Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Delay-adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems with Approximate Neural Operator Predictors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neural operator predictors can stabilize nonlinear systems whose actuator delay is unknown, with practical convergence controlled by approximation error and delay uncertainty.

desk verdict A worthwhile combination of neural operator predictors and delay adaptation, but the main theorem's proof assumes the trajectory stays in the training region without proving it. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20367 v1 pith:MYP5CXYH submitted 2025-08-28 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SYmath.DS

Luke Bhan , Miroslav Krstic , Yuanyuan Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SYmath.DS MSC 93C2393C1068T07
keywords neuraloperatorspredictorfeedbackactuatordelaydelay-adaptivecontrolnonlinearsystemsLyapunov-Krasovskiifunctionalsemi-globalpracticalstabilityoperatorlearning
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 claims that predictor feedback for nonlinear systems with unknown, arbitrarily long actuator delays can be safely implemented with a learned neural operator instead of an exact predictor. It proves that when the neural operator approximates the predictor uniformly to within $\epsilon$ on a compact set, and the delay estimate is updated online with a projection law, the closed-loop state converges to a neighborhood whose radius is controlled by $\epsilon$ and by the size of the delay-uncertainty interval. This matters because exact nonlinear predictors are implicit ODEs with no closed form, while numerical approximations are slow; a fast learned predictor with a stability certificate makes predictor feedback practical for real-time control. The result is a semiglobal practical stability theorem, not a global asymptotic one: the residual set is nonzero for any finite training error or nonzero delay uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the predictor operator $P(X,U,\varphi)(s)=X+\varphi\int_0^s f(P(s),U(s))ds$, the transport-PDE representation of the delay ($D u_t=u_x$, $u(1,t)=U(t)$), the backstepping transformation $w(x,t)=u(x,t)-\kappa(P(x,t))$, and the Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional $W(t)=D\log N(t)+\frac{b}{\gamma}\tilde D(t)^2$ with $N(t)=1+V(X)+b\int_0^1(1+x)w(x,t)^2dx$. The universal approximation theorem for neural operators enters by guaranteeing a predictor $\hat P$ with uniform error $\epsilon$ on a compact set; this turns the approximate predictor into an additive perturbation that the Lyapunov analysis bounds in terms of $\epsilon$ and the projection bounds $\underline D, \overline D$.

