Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 85 references

Safe PDE Boundary Control with Neural Operators

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper aims to establish that a learned neural operator can act as a plug-and-play safety filter keeping PDE boundary outputs inside a user-specified safe set, without knowing the underlying PDE equations.

desk verdict A promising plug-and-play safety filter for PDE boundary control with a correct conditional theory, but the implemented algorithm's threshold mechanism breaks the stated guarantee, so the paper needs a reframing or robustness analysis before the claims hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15643 v2 pith:UHV4T6MT submitted 2024-11-23 eess.SY cs.LGcs.NEcs.ROcs.SY

Hanjiang Hu , Changliu Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.NEcs.ROcs.SY MSC 93C2068T0793D30
keywords PDEboundarycontrolneuraloperatorbarrierfunctionsafetyfilteringquadraticprogrammingmodel-freeunknowndynamicsfeasibility
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish a way to enforce safety constraints on PDE boundary control when the PDE's analytical form is unknown. The proposed method trains a neural boundary control barrier function and a neural operator that maps boundary input trajectories to boundary output trajectories, then uses a quadratic program to project any nominal controller's actions into the set that keeps the boundary output inside a user-specified safe set by a finite time. The authors claim this works as a plug-and-play filter over pre-trained model-free reinforcement-learning controllers, improving feasible rates and feasible steps in hyperbolic, parabolic, and Navier-Stokes environments. The guarantee is conditional on the neural operator being an exact map of the unknown dynamics, and the paper introduces a tuned threshold in implementation to compensate for the inevitable mismatch.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the neural boundary control barrier function $\phi(t,Y)$: a time-dependent function whose zero-sublevel set is contained in the safe set, with a finite-time convergence constant $C_{\alpha,T}=\alpha/(e^{\alpha T}-1)$ forcing $\phi(T,Y(T))<0$. The second object is the neural operator $G_\theta$, built from lifting, kernel-integration, and projection layers, which models the boundary input-to-output map and whose time derivative is affine in $\dot U(t)$: $dG_\theta(U)(t)/dt=\Lambda_\theta(t)\dot U(t)+\mu_\theta(t)$. Together they turn the non-Markov, infinite-dimensional PDE safety condition into a linear inequality in the control derivative, solvable by quadratic programming in Algorithm 1.

