi and pid controller tuning rules. 2003

    2003

  37. [45]

    Akkaya, M

    OpenAI , I. Akkaya, M. Andrychowicz, M. Chociej, M. Litwin, B. McGrew, A. Petron, A. Paino, M. Plappert, G. Powell, R. Ribas, J. Schneider, N. Tezak, J. Tworek, P. Welinder, L. Weng, Q. Yuan, W. Zaremba, and L. Zhang. Solving rubik's cube with a robot hand, 2019. URL https://a...

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. F. Prudencio, M. R. O. A. Maximo, and E. L. Colombini. A survey on offline reinforcement learning: Taxonomy, review, and open problems, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.01387

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ramsauer, J

    R. Ramsauer, J. Kiszka, D. Lohmann, and W. Mauerer. Look mum, no vm exits! (almost). 2017. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1705.06932. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06932

    2017 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rubenstein, C

    M. Rubenstein, C. Ahler, and R. Nagpal. Kilobot: A low cost scalable robot system for collective behaviors. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 3293--3298, 2012. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2012.6224638

    2012

  41. [49]

    Schulman, S

    J. Schulman, S. Levine, P. Abbeel, M. Jordan, and P. Moritz. Trust region policy optimization. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Lille, France, 07--09 Jul 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Shaiju and I

    A. Shaiju and I. R. Petersen. Formulas for discrete time lqr, lqg, leqg and minimax lqg optimal control problems. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 41 0 (2): 0 8773--8778, 2008. ISSN 1474-6670. doi:https://doi.org/10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.01483. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...

    2008

  44. [52]

    G. Shi, X. Shi, M. O'Connell, R. Yu, K. Azizzadenesheli, A. Anandkumar, Y. Yue, and S.-J. Chung. Neural lander: Stable drone landing control using learned dynamics. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9784--9790, 2019. doi:10.1109/ICRA.201...

    2019

  45. [53]

    Silver, A

    D. Silver, A. Huang, C. J. Maddison, A. Guez, L. Sifre, G. van den Driessche, J. Schrittwieser, I. Antonoglou, V. Panneershelvam, M. Lanctot, S. Dieleman, D. Grewe, J. Nham, N. Kalchbrenner, I. Sutskever, T. Lillicrap, M. Leach, K. Kavukcuoglu, T. Graepel, and D. Hassabis. Mas...

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    derstro\

    T. So\"derstro\"m and P. Stoica. System identification. Prentice Hall International series in systems and control engineering. Prentice Hall, New York, 1989. ISBN 9780138812362

    1989

  47. [55]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto. Reinforcement learning: an introduction. Adaptive computation and machine learning series. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, second edition edition, 2018. ISBN 9780262039246

    2018

  48. [56]

    R. Temam. Navier–Stokes Equations. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, Apr 2001. ISBN 9780821827376. doi:10.1090/chel/343. URL http://www.ams.org/chel/343

    2001 doi

  49. [57]

    Van Overschee and B

    P. Van Overschee and B. De Moor. Subspace Identification for Linear Systems. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1996. ISBN 9781461380610. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-0465-4. URL http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4613-0465-4

    1996 doi

  50. [58]

    Watkins and R

    C. Watkins and R. Walter. Transitioning from federated avionics architectures to integrated modular avionics. 2007 IEEE/AIAA 26th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, pages 2.A.1--1--2.A.1--10, 2007

    2007

  51. [59]

    C. J. Watkins and P. Dayan. Q-learning. Machine learning, 8 0 (3-4): 0 279--292, 1992

    1992

  52. [60]

    R. West, Y. Li, and E. S. Missimer. Time management in the quest-v rtos. 2012

    2012

  53. [61]

    E. R. Westervelt, J. W. Grizzle, C. Chevallereau, J. H. Choi, and B. Morris. Feedback control of dynamic bipedal robot locomotion. Automation and Control Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, June 2007

    2007

  54. [62]

    Wijewardhane, A

    N. Wijewardhane, A. R. Denniss, M. Uppington, H. Hauser, T. E. Gorochowski, E. Piddini, and S. Hauert. Long-term imaging and spatio-temporal control of living cells using light. In 2022 International Conference on Manipulation, Automation and Robotics at Small Scales (MARSS), ...

    2022

  55. [63]

    H. Yun, R. Mancuso, Z.-P. Wu, and R. Pellizzoni. Palloc: Dram bank-aware memory allocator for performance isolation on multicore platforms. In 2014 IEEE 19th Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), pages 155--166, 2014. doi:10.1109/RTAS.2014.6925999

    2014

  56. [64]

    J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols. Optimum Settings for Automatic Controllers . Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 115 0 (2B): 0 220--222, 06 1993. ISSN 0022-0434. doi:10.1115/1.2899060. URL https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2899060

    1993 doi

Pith tools

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