Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Lyapunov-Based Deep Neural Networks for Adaptive Control of Stochastic Nonlinear Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an adaptive three-DNN controller keeps the tracking error of a nonlinear stochastic system inside a computable ball with an explicit probability, without assuming the noise vanishes at the equilibrium.

desk verdict Extends Lb-DNN control to stochastic systems with a coherent architecture, but the main probability bound rests on a false lemma and the theorem is unsupported as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21095 v1 pith:3PEPJYMQ submitted 2024-12-30 eess.SY cs.SY

Saiedeh Akbari , Cristian F. Nino , Omkar Sudhir Patil , Warren E. Dixon This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords stochasticsystemsLyapunovmethodsdeepneuralnetworksadaptivecontrolnonlinearuniformlyultimatelyboundedinprobabilityescape
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 develops a Lyapunov-based adaptive controller in which three deep neural networks learn, in real time, the unknown state-dependent drift and diffusion terms of a control-affine nonlinear stochastic differential equation. The main result, Theorem 1, states that if the gain and feasibility conditions (28) and (30) hold, then for every initial condition in the set $S$ the concatenated error state $z(t)$ is uniformly ultimately bounded in probability: with probability at least $1-\vartheta$ the norm of $z$ stays below $\sqrt{\lambda/\alpha_1}$ for all future time, where $\vartheta$ is an explicit escape risk computed from the initial Lyapunov value, the ultimate bound, and the design gains. The significance is that the guarantee does not require the noise to vanish at the equilibrium and does not assume known structure or known bounds for the drift or diffusion uncertainties, assumptions that pervade earlier stochastic adaptive-control results. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a black-box deep network into a certified component of a safety-relevant stochastic control loop, with a probability bound that can be evaluated before deployment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lyapunov function $V_L(z) = \tfrac{1}{2} e^\top e + \sum_{\ell=1}^3 \tfrac{1}{2} \tilde{\theta}_\ell^\top \gamma_\ell^{-1} \tilde{\theta}_\ell$ on the compact set $D$, together with the infinitesimal generator $L V_L$. The argument's other central pieces are: (i) the Taylor expansion (12), $\mathrm{vec}(g_2(x)) = \Psi(e,x_d)\, e + \mathrm{vec}(g_2(x_d))$, which converts the diffusion term into state-dependent terms that the DNNs can absorb, with the constant term $\mathrm{vec}(g_2(x_d))$ entering the ultimate bound; (ii) the three Lb-DNNs $\Phi_1, \Phi_2, \Phi_3$ with the universal-approximation identities (14)--(16), updated by the projection-based laws (18)--(20) with $\sigma$-modification; and (iii) Lemma 1, which bounds $P(\sup V \ge \lambda)$ by $(1/m)V(z(0)) + (1/\lambda)V(z(0))e^{-\kappa_1 t} + \kappa_2/(\kappa_1 \lambda)$ using a partition of the post-hitting interval into supermartingale/submartingale/martingale stretches and Doob's maximal inequality. Equation (21) expands $\Phi_\ell - \hat\Phi_\ell$ to first order in the weight error, producing the higher-order terms $\Delta_\ell$ that enter the gains and the ultimate bound $b$.

What would settle it

Take $V$ itself as a mean-reverting square-root diffusion $dV = (1 - V)\,dt + \sqrt{V}\,d\omega$ on the set $\{V < m\}$ with $m$ large and $\lambda < m$; then $LV = -V + 1$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 1 with $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 = 1$, yet because the process is positive recurrent with non-degenerate interior diffusion, $P(\sup_{t \le s < \infty} V(s) \ge \lambda) = 1$ for every $\lambda < m$, exceeding the lemma's bound $(1/m)V(0) + (1/\lambda)V(0)e^{-t} + 1/\lambda$ whenever $\lambda$ is large enough that this bound is below 1. That directly falsifies Lemma 1 and with it the probability certificate in Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Theorem 1. For the system (10), with the controller (22) and the DNN weight update laws (18)--(20), if the gain condition (28) and the feasibility condition (30) hold, then for every initial condition $z(0) \in S$ the closed-loop solution satisfies $$P\!\left(\sup_{t \le s < \infty} \|z(s)\| < \sqrt{\$\lambda$/\alpha_1}\right) \ge 1 - \vartheta,$$ where $\vartheta$ is the explicit escape risk in (29). The theorem is the first in this line to combine three Lyapunov-based deep networks with a probabilistic ultimate-bound guarantee for both drift and diffusion uncertainties. The proof works by taking the infinitesimal generator of the Lyapunov function (24), using the Taylor expansion (12) of $\mathrm{vec}(g_2)$ about the desired trajectory to fold the diffusion term into DNN-compensable expressions, and applying Lemma 1 to convert the generator inequality $LV_L \le -c V_L + b$ into a maximal-inequality bound on the probability that $V_L$ ever exceeds a level $\lambda$. Because the Taylor expansion leaves the residual term $\mathrm{vec}(g_2(x_d))$ in the bound rather than requiring $g_2(0)=0$, the noise need not vanish at the equilibrium.