What would settle it

On any of the three PDE simulators, run Algorithm 1 with a small threshold, record the neural operator's predicted boundary output and the simulator's true output on the filtered control trajectory; if the true output leaves the safe set while the predicted output stays inside, or if feasible-rate gains vanish as filtered signals move farther from the training data, the exact-map premise behind Theorem 3 is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3: if the learned neural operator $G_\theta$ is an exact transfer function from boundary input $U(t)$ to boundary output $Y(t)$, and the neural boundary control barrier function $\phi(t,Y)$ has sublevel set $S_{\phi,t}\subseteq S_0$, then any boundary input satisfying Equation (10) induces boundary feasibility—the output enters and remains in the safe set by time $T$. The argument works because differentiating the neural operator gives $\dot Y(t)=\Lambda_\theta(t)\dot U(t)+\mu_\theta(t)$, so the barrier condition is linear in the input derivative; the safety filter then becomes the one-dimensional quadratic program of Equation (12), solved iteratively with predicted output trajectories. The paper positions this as a safe boundary-control method for unknown PDE dynamics that does not require the PDE equations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guarantee rests on the assumption that the trained neural operator describes the unknown PDE exactly, with no model mismatch; the paper explicitly acknowledges this is false in practice and relies on a threshold $\eta$ to compensate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the exact-map assumption, the filter turns any nominal boundary control trajectory that satisfies Equation (10) into one with guaranteed boundary feasibility by time $T$.
  • The filter is plug-and-play: it wraps pre-trained vanilla or constrained RL controllers without retraining them, improving feasible rate and average feasible steps in the reported experiments.
  • Because the constraint is stated on a marginalized boundary output, the method applies to spatially distributed PDEs with only boundary measurements, including transport, reaction-diffusion, and Navier-Stokes dynamics.
  • Time-dependent $\phi(t,Y)$ with finite-time feasibility yields higher feasible rates than a time-independent barrier in the reported ablations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method's utility will be best tested by measuring prediction error on filtered control signals that lie off the training distribution, where exactness of $G_\theta$ is least plausible.
  • A certified error bound on the neural operator could convert the heuristic threshold $\eta$ into a provable safety margin instead of a tuning parameter.
  • The same affine-in-$\dot U$ structure would extend to multiple boundary constraints by stacking barrier inequalities, as long as the operator derivative remains linear in the control derivative.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a safety-filtering framework for boundary control of PDEs with unknown dynamics. The authors introduce a neural boundary control barrier function (BCBF) φ(t,Y) and train a neural operator Gθ to map boundary input functions to boundary output functions, bypassing the non-Markovian structure of PDE dynamics. They prove (Theorem 3) that if Gθ is an exact input-output map and the control input U satisfies a pointwise differential inequality (Eq. 10), then the boundary output achieves finite-time boundary feasibility. The inequality is affine in the control derivative, leading to a quadratic-programming (QP) safety filter applied to a pre-trained model-free RL controller. The paper reports experiments on 1D hyperbolic, 1D parabolic, and 2D Navier-Stokes benchmarks showing improved feasible rates and feasible steps compared to vanilla and constrained RL baselines. The code is provided.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant and under-explored problem: safety certification for boundary control of unknown PDEs. The idea of learning a trajectory-to-trajectory operator and using its structure to construct a CBF-type QP filter is interesting, and the theoretical derivation of the affine dependence (Eq. 11) is self-contained. The experimental validation spans multiple PDE families and gives credit through released code. However, as detailed in the major comments, the implemented algorithm contains a threshold that can disable the filter, and the theoretical guarantee is conditional on an exact model that is acknowledged to be unavailable. The contribution is therefore currently a heuristic with a formal but not practically applicable theorem; the gap must be addressed or the claims appropriately qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (45) and Algorithm 1] The implemented filter uses the threshold η in Eq. (45), which replaces the QP solution with the nominal control whenever the deviation exceeds η; since the nominal control is not guaranteed to satisfy Eq. (10), the final applied input does not meet the sufficient condition of Theorem 3 even if Gθ is an exact model. The abstract's statement that the framework 'guarantee[s] the boundary output stays within the safe set' is therefore not supported by the theoretical result as implemented. The paper should either incorporate the threshold into a modified guarantee (e.g., a guarantee that holds only on steps where the filter is active) or weaken the claims to what the theorem actually covers.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Algorithm 1] The iterative filtering procedure does not certify that the final U_safe satisfies Eq. (10). In the m-th QP solve, the constraint (13) is evaluated using Y_predict from the previous iterate, but after line 7 updates Y_predict to G(U_safe), the QP solution may no longer satisfy the constraint; no convergence or feasibility proof is provided for this iteration. Even setting the threshold to infinity, the algorithm's output is not shown to meet the theorem's sufficient condition, so the gap between the QP filter and the guarantee is not closed. The authors should prove that the iteration converges to a trajectory satisfying Eq. (10) or clearly present Algorithm 1 as a heuristic that approximates, but does not implement, the certified filter.
  3. [Remark 4 and Appendix D] The guarantee of Theorem 3 rests on the assumption that Gθ is an exact map from boundary input to boundary output for the closed-loop PDE dynamics. The paper trains Gθ on data from nominal policies and applies it to filtered inputs that are off the training distribution, and Appendix D explicitly states that model mismatch may hurt safety filtering. No error bound, Lipschitz estimate, uncertainty quantification, or worst-case violation analysis is provided to bridge the gap between the approximate Gθ and the exactness assumption. Consequently, the word 'guarantee' in the abstract and Section 1 is not justified for the practical method; a robustness certificate or a careful qualification of the claims (e.g., 'empirically effective safety filter') is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B.2, Eqs. (24)-(28)] The proof of Theorem 2 infers ψ(T) < 0 from the non-increasing property of f(t), which only yields ψ(T) ≤ 0; this can be repaired by taking t0 = T in Definition 1 (since Sϕ,T ⊆ S0), but the current text should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.2] The line 'Y (t) = u(1, t) = Gθ(U )(t) = Gθ(u(0, t))(t)' appears to contain a typo, since Definition 1 defines Y(t) = u(0,t); please clarify the intended equality.
  3. [Problem 1 in Section 2] 'find boundary control input U (x)' should be U(t), as x is not defined as the time variable.
  4. [Section 3.1] 'specially case' should be 'special case'.
  5. [Table 2] The headers 'Feasible Rate underY constraints' and 'Y constraints' are hard to read; consider splitting into separate columns for each threshold.
  6. [Section 3.3] The threshold η is only introduced in Appendix C (Eq. 45), yet it is part of the deployed Algorithm 1; consider moving at least a pointer to it into the main text so that the reader is not misled about the implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the safety guarantee is a conditional theorem under an explicitly stated exact-map assumption, and the empirical evaluation is against the real PDE environments, not the learned surrogate.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 3's guarantee is a direct application of Theorem 2 under the explicitly stated assumption that Gθ is an exact map from boundary input U to boundary output Y (Section 3.3, Eq. 10; Remark 4 admits the equivalence). The affine structure dGθ(U)/dt = Λθ(t)Udot + μθ(t) is derived by recursive chain rule through the neural operator layers (Eqs. 8-11), not fitted to data, so the QP filter (Eqs. 12-13) is not enforcing a fitted condition by construction. Training losses (Eqs. 4, 7) regularize ϕ and Gθ using collected trajectories, but the evaluation metrics (Feasible Rate, Average Feasible Steps) are computed on the actual PDE environments from Bhan et al. (2024), providing an external benchmark. Self-citations (e.g., Hu et al. 2024 for MLP architecture, Liu and Tomizuka 2014 for forward invariance) appear only in implementation details or related-work discussion and are not load-bearing. The η-threshold workaround (Eq. 45) can disable the filter and is a soundness/robustness gap rather than circularity, and the unverified exactness of Gθ is an assumption risk, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on an exact learned model assumption that is not validated, a BCBF containment condition that is only promoted by a loss, and a tuned threshold for model mismatch. These are load-bearing: without them the safety guarantee is not established.