What would settle it

Train a neural operator predictor on a compact set $K$, run the closed loop (28)-(12) from an initial condition satisfying (32), and compute along the trajectory the actual maximum error $\sup_{x,t}|P(X, T_{\hat D}U, \hat D)-\hat P(X, T_{\hat D}U, \hat D)|$. If this error exceeds the $\epsilon$ used in Theorem 3 while the state leaves the predicted residual neighborhood, the missing construction of $K$ from (32) is the cause; if stability persists anyway, the theorem's compact-set condition is conservative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the plant $\dot X = f(X, U(t-D))$ with $D$ unknown in $[\underline D, \overline D]$, and under Assumptions 1–4, the paper proves that the controller $U(t)=\kappa(\hat P(X(t), T_{\hat D(t)}U, \hat D(t)))$ with the projection-based adaptive law (11) makes the closed loop semiglobally practically stable. Theorem 3 gives constants $\gamma^*, b^*, \epsilon^*$ and class-$\mathcal K_\infty$ and $\mathcal{KL}$ bounds such that, for $\gamma<\gamma^*$, $b>b^*$, $\epsilon<\epsilon^*$, and initial states satisfying (32), $\Gamma(t)\le\alpha_3^*(\Gamma(0))+\alpha_1^*(\epsilon)+\alpha_2^*(\Delta D)$ and $|X(t)|^2\le\beta_1^*(|X(0)|^2,t)+\alpha_4^*(\Delta D)+\alpha_5^*(\epsilon)$. The residual set shrinks as the neural operator's uniform approximation error $\epsilon$ and the delay-uncertainty window $\Delta D = \overline D - \underline D$ go to zero, giving a stability guarantee for a learned predictor rather than an exact one.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes the trained neural operator's approximation error is bounded by $\epsilon$ uniformly on a compact set that contains every state, input history, and delay estimate the closed loop will actually visit, but the paper never derives that set from the initial-condition constraint, so trajectories leaving the training region would break the key bound (56).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A neural operator trained once offline can replace numerical predictor integration online without forfeiting a stability guarantee, for any plant satisfying the four assumptions.
  • Because the predictor error enters additively, the user can tune the practical convergence radius by choosing the training tolerance $\epsilon$ and the delay bounds $\underline D,\overline D$.
  • The stability proof treats the neural operator as a black box meeting a uniform error bound, so the same guarantee covers any sufficiently accurate learned predictor, not only the architectures tested.
  • In validation on an activator/repressor clock, the learned predictor stabilizes the unstable equilibrium and runs about 15 times faster than numerical predictor integration at the finest discretization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The uniform-error assumption is the fragile point: Theorem 2 fixes a compact set $K$ before the closed loop is run, and the paper never derives $K$ from the initial-condition constraint (32), so a trajectory that leaves the training region would invalidate the bound $|P-\hat P|\le\epsilon$ used at (56).
  • If the computational gain grows with the cost of evaluating $f$, then applying this scheme to more expensive dynamics than the simple Hill-function example should reproduce or exceed the larger speedups reported for known-delay neural predictors.
  • A direct extension would be to state-dependent or slowly time-varying delays; the current projection law is constant-delay-specific, and parameter convergence is not established, so the adaptive estimate may not track a changing delay.
  • Because the controller uses the full distributed actuator measurement $u(x,t)$, extending the result to output-feedback settings with only boundary measurements would require an observer or a different measurement assumption.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a delay-adaptive predictor feedback controller for nonlinear systems with an unknown constant actuator delay, in which the analytically intractable predictor is replaced by a trained neural operator approximation. The main theoretical claim, Theorem 3, asserts semi-global practical stability of the closed-loop system under a Lyapunov-Krasovskii analysis, with the ultimate bound depending on the neural operator approximation error ε and the delay uncertainty ΔD. The paper also reports numerical experiments on a biological activator/repressor system, showing a 15x speedup over a numerical predictor.