Load-bearing premise

The entire probability certificate rests on Lemma 1, whose proof assumes that after the Lyapunov function first reaches its ultimate bound the remaining time can be partitioned into intervals where the process is alternately a supermartingale, a submartingale, and a martingale, and that the stopped and unstopped processes have the same tail probability after the stopping time, neither of which is guaranteed for a general continuous strong Markov process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The designer can compute, before deployment, the set $S$ of admissible initial conditions and the escape risk $\vartheta$, giving the controller a quantitative safety certificate.
  • Because $g_2(0)=0$ is never required, the method covers plants where stochastic noise acts even when the tracking error is zero, a regime excluded by most prior stochastic adaptive results.
  • No structural or bound knowledge of $f$, $g_2$, or $\Sigma$ is assumed beyond continuity and the existence of the smooth Taylor expansion (12); the three DNNs absorb both drift and diffusion nonlinearities online.
  • The simulation on the five-dimensional system shows the tracking-error RMS remains bounded as the noise mean ranges over $[-0.1, 0.1]$ and covariance over $[1,10]$, degrading gradually rather than abruptly, consistent with the exponential-convergence claim.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the escape-probability methodology of Lemma 1, if its hypotheses can be verified for a specific closed-loop process, would apply as a general template to any Itô system satisfying $LV \le -\kappa_1 V + \kappa_2$, making it a candidate probabilistic substitute for classical deterministic UUB certificates.
  • Editorial inference: because $\vartheta$ depends on the initial Lyapunov value, an immediate extension is to invert (29) to compute the largest admissible initial-condition set for a prescribed risk level, or to adjust $k_e$ online to shrink the ultimate bound $\sqrt{\lambda/\alpha_1}$ at the cost of control effort.
  • Editorial inference: the smoothness gap between the standing assumption ($g_2$ continuous, Section III) and the requirement that $\mathrm{vec}(g_2)$ be $C^\infty$ for the Taylor expansion (12) suggests a concrete mathematical extension using a Peano-type remainder under Lipschitz assumptions on $g_2$.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers control-affine stochastic nonlinear systems of the form dx = (f(x)+g1(x)u)dt + g2(x)Σ(t)dω with unknown, unstructured drift f and diffusion g2. It proposes a controller (22) driven by three Lyapunov-based DNN elements whose weights are updated online by the laws (18)-(20). The main result, Theorem 1, claims that under gain condition (28) and feasibility condition (30), the concatenated error state is uniformly ultimately bounded in probability with the explicit probability bound (31), where the escape risk ϑ is given in (29). The proof relies on Lemma 1, a general escape-probability estimate for Itô processes satisfying LV ≤ −κ1 V + κ2. A five-dimensional simulation study is presented to illustrate tracking performance.