free parameters (3)
  • α (BCBF exponential rate) = 10^-5 (default)
    Appears in the barrier condition (3) and (10) and controls finite-time convergence; chosen by hand and not optimized, but affects how aggressive the filter is.
  • Filtering threshold η = 2 (default; ablated 0.5, 5, 10)
    Introduced in Equation (45) as a workaround for neural operator mismatch; tuned in Figure 3 to balance reward and feasible steps, so it is fit to the evaluation metric.
  • Neural operator and BCBF weights = Trained on collected trajectories
    The safety filter inherits the learned mapping and barrier; these are fitted to data, and no formal certificate of their accuracy is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The neural operator Gθ exactly represents the unknown PDE input-output mapping with no model mismatch (Y(t)=Gθ(U)(t)).
    This is the load-bearing premise of Theorem 3 and Remark 4; the paper later admits model mismatch and patches it with the threshold η, so the premise is known to be false.
  • ad hoc to paper The neural BCBF sublevel set is contained in the user safe set at all times (S_{φ,t} ⊆ S0).
    Theorem 2 assumes this containment, but the paper only encourages it via the soft hinge loss in Equation (4); no verification of containment is performed.
  • domain assumption The PDE dynamics are time-invariant and the boundary control input enters as a Dirichlet boundary condition with a constant initial condition across the spatial domain.
    Problem 1 and Section 2 restrict the setting to this class; results do not claim to extend to time-varying or Neumann or distributed control settings.
  • domain assumption The neural operator's constituent maps (lifting P, projection Q, kernels κ(l), biases b_l, activations σ_l) are first-order differentiable in time.
    Equation (11) applies the chain rule through the neural operator; this requires differentiability of all layers, which is satisfied for GELU activations but not for ReLU at kinks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safe PDE Boundary Control with Neural Operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHV4T6MT

@misc{pith2026241115643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safe PDE Boundary Control with Neural Operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHV4T6MT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15643}
}
read the original abstract