Significance. If the proof were complete, this would be the first stability result for approximate predictor feedback with unknown delay, extending the known-delay analysis of [6] and providing a rigorous framework for neural operator approximation in adaptive delay systems. The theorem is appropriately conditional on ε and ΔD, and the authors correctly emphasize that the adaptive law achieves practical stability rather than parameter convergence. The availability of code and the systematic experimental comparison are strengths. However, a load-bearing step in the proof of Theorem 3 is not supported: the uniform neural operator approximation bound is invoked on the closed-loop trajectory without establishing that the trajectory remains in the compact set on which the approximation is valid.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Theorem 3 proof, Eq. (56)] The inequality (κ(P(x,t))−κ(ˆp(x,t)))² ≤ M₃² ε² is asserted for all x∈[0,1] and t≥0, but Theorem 2 only guarantees such a uniform bound on a fixed compact set K⊂X×C²([0,1];U)×D. The paper never constructs K from the initial-condition constraint (32), nor does it prove that the closed-loop trajectory (X(t), T_{D̂(t)}U, D̂(t)) remains in K for all time. Since Assumption 4 gives only Lipschitz growth and not boundedness, escape from any fixed K is not excluded. This is not a minor technicality: (56) is used to obtain (50), then (57), and ultimately the stability bounds (33)–(35). Without a forward-invariance or a priori trajectory bound, the proof's central claim is unsupported.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (57)] The application of [24, Theorem C.3] requires the perturbation term to be uniformly bounded in time (or to satisfy the hypotheses of that theorem). Here the perturbation is (κ(P)−κ(ˆp))², whose boundedness rests entirely on the unproven uniform bound (56). Moreover, the sentence 'when ε and ΔD are small enough relative to all possible values of W' is vague: the condition ε+(ΔD)≤α₄(W(t))≤α₅(X+U+D) appears to presuppose a bound on W(t) that has not been established before the stability estimate. The logical structure is thus circular at this point; the smallness conditions need to be stated explicitly in terms of initial conditions and proven prior to invoking Theorem C.3.
  3. [§IV, Theorem 3 statement and proof after Eq. (59)] There is a notational and conceptual confusion: Γ(t) is defined in (30) as a Lyapunov functional, but in (31) and in the proof the same symbol Γ is used for the scalar bound X+U+D. Then (32) imposes Γ(0)≤α₃*(Γ−α₁*(ε)−α₂*(ΔD)). The semi-global claim would require that for any prescribed compact set of initial conditions one can choose the compact set K (on which the neural operator is trained) and ε* so that the trajectory remains in K and (32) holds. Because the controller depends on the trained neural operator, the reachable set depends on the approximation itself, and the paper does not show how K is chosen before the controller is designed. This is a genuine gap in the semi-global statement; the authors should either provide an explicit construction of K from the initial-condition set or weaken the claim to a local or regional result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, Assumption 4 and Eq. (56)] In (56), the constant M₃ is used as a Lipschitz constant for κ, but Assumption 4 defines M₃ as a growth bound (|κ(X)|≤M₃|X|) and M₄ as the derivative bound (|dκ/dX|≤M₄). The Lipschitz bound in (56) should use M₄, not M₃.
  2. [Lemma 1 proof, Eq. (24)–(26)] Several integrals in the proof of Lemma 1 have a lower limit of −1 where they should be 0 (for example, the integrals in the lines following Eq. (24) and Eq. (26)). This appears to be a typo but should be corrected for readability.
  3. [Notation] The symbol Γ is used both for the Lyapunov functional in (30) and for the scalar bound X+U+D in (31) and in the proof. These should be denoted differently to avoid confusion.
  4. [Assumption 3 and Theorem 2] In Assumption 3, X and U are used both for the state/input variables and for the compact domains; similarly, Theorem 2's notation K⊂X×C²([0,1];U)×D mixes sets and variables. Using calligraphic letters or explicit domain names would clarify the statements.
  5. [Eq. (55)] The expression in (55) contains a term 1+e^{b/(Dγ)}(ΔD)² whose placement within the parentheses is ambiguous; adding brackets would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 3 is a conditional stability statement whose proof imports prior predictor-feedback machinery but does not fit any target result to its inputs.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 3) is an implication: if the neural operator approximation error is uniformly bounded by eps < eps* on the relevant trajectory and other conditions hold, then practical stability follows. No fitted parameter is relabeled a prediction, and no target result is used to define the approximation error. The universal approximation theorem is taken from the external reference [27], and the predictor-feedback framework is imported from the prior published work [9]. The Lyapunov-Krasovskii argument is carried out in the text with explicit inequalities. The only notable concern is that equation (56) applies the K-uniform approximation bound of Theorem 2 to the actual closed-loop trajectory without proving that the trajectory remains in K; this is a missing-support gap in the proof, not a reduction of the conclusion to an assumption. Self-citations ([6],[7]) are contextual comparisons, not load-bearing. Therefore no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the neural operator is a function approximation, not an invented mechanism. The central claim rests on standard predictor-feedback assumptions, the universal approximation theorem, and imported lemmas from prior work.