Significance. The proposed adaptive structure is conceptually attractive: three online-updated DNNs target the drift and diffusion uncertainties separately, the design avoids the common assumption that the noise vanishes at the equilibrium, and the stability argument aims to produce an explicit, computable escape-risk bound. The derivation of the update laws is systematic, and no constants appear to be fitted to the theorem. However, the paper's central novelty, the quantified probabilistic ultimate bound, rests entirely on Lemma 1, and Lemma 1 is contradicted by a simple one-dimensional example satisfying all of its hypotheses. Consequently, the main claim (31) is not established. The contribution is therefore conditional on a substantial repair of the probabilistic argument, not on local polishing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V (Lemma 1) and Appendix, Eqs. (43)-(57)] Lemma 1 is false as stated, and this is load-bearing for Theorem 1. Consider the scalar Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process dz = -z dt + 0.1 dW, with V(z) = z^2, m = 1, λ = 0.1, t = 0, and z(0) = 0. On Q_m = {|z| < 1}, LV = -2z^2 + 0.01 = -2V + 0.01, so the generator hypothesis holds with κ1 = 2 and κ2 = 0.01. The bound in (57) gives P(sup_{s≥0} V(z(s)) ≥ 0.1) ≤ 0.05. But the one-dimensional nondegenerate OU process is recurrent, so it exits (-1,1) with probability one and must cross the level |z| = sqrt(0.1) ≈ 0.316 on the way; hence the left-hand side is 1, a contradiction. The source of the error is visible in Eq. (53): after τ_m, the stopped process satisfies V(\tilde z(s)) = 0 while V(z(s)) need not be zero, so the two escape probabilities are not equal. The partition of [τ_B, ∞) into supermartingale, submartingale, and martingale intervals is also unjustified. Since Theorem 1 invokes Lemma 1 to obtain (31), the central probabilistic guarantee of the paper is unsupported.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (12)] The Taylor expansion vec(g2(x)) = Ψ(e, xd)e + vec(g2(xd)) is asserted with Ψ a C^∞ function, while the standing assumption in Section III is only that g2 is continuous. For a merely continuous g2, the difference vec(g2(x)) - vec(g2(xd)) need not be representable with a C^∞ matrix-valued Ψ; at least C^1 regularity is needed for the integral/Taylor representation, and C^∞ regularity is required for the stated smoothness of Ψ. This is not a purely technical point, because F1 and F2 are defined through Ψ and are the functions approximated by the DNNs in (14)-(16). The assumption on g2 should be strengthened consistently, or the regularity of Ψ should be proved from weaker hypotheses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Definition 1] The symbols b and c are used in Definition 1 before they are introduced later in the same section, and c is also used as a generic constant in the UUB-p definition; this makes the definition difficult to parse and should be reordered or renamed.
  2. [Section II] The filtration notation in Section II is self-referential and unclear: the text says 'Ft is a complete filtration given by the family of σ-algebras up to time t, i.e., FS : FS ⊆ Ft ∀t ∈ [0,t]', which uses t on both sides and appears to contain a typographical error.
  3. [Section VI] In the simulation section, the state map is written as x : R≥0 → R^3, although the simulation state is five-dimensional; this appears to be a typo.
  4. [Section VI] The simulations report RMS tracking errors for individual sample paths but do not estimate the escape probability or compare it with the theoretical bound in (31), which is the paper's distinctive probabilistic claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability proof is a symbolic Lyapunov derivation; self-citations to the authors' Lb-DNN framework are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1, is derived by substituting the controller (22) and update laws (18)-(20) into the infinitesimal generator of the Lyapunov function (24), then bounding LVL by -cVL + b in (41). No parameter is fitted to data or to the theorem's conclusion: the constants b, c, lambda, and the escape risk vartheta are symbolic quantities assembled from the same bounds used in the derivation, so the UUB-p statement is not equivalent to an input by construction. The universal approximation step is delegated to the external theorem [40, Thm. 3.2], and the first-order Taylor expansion (21) cites both the authors' [31] and the independent standard result [41, Eq. 22]. The self-citations to [30] and [31] introduce prior Lb-DNN machinery and a matrix calculus identity, but those are technical tools rather than premises that force the present conclusion. The reader-flagged issue is a correctness concern in Lemma 1: the proof's arbitrary partition of [tau_B, infinity) into supermartingale/submartingale/martingale intervals and the claimed equality in (53) are not justified, and the lemma appears doubtful for a scalar Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. That is a soundness flaw in a new mathematical lemma, not a circular reduction of the theorem to its own assumptions. The simulations are illustrative and are not presented as a prediction obtained from the fitted theorem, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the three DNNs are function approximators, not new dynamical objects. The main hidden burden is the martingale interval partition in the proof of Lemma 1, along with the unstated smoothness requirement on g2. The listed gains are user-selected simulation settings, not parameters fitted to match the theorem.