The physical world dynamics are generally governed by underlying partial differential equations (PDEs) with unknown analytical forms in science and engineering problems. Neural network based data-driven approaches have been heavily studied in simulating and solving PDE problems in recent years, but it is still challenging to move forward from understanding to controlling the unknown PDE dynamics. PDE boundary control instantiates a simplified but important problem by only focusing on PDE boundary conditions as the control input and output. However, current model-free PDE controllers cannot ensure the boundary output satisfies some given user-specified safety constraint. To this end, we propose a safety filtering framework to guarantee the boundary output stays within the safe set for current model-free controllers. Specifically, we first introduce a neural boundary control barrier function (BCBF) to ensure the feasibility of the trajectory-wise constraint satisfaction of boundary output. Based on the neural operator modeling the transfer function from boundary control input to output trajectories, we show that the change in the BCBF depends linearly on the change in input boundary, so quadratic programming-based safety filtering can be done for pre-trained model-free controllers. Extensive experiments under challenging hyperbolic, parabolic and Navier-Stokes PDE dynamics environments validate the plug-and-play effectiveness of the proposed method by achieving better general performance and boundary constraint satisfaction compared to the vanilla and constrained model-free controller baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/intelligent-control-lab/safe-pde-control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15643 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our safety filtering method for PDE boundary control with neural BCBF. Solid line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of three state trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The reward and feasible rate under different filtering threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of tracking performance with PPO and SAC models before and after filtering with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of state u(x, t) of hyperbolic equation under SAC controller with (in blue) and without (in red) filtering. Boundary control inputs U(t) are in dashed lines and boundary output Y (t) are in solid lines. The boundary constraint Y (t) < 0 is in green. Appen…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Constrained policy optimization

    Joshua Achiam, David Held, Aviv Tamar, and Pieter Abbeel. Constrained policy optimization. In International conference on machine learning, pages 22--31. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Safe control synthesis via input constrained control barrier functions

    Devansh R Agrawal and Dimitra Panagou. Safe control synthesis via input constrained control barrier functions. In 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 6113--6118. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control

    Aaron D Ames, Jessy W Grizzle, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier function based quadratic programs with application to adaptive cruise control. In 53rd IEEE conference on decision and control, pages 6271--6278. IEEE, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications

    Aaron D Ames, Samuel Coogan, Magnus Egerstedt, Gennaro Notomista, Koushil Sreenath, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier functions: Theory and applications. In 2019 18th European control conference (ECC), pages 3420--3431. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    Deepreach: A deep learning approach to high-dimensional reachability

    Somil Bansal and Claire J Tomlin. Deepreach: A deep learning approach to high-dimensional reachability. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1817--1824. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Neural operators for bypassing gain and control computations in pde backstepping

    Luke Bhan, Yuanyuan Shi, and Miroslav Krstic. Neural operators for bypassing gain and control computations in pde backstepping. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Pde control gym: A benchmark for data-driven boundary control of partial differential equations

    Luke Bhan, Yuexin Bian, Miroslav Krstic, and Yuanyuan Shi. Pde control gym: A benchmark for data-driven boundary control of partial differential equations. In 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference. PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Learning stability certificates from data

    Nicholas Boffi, Stephen Tu, Nikolai Matni, Jean-Jacques Slotine, and Vikas Sindhwani. Learning stability certificates from data. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1341--1350. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    Parametric pde control with deep reinforcement learning and differentiable l0-sparse polynomial policies

    Nicol \`o Botteghi and Urban Fasel. Parametric pde control with deep reinforcement learning and differentiable l0-sparse polynomial policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15267, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Promising directions of machine learning for partial differential equations

    Steven L Brunton and J Nathan Kutz. Promising directions of machine learning for partial differential equations. Nature Computational Science, 4 0 (7): 0 483--494, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Neural lyapunov control

    Ya-Chien Chang, Nima Roohi, and Sicun Gao. Neural lyapunov control. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Robust tracking control with neural network dynamic models under input perturbations

    Huixuan Cheng, Hanjiang Hu, and Changliu Liu. Robust tracking control with neural network dynamic models under input perturbations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10387, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Robust control barrier--value functions for safety-critical control