free parameters (3)
  • Neural operator approximation error ε = Not measured; figure caption shows εest = 0.003 and 0.007 for two trained models
    Stability radius in Theorem 3 is proportional to α1*(ε); Theorem 2 guarantees existence of ε-small approximations but gives no training procedure or certificate, so ε remains an assumed small constant in the proof.
  • Adaptation gain γ = γ = 1000 in experiments
    Chosen by hand in the simulation; Theorem 3 requires γ < γ* with γ* not computed.
  • Weight b = b = 1 in experiments
    Chosen by hand; Theorem 3 requires b > b* with b* not computed.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: plant Ẋ = f(X,U) is strongly forward complete.
    Prevents finite escape before delayed input arrives; standard in predictor feedback and used in Section II-A.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: delay-free plant is globally exponentially stabilizable by κ.
    Provides Lyapunov function V with (2)-(4); the entire Lyapunov-Krasovskii proof rests on it.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: f is Lipschitz on compact X×U.
    New assumption vs [9]; used for predictor operator continuity (Lemma 1) and for propagating approximation error.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: linear growth bounds on f, ∂f/∂X, κ, dκ.
    Used to bound predictor, controller, and the pointwise error (56) by M3ε.
  • standard math Universal approximation theorem for neural operators (Theorem 1).
    Invoked to assert existence of arbitrarily accurate neural operator on compact K; imported from [27].
  • standard math Bresch-Pietri and Krstic lemmas (Lemmas 2 and 3 of [9]).
    Provide bounds on |P|, integral of q2 w, and |ḍDhat|; used without re-derivation in Eq. (44)-(46).
  • standard math Comparison-function theorem [24, Theorem C.3].
    Used to convert differential inequality (50) into the input-to-state estimate (57); hypotheses are not verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption Full distributed input u(x,t) is available for feedback.
    Section IV states full actuator measurement is assumed; Section V justifies by UV spectrometer. Needed to evaluate the predictor input T_Dhat U.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delay-adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems with Approximate Neural Operator Predictors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYP5CXYH

@misc{pith2026250820367,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delay-adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems with Approximate Neural Operator Predictors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYP5CXYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20367}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we propose a rigorous method for implementing predictor feedback controllers in nonlinear systems with unknown and arbitrarily long actuator delays. To address the analytically intractable nature of the predictor, we approximate it using a learned neural operator mapping. This mapping is trained once, offline, and then deployed online, leveraging the fast inference capabilities of neural networks. We provide a theoretical stability analysis based on the universal approximation theorem of neural operators and the transport partial differential equation (PDE) representation of the delay. We then prove, via a Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional, semi-global practical convergence of the dynamical system dependent on the approximation error of the predictor and delay bounds. Finally, we validate our theoretical results using a biological activator/repressor system, demonstrating speedups of 15 times compared to traditional numerical methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20367 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulation of the plant (1) with various approximate predictors. The initial state is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Neural operators for predictor feedback control of nonlinear delay systems,

    L. Bhan, P. Qin, M. Krstic, and Y . Shi, “Neural operators for predictor feedback control of nonlinear delay systems,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18964

    arXiv 2024

  2. [9]

    Delay-Adaptive Control for Nonlinear Systems,

    D. Bresch-Pietri and M. Krstic, “Delay-Adaptive Control for Nonlinear Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 1203–1218, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [1]

    Compensation of state-dependent input delay for nonlinear systems,

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic, “Compensation of state-dependent input delay for nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 275–289, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [2]

    Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2013

    ——, Nonlinear Control Under Nonconstant Delays . Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9781611972856

    doi:10.1137/1.9781611972856 2013

  5. [3]

    Robustness of nonlinear predictor feedback laws to time- and state-dependent delay perturbations,

    ——, “Robustness of nonlinear predictor feedback laws to time- and state-dependent delay perturbations,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1576–1590, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.co m/science/article/pii/S0005109813001398

    work page 2013

  6. [4]

    Predictor-feedback stabilization of multi-input nonlinear sys- tems,

    ——, “Predictor-feedback stabilization of multi-input nonlinear sys- tems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 516–531, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [5]

    Delay-adaptive control of a 7-DOF robot manipulator: Design and experiments,

    A. Bertino, P. Naseradinmousavi, and M. Krsti ´c, “Delay-adaptive control of a 7-DOF robot manipulator: Design and experiments,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 2506– 2521, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Neural operators for bypassing gain and control computations in PDE backstepping,