free parameters (3)
  • Control gain k_e = 500
    Hand-selected for the simulation. It satisfies the gain condition (28) but is not fitted to data and does not change the form of the theorem.
  • DNN learning rates and forgetting factors = gamma1=25, gamma3=25, gamma2=5, sigma1=0.01, sigma3=0.01, sigma2=0.1
    Hand-selected simulation hyperparameters. They are not fitted to the tracking result and are not load-bearing for the stability theorem.
  • Compact-set radius chi = unspecified, constrained by (30)
    The theorem requires chi to be large enough for the feasibility condition (30). This is a design parameter, not a number fitted to data.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Itô formula and the infinitesimal generator for C^2 functions apply to the stochastic process in (10), as used in (32).
    This is standard stochastic calculus background, invoked without proof in Section V.
  • standard math Deep narrow networks satisfy the universal approximation theorem and the ideal weights are bounded by known constants.
    The paper invokes [40, Thm. 3.2] and then imposes Assumption 3 that ||theta*_ell|| <= theta_ell with known theta_ell.
  • domain assumption g1 is full row rank and bounded (Assumption 1).
    The controller in (22) uses the right pseudo-inverse g1^+, which requires this assumption.
  • domain assumption The desired trajectory xd and its derivative are bounded by known constants (Assumption 2).
    Used to bound x through the triangle inequality and to show x lies in the compact domain Omega_2.
  • ad hoc to paper g2 is smooth enough for the Taylor expansion (12) to hold with a C-infinity function Psi, while only continuity is stated.
    The Taylor expansion in (12) requires at least C^1, and the paper then treats Psi as C-infinity. This smoothness is not part of the stated model assumptions.
  • domain assumption The process z(t) is a continuous strong Markov process that is defined until at least tau' > tau_m (Lemma 1, assumption A2).
    This is stated as an assumption in Lemma 1, but the paper does not impose the regularity conditions on f and g2 that would guarantee it.
  • ad hoc to paper After the Lyapunov process hits its ultimate bound, the time interval can be partitioned into subintervals where V is respectively a supermartingale, a submartingale, and a martingale, and equation (53) holds.
    This is the unproved structural assumption in the appendix proof of Lemma 1. It is load-bearing and not justified for a general continuous strong Markov process.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lyapunov-Based Deep Neural Networks for Adaptive Control of Stochastic Nonlinear Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PEPJYMQ

@misc{pith2026241221095,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lyapunov-Based Deep Neural Networks for Adaptive Control of Stochastic Nonlinear Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PEPJYMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21095}
}
read the original abstract

Controlling nonlinear stochastic dynamical systems involves substantial challenges when the dynamics contain unknown and unstructured nonlinear state-dependent terms. For such complex systems, deep neural networks can serve as powerful black box approximators for the unknown drift and diffusion processes. Recent developments construct Lyapunov-based deep neural network (Lb-DNN) controllers to compensate for deterministic uncertainties using adaptive weight update laws derived from a Lyapunov-based analysis based on insights from the compositional structure of the DNN architecture. However, these Lb-DNN controllers do not account for non-deterministic uncertainties. This paper develops Lb-DNNs to adaptively compensate for both the drift and diffusion uncertainties of nonlinear stochastic dynamic systems. Through a Lyapunov-based stability analysis, a DNN-based approximation and corresponding DNN weight adaptation laws are constructed to eliminate the unknown state-dependent terms resulting from the nonlinear diffusion and drift processes. The tracking error is shown to be uniformly ultimately bounded in probability. Simulations are performed on a nonlinear stochastic dynamical system to show efficacy of the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.21095 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For a UUB-p system, if the states are initialized within the set S, they remain inside the set D with probability 1 − ϑ and eventually exponentially converge to the set D, staying within the bounded set (blue trajectory). However, there is an escape risk of ϑ, meaning the trajectories can potentially become unbounded (red trajectory). Additionally, λ is the radius of an arbitrary level set, whose size corresponds to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of the tracking error over time for the developed Lb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance of the RMS of the tracking error with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LyLA-Therm: Lyapunov-based Langevin Adaptive Thermodynamic Neural Network Controller

    eess.SY 2025-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A stochastic Langevin-style update law with a decaying "temperature" noise term is introduced for Lyapunov-based DNN adaptive control, with a probabilistic boundedness theorem and ~20% simulated gains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [35]