    Jason J Choi, Donggun Lee, Koushil Sreenath, Claire J Tomlin, and Sylvia L Herbert. Robust control barrier--value functions for safety-critical control. In 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 6814--6821. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Learning a better control barrier function

    Bolun Dai, Prashanth Krishnamurthy, and Farshad Khorrami. Learning a better control barrier function. In 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 945--950. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Safe nonlinear control using robust neural lyapunov-barrier functions

    Charles Dawson, Zengyi Qin, Sicun Gao, and Chuchu Fan. Safe nonlinear control using robust neural lyapunov-barrier functions. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1724--1735. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Safe control with learned certificates: A survey of neural lyapunov, barrier, and contraction methods for robotics and control

    Charles Dawson, Sicun Gao, and Chuchu Fan. Safe control with learned certificates: A survey of neural lyapunov, barrier, and contraction methods for robotics and control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Concrete functional calculus

    Richard M Dudley, Rimas Norvai s a, and Rimas Norvai s a. Concrete functional calculus. Springer, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Partial differential equations, volume 19

    Lawrence C Evans. Partial differential equations, volume 19. American Mathematical Society, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    Characterization of domain of fixed-time stability under control input constraints

    Kunal Garg and Dimitra Panagou. Characterization of domain of fixed-time stability under control input constraints. In 2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 2272--2277. IEEE, 2021 a

    2021

  12. [20]

    Robust control barrier and control lyapunov functions with fixed-time convergence guarantees

    Kunal Garg and Dimitra Panagou. Robust control barrier and control lyapunov functions with fixed-time convergence guarantees. In 2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 2292--2297. IEEE, 2021 b

    2021

  13. [21]

    Learning to walk in the real world with minimal human effort

    Sehoon Ha, Peng Xu, Zhenyu Tan, Sergey Levine, and Jie Tan. Learning to walk in the real world with minimal human effort. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08550, 2020

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor

    Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1861--1870. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Neuralsim: Augmenting differentiable simulators with neural networks

    Eric Heiden, David Millard, Erwin Coumans, Yizhou Sheng, and Gaurav S Sukhatme. Neuralsim: Augmenting differentiable simulators with neural networks. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9474--9481. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    The safety filter: A unified view of safety-critical control in autonomous systems

    Kai-Chieh Hsu, Haimin Hu, and Jaime F Fisac. The safety filter: A unified view of safety-critical control in autonomous systems. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, 7, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Verification of neural control barrier functions with symbolic derivative bounds propagation

    Hanjiang Hu, Yujie Yang, Tianhao Wei, and Changliu Liu. Verification of neural control barrier functions with symbolic derivative bounds propagation. In 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    From uncertain to safe: Conformal fine-tuning of diffusion models for safe pde control

    Peiyan Hu, Xiaowei Qian, Wenhao Deng, Rui Wang, Haodong Feng, Ruiqi Feng, Tao Zhang, Long Wei, Yue Wang, Zhi-Ming Ma, et al. From uncertain to safe: Conformal fine-tuning of diffusion models for safe pde control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02205, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ibm ilog cplex optimization studio

    IBM. Ibm ilog cplex optimization studio. URL https://www.ibm.com/products/ilog-cplex-optimization-studio

  20. [28]

    Machine learning--accelerated computational fluid dynamics

    Dmitrii Kochkov, Jamie A Smith, Ayya Alieva, Qing Wang, Michael P Brenner, and Stephan Hoyer. Machine learning--accelerated computational fluid dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 0 (21): 0 e2101784118, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Safe pde backstepping qp control with high relative degree cbfs: Stefan model with actuator dynamics

    Shumon Koga and Miroslav Krstic. Safe pde backstepping qp control with high relative degree cbfs: Stefan model with actuator dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 68 0 (12): 0 7195--7208, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes

    Nikola Kovachki, Zongyi Li, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24 0 (89): 0 1--97, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Nonovershooting control of strict-feedback nonlinear systems

    Miroslav Krstic and Matt Bement. Nonovershooting control of strict-feedback nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 51 0 (12): 0 1938--1943, 2006

    1938

  24. [32]

    Backstepping boundary control for first-order hyperbolic pdes and application to systems with actuator and sensor delays