    L. Bhan, Y . Shi, and M. Krstic, “Neural operators for bypassing gain and control computations in PDE backstepping,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Adaptive control of reaction–diffusion PDEs via neural operator-approximated gain kernels,

    ——, “Adaptive control of reaction–diffusion PDEs via neural operator-approximated gain kernels,” Systems & Control Letters , vol. 195, p. 105968, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0167691124002561

    2025

  2. [10]

    Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its applica- tion to dynamical systems,

    T. Chen and H. Chen, “Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its applica- tion to dynamical systems,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 911–917, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    Design and analysis of an activator-repressor clock in e. coli,

    D. Del Vecchio, “Design and analysis of an activator-repressor clock in e. coli,” in 2007 American Control Conference, 2007, pp. 1589–1594

    2007

  4. [12]

    Predictor-feedback prescribed-time stabilization of LTI systems with input delay,

    N. Espitia and W. Perruquetti, “Predictor-feedback prescribed-time stabilization of LTI systems with input delay,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 2784–2799, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Time delay compensation for nonlinear processes,

    M. A. Henson and D. E. Seborg, “Time delay compensation for nonlinear processes,” Industrial & engineering chemistry research , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1493–1500, 1994

    1994

  6. [14]

    Adaptive backstepping with parameter projection: Robustness and asymptotic performance,

    F. IKHOUANE and M. KRSTI ´C, “Adaptive backstepping with parameter projection: Robustness and asymptotic performance,” Automatica, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 429–435, 1998. [Online]. Available: ht tps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109897001842

    1998

  7. [15]

    Control Lyapunov-Razumikhin functions and robust stabilization of time delay systems,

    M. Jankovic, “Control Lyapunov-Razumikhin functions and robust stabilization of time delay systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1048–1060, 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    Control of nonlinear systems with time delay,

    ——, “Control of nonlinear systems with time delay,” in 42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37475), vol. 5, 2003, pp. 4545–4550 V ol.5

    2003

  9. [17]

    Finite-time global stabilization by means of time- varying distributed delay feedback,

    I. Karafyllis, “Finite-time global stabilization by means of time- varying distributed delay feedback,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 320–342, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1137/040616383

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    Karafyllis and M

    I. Karafyllis and M. Krstic, Predictor Feedback for Delay Systems: Implementations and Approximations . Birkh ¨auser Cham, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear systems. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Data Complexity Estimates for Operator Learning,

    N. B. Kovachki, S. Lanthaler, and H. Mhaskar, “Data Complexity Estimates for Operator Learning,” 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Deadtime compensation for nonlinear processes,

    C. Kravaris and R. A. Wright, “Deadtime compensation for nonlinear processes,” AIChE Journal , vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1535–1542, 1989. [Online]. Available: https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1 002/aic.690350914

    1989

  14. [22]

    Input Delay Compensation for Forward Complete and Strict-Feedforward Nonlinear Systems,

    M. Krstic, “Input Delay Compensation for Forward Complete and Strict-Feedforward Nonlinear Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 287–303, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Neural operators of backstepping controller and observer gain functions for reaction–diffusion PDEs,

    M. Krstic, L. Bhan, and Y . Shi, “Neural operators of backstepping controller and observer gain functions for reaction–diffusion PDEs,” Automatica, vol. 164, p. 111649, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109824001420

    2024

  16. [24]

    Krstic, P

    M. Krstic, P. V . Kokotovic, and I. Kanellakopoulos, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design , 1st ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995

    1995

  17. [25]

    Adaptive neural- operator backstepping control of a benchmark hyperbolic PDE,

    M. Lamarque, L. Bhan, Y . Shi, and M. Krstic, “Adaptive neural- operator backstepping control of a benchmark hyperbolic PDE,”

  18. [26]

    Gain scheduling with a neural operator for a transport PDE with nonlinear recircula- tion,