    Deep neural networks-prescribed performance optimal control for stochastic nonlinear strict-feedback systems,

    J. Chen, J. Mei, J. Hu, and Z. Yang, “Deep neural networks-prescribed performance optimal control for stochastic nonlinear strict-feedback systems,” Neurocomp., p. 128633, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Stochastic nonlinear stabilization – I: A backstepping design,

    H. Deng and M. Krsti ´c, “Stochastic nonlinear stabilization – I: A backstepping design,” Syst. & Control Lett. , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 143– 150, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [2]

    Stabilization of stochastic nonlinear systems driven by noise of unknown covariance,

    H. Deng, M. Krstic, and R. J. Williams, “Stabilization of stochastic nonlinear systems driven by noise of unknown covariance,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1237–1253, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [3]

    Observer-based adaptive sliding mode control for nonlinear stochastic Markov jump systems via ts fuzzy modeling: Applications to robot arm model,

    B. Jiang, H. R. Karimi, S. Yang, C. Gao, and Y . Kao, “Observer-based adaptive sliding mode control for nonlinear stochastic Markov jump systems via ts fuzzy modeling: Applications to robot arm model,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 466–477, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Joint state and parameter robust estimation of stochastic nonlinear systems,

    V . Stojanovic and N. Nedic, “Joint state and parameter robust estimation of stochastic nonlinear systems,” Int. J. Robust & Nonlinear Control , vol. 26, no. 14, pp. 3058–3074, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Decentralized adaptive output- feedback stabilization for large-scale stochastic nonlinear systems,

    S.-J. Liu, J.-F. Zhang, and Z.-P. Jiang, “Decentralized adaptive output- feedback stabilization for large-scale stochastic nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 238–251, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    Prescribed-time output-feedback control of stochastic nonlinear systems,

    W. Li and M. Krstic, “Prescribed-time output-feedback control of stochastic nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 1431–1446, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    P. R. Kumar and P. Varaiya, Stochastic systems: Estimation, identifica- tion, and adaptive control . SIAM, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Observer-based adaptive neural network control for nonlinear stochastic systems with time delay,

    Q. Zhou, P. Shi, S. Xu, and H. Li, “Observer-based adaptive neural network control for nonlinear stochastic systems with time delay,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. & Learning Syst. , vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 71–80, 2012

    2012

  2. [9]

    Stochastic adaptive nonlinear control with filterless least squares,

    W. Li and M. Krstic, “Stochastic adaptive nonlinear control with filterless least squares,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 3893–3905, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    On designing of sliding-mode control for stochastic jump systems,

    P. Shi, Y . Xia, G. Liu, and D. Rees, “On designing of sliding-mode control for stochastic jump systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 97–103, 2006

    2006

  4. [11]

    Sliding mode control for nonlinear stochastic singular semi-Markov jump systems,

    W. Qi, G. Zong, and H. R. Karimi, “Sliding mode control for nonlinear stochastic singular semi-Markov jump systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 361–368, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    Fuzzy neural network-based adaptive control for a class of uncertain nonlinear stochastic systems,

    C. P. Chen, Y .-J. Liu, and G.-X. Wen, “Fuzzy neural network-based adaptive control for a class of uncertain nonlinear stochastic systems,” IEEE Trans. Cybern. , vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 583–593, 2013

    2013

  6. [13]

    Adaptive fuzzy control design for stochastic nonlinear switched systems with arbitrary switchings and unmodeled dynamics,

    Y . Li, S. Sui, and S. Tong, “Adaptive fuzzy control design for stochastic nonlinear switched systems with arbitrary switchings and unmodeled dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Cybern. , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 403–414, 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    Adaptive neural control for a class of stochastic nonlinear systems by backstepping approach,