    Miroslav Krstic and Andrey Smyshlyaev. Backstepping boundary control for first-order hyperbolic pdes and application to systems with actuator and sensor delays. Systems & Control Letters, 57 0 (9): 0 750--758, 2008 a

    2008

  25. [33]

    Boundary control of PDEs: A course on backstepping designs

    Miroslav Krstic and Andrey Smyshlyaev. Boundary control of PDEs: A course on backstepping designs. SIAM, 2008 b

    2008

  26. [34]

    Neural operators of backstepping controller and observer gain functions for reaction--diffusion pdes

    Miroslav Krstic, Luke Bhan, and Yuanyuan Shi. Neural operators of backstepping controller and observer gain functions for reaction--diffusion pdes. Automatica, 164: 0 111649, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Mean-nonovershooting control of stochastic nonlinear systems

    Wuquan Li and Miroslav Krstic. Mean-nonovershooting control of stochastic nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66 0 (12): 0 5756--5771, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Neuralfluid: Neural fluidic system design and control with differentiable simulation

    Yifei Li, Yuchen Sun, Pingchuan Ma, Eftychios Sifakis, Tao Du, Bo Zhu, and Wojciech Matusik. Neuralfluid: Neural fluidic system design and control with differentiable simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14903, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895, 2020 a

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Neural operator: Graph kernel network for partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03485, 2020 b

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Andrew Stuart, Kaushik Bhattacharya, and Anima Anandkumar. Multipole graph neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 6755--6766, 2020 c

    2020

  32. [40]

    Learning dissipative dynamics in chaotic systems

    Zongyi Li, Miguel Liu-Schiaffini, Nikola Kovachki, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Learning dissipative dynamics in chaotic systems. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Proce...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Hongkai Zheng, Nikola Kovachki, David Jin, Haoxuan Chen, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, and Anima Anandkumar. Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations. ACM/JMS Journal of Data Science, 1 0 (3): 0 1--27, 2024 b

    2024

  34. [42]

    Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks

    Lars Lindemann and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks. IEEE control systems letters, 3 0 (1): 0 96--101, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Learning hybrid control barrier functions from data

    Lars Lindemann, Haimin Hu, Alexander Robey, Hanwen Zhang, Dimos Dimarogonas, Stephen Tu, and Nikolai Matni. Learning hybrid control barrier functions from data. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1351--1370. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Control in a safe set: Addressing safety in human-robot interactions

    Changliu Liu and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Control in a safe set: Addressing safety in human-robot interactions. In Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, volume 46209, page V003T42A003. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Safe control under input limits with neural control barrier functions

    Simin Liu, Changliu Liu, and John Dolan. Safe control under input limits with neural control barrier functions. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1970--1980. PMLR, 2022 a

    1970

  38. [46]

    Constrained variational policy optimization for safe reinforcement learning

    Zuxin Liu, Zhepeng Cen, Vladislav Isenbaev, Wei Liu, Steven Wu, Bo Li, and Ding Zhao. Constrained variational policy optimization for safe reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 13644--13668. PMLR, 2022 b

    2022

  39. [47]

    Towards robust and safe reinforcement learning with benign off-policy data

    Zuxin Liu, Zijian Guo, Zhepeng Cen, Huan Zhang, Yihang Yao, Hanjiang Hu, and Ding Zhao. Towards robust and safe reinforcement learning with benign off-policy data. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 21586--21610. PMLR, 2023

  40. [48]

    Datasets and benchmarks for offline safe reinforcement learning

    Zuxin Liu, Zijian Guo, Haohong Lin, Yihang Yao, Jiacheng Zhu, Zhepeng Cen, Hanjiang Hu, Wenhao Yu, Tingnan Zhang, Jie Tan, et al. Datasets and benchmarks for offline safe reinforcement learning. Journal of Data-centric Machine Learning Research, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature machine intelligence, 3 0 (3): 0 218--229, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Learning neural constitutive laws from motion observations for generalizable pde dynamics