    M. Lamarque, L. Bhan, R. Vazquez, and M. Krstic, “Gain scheduling with a neural operator for a transport PDE with nonlinear recircula- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , pp. 1–8, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Nonlocality and Nonlinearity Implies Universality in Operator Learning,

    S. Lanthaler, Z. Li, and A. M. Stuart, “Nonlocality and Nonlinearity Implies Universality in Operator Learning,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13221

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Discretization Error of Fourier Neural Operators,

    S. Lanthaler, A. M. Stuart, and M. Trautner, “Discretization Error of Fourier Neural Operators,” 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations,

    Z. Li, N. B. Kovachki, K. Azizzadenesheli, B. liu, K. Bhattacharya, A. Stuart, and A. Anandkumar, “Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //openreview.n...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,

    L. Lu, P. Jin, G. Pang, Z. Zhang, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Learning nonlinear operators via DeepONet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators,” Nature Machine Intelligence , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 218–229, Mar 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s422...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Backstepping design for time-delay non- linear systems,

    F. Mazenc and P.-A. Bliman, “Backstepping design for time-delay non- linear systems,” in 42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37475), vol. 5, 2003, pp. 4551–4556 V ol.5

    2003

  24. [32]

    Safety-critical control with input delay in dynamic environment,

    T. G. Molnar, A. K. Kiss, A. D. Ames, and G. Orosz, “Safety-critical control with input delay in dynamic environment,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1507–1520, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Size Lowerbounds for Deep Operator Networks,

    A. Mukherjee and A. Roy, “Size Lowerbounds for Deep Operator Networks,” Transactions on Machine Learning Research , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=RwmWODTN FE

    2024

  26. [34]

    Building a cell cycle oscillator: hysteresis and bistability in the activation of cdc2,

    J. R. Pomerening, E. D. Sontag, and J. E. Ferrell, “Building a cell cycle oscillator: hysteresis and bistability in the activation of cdc2,” Nature Cell Biology , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 346–351, Apr 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb954

    2003 doi

  27. [35]

    Reverse young’s inequality for products,

    ProofWiki contributors, “Reverse young’s inequality for products,” ht tps://proofwiki.org/wiki/Reverse Young%27s Inequality for Products, 2025, accessed: 2025-08-20

    2025

  28. [36]

    Neural operators for PDE backstepping control of first-order hyperbolic PIDE with recycle and delay,

    J. Qi, J. Zhang, and M. Krstic, “Neural operators for PDE backstepping control of first-order hyperbolic PIDE with recycle and delay,” Systems & Control Letters , vol. 185, p. 105714, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0167691124000021

    2024

  29. [37]

    Closer control of loops with dead time,

    O. J. Smith, “Closer control of loops with dead time,” Chemical engineering progress, vol. 53, pp. 217–219, 1957

    1957

  30. [38]

    Deep learning of delay- compensated backstepping for reaction-diffusion PDEs,

    S. Wang, M. Diagne, and M. Krsti ´c, “Deep learning of delay- compensated backstepping for reaction-diffusion PDEs,” IEEE Trans- actions on Automatic Control , pp. 1–8, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Neural operators for robust output regulation of hyperbolic PDEs,

    Y . Xiao, Y . Yuan, B. Luo, and X. Xu, “Neural operators for robust output regulation of hyperbolic PDEs,” Neural Networks, vol. 179, p. 106620, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/sc ience/article/pii/S0893608024005446

    2024

  32. [40]

    Stability and stabilization of infinite delay systems: A Lyapunov-based approach,

    X. Xu, L. Liu, and G. Feng, “Stability and stabilization of infinite delay systems: A Lyapunov-based approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4509–4524, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Neural operators for boundary stabilization of stop-and-go traffic,

    Y . Zhang, R. Zhong, and H. Yu, “Neural operators for boundary stabilization of stop-and-go traffic,” in Proceedings of the 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics &amp; Control Conference , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Abate, M. Cannon, K. Margellos, and A. Papa...

    2024

  34. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07862

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07862

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.