    Y . Sun, B. Chen, C. Lin, H. Wang, and S. Zhou, “Adaptive neural control for a class of stochastic nonlinear systems by backstepping approach,” Inf. Sci., vol. 369, pp. 748–764, 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    Adaptive NN output-feedback stabilization for a class of stochastic nonlinear strict-feedback systems,

    J. Li, W. Chen, J. Li, and Y . Fang, “Adaptive NN output-feedback stabilization for a class of stochastic nonlinear strict-feedback systems,” ISA Trans., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 468–475, 2009

    2009

  9. [16]

    Neural network-based adaptive control for pure-feedback stochastic nonlinear systems with time-varying delays and dead-zone input,

    Z. Li, T. Li, G. Feng, R. Zhao, and Q. Shan, “Neural network-based adaptive control for pure-feedback stochastic nonlinear systems with time-varying delays and dead-zone input,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, & Cybern.: Syst., vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 5317–5329, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    Adaptive neural output-feedback decentralized control for large-scale nonlinear systems with stochastic disturbances,

    H. Wang, P. X. Liu, J. Bao, X.-J. Xie, and S. Li, “Adaptive neural output-feedback decentralized control for large-scale nonlinear systems with stochastic disturbances,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. & Learning Syst., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 972–983, 2019

    2019

  11. [18]

    Reduced-order observer-based dynamic event- triggered adaptive NN control for stochastic nonlinear systems subject to unknown input saturation,

    L. Wang and C. P. Chen, “Reduced-order observer-based dynamic event- triggered adaptive NN control for stochastic nonlinear systems subject to unknown input saturation,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. & Learning Syst., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1678–1690, 2020

    2020

  12. [19]

    A fast finite-time neural network control of stochastic nonlinear systems,

    F. Wang, Z. You, Z. Liu, and C. P. Chen, “A fast finite-time neural network control of stochastic nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. & Learning Syst. , vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 7443–7452, 2022

    2022

  13. [20]

    Adaptive NN backstepping output- feedback control for stochastic nonlinear strict-feedback systems with time-varying delays,

    W. Chen, L. Jiao, J. Li, and R. Li, “Adaptive NN backstepping output- feedback control for stochastic nonlinear strict-feedback systems with time-varying delays,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, & Cybern., Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 939–950, 2009

    2009

  14. [21]

    H. J. Kushner, Introduction to Stochastic Control . New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1971

    1971

  15. [22]

    H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall, 3 ed., 2002

    2002

  16. [23]

    The power of deeper networks for expressing natural functions,

    D. Rolnick and M. Tegmark, “The power of deeper networks for expressing natural functions,” in Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. , 2018

    2018

  17. [24]

    Why deep neural networks for function approximation?,

    S. Liang and R. Srikant, “Why deep neural networks for function approximation?,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.04161 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Deep nonlinear adaptive control for unmanned aerial systems operating under dynamic uncertainties,

    Z. Lamb, Z. I. Bell, M. Longmire, J. Paquet, P. Ganesh, and R. Sanfelice, “Deep nonlinear adaptive control for unmanned aerial systems operating under dynamic uncertainties,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09502 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz, Data-driven science and engineering: Ma- chine learning, dynamical systems, and control . Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  20. [27]

    Multimodal integration learning of robot behavior using deep neural networks,

    K. Noda, H. Arie, Y . Suga, and T. Ogata, “Multimodal integration learning of robot behavior using deep neural networks,” Robotics & Auton. Syst., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 721–736, 2014

    2014

  21. [28]

    Detection and localization of robotic tools in robot-assisted surgery videos using deep neural networks for region proposal and detection,

    D. Sarikaya, J. J. Corso, and K. A. Guru, “Detection and localization of robotic tools in robot-assisted surgery videos using deep neural networks for region proposal and detection,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging , vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1542–1549, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Analytic deep neural network-based robot control,

    H.-T. Nguyen and C. C. Cheah, “Analytic deep neural network-based robot control,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 2176– 2184, 2022

    2022

  23. [30]

    Lyapunov-derived control and adaptive update laws for inner and outer layer weights of a deep neural network,