    Pingchuan Ma, Peter Yichen Chen, Bolei Deng, Joshua B Tenenbaum, Tao Du, Chuang Gan, and Wojciech Matusik. Learning neural constitutive laws from motion observations for generalizable pde dynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23279--23300. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Learning performance-oriented control barrier functions under complex safety constraints and limited actuation

    Lakshmideepakreddy Manda, Shaoru Chen, and Mahyar Fazlyab. Learning performance-oriented control barrier functions under complex safety constraints and limited actuation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05629, 2024 a

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Domain adaptive safety filters via deep operator learning

    Lakshmideepakreddy Manda, Shaoru Chen, and Mahyar Fazlyab. Domain adaptive safety filters via deep operator learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14528, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Safety guarantees for neural network dynamic systems via stochastic barrier functions

    Rayan Mazouz, Karan Muvvala, Akash Ratheesh Babu, Luca Laurenti, and Morteza Lahijanian. Safety guarantees for neural network dynamic systems via stochastic barrier functions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 9672--9686, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Optimal control of pdes using physics-informed neural networks

    Saviz Mowlavi and Saleh Nabi. Optimal control of pdes using physics-informed neural networks. Journal of Computational Physics, 473: 0 111731, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Neuraloperators

    NeuralOperators.jl. Neuraloperators. URL https://github.com/SciML/NeuralOperators.jl

  48. [56]

    Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural operators

    Jaideep Pathak, Shashank Subramanian, Peter Harrington, Sanjeev Raja, Ashesh Chattopadhyay, Morteza Mardani, Thorsten Kurth, David Hall, Zongyi Li, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, et al. Fourcastnet: A global data-driven high-resolution weather model using adaptive fourier neural oper...

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Differential equations and dynamical systems, volume 7

    Lawrence Perko. Differential equations and dynamical systems, volume 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 1996

    1996

  50. [58]

    Nonlinear feedback design for fixed-time stabilization of linear control systems

    Andrey Polyakov. Nonlinear feedback design for fixed-time stabilization of linear control systems. IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, 57 0 (8): 0 2106--2110, 2011

    2011

  51. [59]

    Optimal feedback control of the incompressible navier-stokes-equations using reduced order models

    Lorenz Pyta, Michael Herty, and Dirk Abel. Optimal feedback control of the incompressible navier-stokes-equations using reduced order models. In 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2519--2524. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  52. [60]

    Neural operators for delay-compensating control of hyperbolic pides

    Jie Qi, Jing Zhang, and Miroslav Krstic. Neural operators for delay-compensating control of hyperbolic pides. Available at SSRN 4543896, 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational physics, 378: 0 686--707, 2019

    2019

  54. [62]

    An energy approach to the solution of partial differential equations in computational mechanics via machine learning: Concepts, implementation and applications

    Esteban Samaniego, Cosmin Anitescu, Somdatta Goswami, Vien Minh Nguyen-Thanh, Hongwei Guo, Khader Hamdia, Xiaoying Zhuang, and Timon Rabczuk. An energy approach to the solution of partial differential equations in computational mechanics via machine learning: Concepts, impleme...

    2020

  55. [63]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Nomad: Nonlinear manifold decoders for operator learning

    Jacob Seidman, Georgios Kissas, Paris Perdikaris, and George J Pappas. Nomad: Nonlinear manifold decoders for operator learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 5601--5613, 2022

    2022

  57. [65]

    Closed-form boundary state feedbacks for a class of 1-d partial integro-differential equations

    Andrey Smyshlyaev and Miroslav Krstic. Closed-form boundary state feedbacks for a class of 1-d partial integro-differential equations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic control, 49 0 (12): 0 2185--2202, 2004

    2004

  58. [66]

    Adaptive control of parabolic PDEs

    Andrey Smyshlyaev and Miroslav Krstic. Adaptive control of parabolic PDEs. Princeton University Press, 2010

    2010

  59. [67]

    How to train your neural control barrier function: Learning safety filters for complex input-constrained systems

    Oswin So, Zachary Serlin, Makai Mann, Jake Gonzales, Kwesi Rutledge, Nicholas Roy, and Chuchu Fan. How to train your neural control barrier function: Learning safety filters for complex input-constrained systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15478, 2023

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Pde-controller: Llms for autoformalization and reasoning of pdes

    Mauricio Soroco, Jialin Song, Mengzhou Xia, Kye Emond, Weiran Sun, and Wuyang Chen. Pde-controller: Llms for autoformalization and reasoning of pdes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00963, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Safe adaptive control of hyperbolic pde-ode cascades

    Ji Wang and Miroslav Krstic. Safe adaptive control of hyperbolic pde-ode cascades. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05596, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A generative approach to control complex physical systems

    Long Wei, Peiyan Hu, Ruiqi Feng, Haodong Feng, Yixuan Du, Tao Zhang, Rui Wang, Yue Wang, Zhi-Ming Ma, and Tailin Wu. A generative approach to control complex physical systems. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv--2407, 2024 a

    2024

  63. [71]

    Persistently feasible robust safe control by safety index synthesis and convex semi-infinite programming

    Tianhao Wei, Shucheng Kang, Weiye Zhao, and Changliu Liu. Persistently feasible robust safe control by safety index synthesis and convex semi-infinite programming. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 7: 0 1213--1218, 2022

    2022

  64. [72]

    Modelverification

    Tianhao Wei, Luca Marzari, Kai S Yun, Hanjiang Hu, Peizhi Niu, Xusheng Luo, and Changliu Liu. Modelverification. jl: a comprehensive toolbox for formally verifying deep neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01639, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    High order control lyapunov-barrier functions for temporal logic specifications

    Wei Xiao, Calin A Belta, and Christos G Cassandras. High order control lyapunov-barrier functions for temporal logic specifications. In 2021 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 4886--4891. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  66. [74]

    Sufficient conditions for feasibility of optimal control problems using control barrier functions

    Wei Xiao, Calin A Belta, and Christos G Cassandras. Sufficient conditions for feasibility of optimal control problems using control barrier functions. Automatica, 135: 0 109960, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control

    Wei Xiao, Tsun-Hsuan Wang, Ramin Hasani, Makram Chahine, Alexander Amini, Xiao Li, and Daniela Rus. Barriernet: Differentiable control barrier functions for learning of safe robot control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

    2023

  68. [76]

    Scalable synthesis of formally verified neural value function for hamilton-jacobi reachability analysis

    Yujie Yang, Hanjiang Hu, Tianhao Wei, Shengbo Eben Li, and Changliu Liu. Scalable synthesis of formally verified neural value function for hamilton-jacobi reachability analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20532, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Learning dynamical systems from data: An introduction to physics-guided deep learning

    Rose Yu and Rui Wang. Learning dynamical systems from data: An introduction to physics-guided deep learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 0 (27): 0 e2311808121, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Exact verification of re LU neural control barrier functions

    Hongchao Zhang, Wu Junlin, Vorobeychik Yevgeniy, and Andrew Clark. Exact verification of re LU neural control barrier functions. In Advances in neural information processing systems, 2023

    2023

  71. [79]

    Controlgym: Large-scale control environments for benchmarking reinforcement learning algorithms

    Xiangyuan Zhang, Weichao Mao, Saviz Mowlavi, Mouhacine Benosman, and Tamer Ba s ar. Controlgym: Large-scale control environments for benchmarking reinforcement learning algorithms. In 6th Annual Learning for Dynamics & Control Conference, pages 181--196. PMLR, 2024 a

    2024

  72. [80]

    Policy optimization for pde control with a warm start

    Xiangyuan Zhang, Saviz Mowlavi, Mouhacine Benosman, and Tamer Ba s ar. Policy optimization for pde control with a warm start. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01005, 2024 b

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Synthesizing barrier certificates using neural networks

    Hengjun Zhao, Xia Zeng, Taolue Chen, and Zhiming Liu. Synthesizing barrier certificates using neural networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on hybrid systems: Computation and control, pages 1--11, 2020

    2020

  74. [82]

    Neural differentiable integral control barrier functions for unknown nonlinear systems with input constraints

    Vrushabh Zinage, Rohan Chandra, and Efstathios Bakolas. Neural differentiable integral control barrier functions for unknown nonlinear systems with input constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07345, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  76. [84]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  77. [85]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

Pith tools

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