    O. Patil, D. Le, M. Greene, and W. E. Dixon, “Lyapunov-derived control and adaptive update laws for inner and outer layer weights of a deep neural network,” IEEE Control Syst Lett. , vol. 6, pp. 1855–1860, 2022

    2022

  24. [31]

    Deep residual neural network (ResNet)-based adaptive control: A Lyapunov-based approach,

    O. S. Patil, D. M. Le, E. Griffis, and W. E. Dixon, “Deep residual neural network (ResNet)-based adaptive control: A Lyapunov-based approach,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control , pp. 3487–3492, 2022

    2022

  25. [32]

    Deep Lyapunov-based physics-informed neural networks (DeLb-PINN) for adaptive control design,

    R. Hart, O. Patil, E. Griffis, and W. E. Dixon, “Deep Lyapunov-based physics-informed neural networks (DeLb-PINN) for adaptive control design,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control , pp. 1511–1516, 2023

    2023

  26. [33]

    Deep adap- tive indirect herding of multiple target agents with unknown interaction dynamics,

    C. F. Nino, O. S. Patil, J. Philor, Z. Bell, and W. E. Dixon, “Deep adap- tive indirect herding of multiple target agents with unknown interaction dynamics,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control , pp. 2509–2514, 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Deep recurrent neural network-based observer for uncertain nonlinear systems,

    E. Griffis, O. Patil, W. Makumi, and W. E. Dixon, “Deep recurrent neural network-based observer for uncertain nonlinear systems,” in IFAC World Congr., pp. 6851–6856, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    J. R. Magnus and H. Neudecker, Matrix differential calculus with applications in statistics and econometrics . John Wiley & Sons, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Stochastic thermodynamics: Dissi- pativity, accumulativity, energy storage and entropy production,

    M. Lanchares and W. M. Haddad, “Stochastic thermodynamics: Dissi- pativity, accumulativity, energy storage and entropy production,” Philos. Trans. of the Royal Soc. A , vol. 381, no. 2256, p. 20220284, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Billingsley, Probability and measure

    P. Billingsley, Probability and measure. John Wiley & Sons, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    H. J. Kushner, Stochastic stability and control. ACADEMIC PRESS, INC., 1967

    1967

  32. [40]

    Universal approximation with deep narrow networks,

    P. Kidger and T. Lyons, “Universal approximation with deep narrow networks,” in Conf. Learn. Theory , pp. 2306–2327, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Multilayer neural-net robot controller with guaranteed tracking performance,

    F. L. Lewis, A. Yesildirek, and K. Liu, “Multilayer neural-net robot controller with guaranteed tracking performance,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 388–399, 1996

    1996

  34. [42]

    Asymptotic tracking controller design for nonlinear systems with guaranteed performance,

    B. Fan, Q. Yang, S. Jagannathan, and Y . Sun, “Asymptotic tracking controller design for nonlinear systems with guaranteed performance,” IEEE Trans. Cybern. , vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 2001–2011, 2018

    2001

  35. [43]

    A sufficiently smooth projection operator,

    Z. Cai, M. S. de Queiroz, and D. M. Dawson, “A sufficiently smooth projection operator,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 51, pp. 135–139, Jan. 2006

    2006

  36. [44]

    A generalized inverse for matrices,

    R. Penrose, “A generalized inverse for matrices,” Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc., vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 406–413, 1955

    1955

  37. [45]

    Axler, Linear algebra done right

    S. Axler, Linear algebra done right . Springer Nature, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Swish: a self-gated activation function,

    P. Ramachandran, B. Zoph, and Q. V . Le, “Swish: a self-gated activation function,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05941 , vol. 7, no. 1, p. 5, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Delving deep into rectifiers: Surpassing human-level performance on imagenet classification,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vision , pp. 1026–1034, 2015

    2015

  40. [48]

    Øksendal and B

    B. Øksendal and B. Øksendal, Stochastic differential equations . Springer, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    Le Gall, Measure theory, probability, and stochastic processes

    J.-F. Le Gall, Measure theory, probability, and stochastic processes . Springer, 2022. Saiedeh Akbari is a Ph.D. candidate in the de- partment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at University of Florida. Her research focuses on developing adaptive learning-based control s...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.