Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Data-Driven MPC with Data Selection for Flexible Cable-Driven Robotic Arms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that a purely data-driven model predictive controller, built on input-output data and a data-selection algorithm, tracks joint trajectories on a real three-segment flexible cable-driven robotic arm with an average error…

desk verdict Useful application paper with a real FCRA testbed, but the main tracking comparison is confounded by an inverse-model feedforward term that is never ablated, so the central claim overstates what the data-driven predictor contributes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15677 v1 pith:C5IICQXH submitted 2025-07-21 cs.RO

Huayue Liang , Yanbo Chen , Hongyang Cheng , Yanzhao Yu , Shoujie Li , Junbo Tan , Xueqian Wang , Long Zeng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords data-drivenmodelpredictivecontrolflexiblecable-drivenroboticarmdataselectionalgorithmHankelmatrixFundamentalLemmatrajectorytrackingmodel-freequadraticprogramming
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 that a flexible cable-driven robotic arm (FCRA) can be controlled accurately without any physical model: a model predictive controller built on stored input-output data can outperform a PID baseline on a real three-segment arm. The controller constructs an implicit predictor from Hankel matrices of past data, embeds it in a quadratic-programming optimization, and uses a data selection algorithm to pick the stored dataset that best matches the current operating condition. On the experimental platform, the data-driven MPC achieves an average tracking error of 0.541 degrees versus 1.418 degrees for PID, and the per-step solve time falls from about 19 ms to 4 ms, enabling 50 Hz closed-loop control. The paper also reports a positioning repeatability of roughly 2.070 mm over five targets repeated thirty times, and it studies how the data length and estimation horizon affect tracking error. If these results hold, they indicate that cable hysteresis, friction, and coupling can be absorbed by data-driven prediction rather than explicit modeling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the data-driven predictor $G := Y_f \begin{bmatrix} U_p \\ Y_p \\ U_f \end{bmatrix}^{\dagger}$, a constant matrix that maps a short past input-output history plus a planned future input sequence to a predicted future output sequence. It is obtained by decomposing the Hankel matrices of a persistently exciting input and its output into past and future blocks, applying the Fundamental Lemma, and eliminating the coefficient vector $K$ through a least-squares pseudo-inverse. The MPC then solves a strictly convex quadratic program whose cost penalizes output error to the reference, terminal error, input deviation, and input/output rate changes, subject to the predictor equation, box constraints, and output-rate limits. The DSA selects which of $M$ stored data sequences is used to build $G$ at each step by minimizing $\|K_j\|$ against the current measurement, which makes the predictor locally matched to the current load.

What would settle it

Run the same data-driven MPC on the same three-segment arm in an operating region absent from the training data—for example, with a 3 kg payload or a trajectory faster than any in the stored dataset—and compare the predicted outputs of Eq. (8) with actual joint encoder readings over the prediction horizon. If the G-matrix prediction diverges or the DSA selects a group whose estimated load differs sharply from the true load, the claimed model-free extension would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a nonlinear, noisy cable-driven arm, a predictor derived from the Fundamental Lemma of behavioral systems theory for linear systems still works if it is built from a sufficiently large and well-chosen dataset. Specifically, the authors form the matrix $G := Y_f \begin{bmatrix} U_p \\ Y_p \\ U_f \end{bmatrix}^{\dagger}$ — the future output block times the pseudo-inverse of the stacked past-input, past-output, and future-input blocks of the Hankel matrix — which yields the linear predictor $y = G\, [u_{\mathrm{ini}};\, y_{\mathrm{ini}};\, u]$. This predictor replaces the physical model inside the MPC cost and constraints. A data selection algorithm (DSA) divides the stored data into groups, solves a small least-squares problem per group to test consistency with the current measurement, and retains the group with smallest coefficient norm; that group also selects the matching inverse reference model. The paper argues in Section IV-B that when the data volume $N$ is large, the least-squares form extends the linear theory to nonlinear systems, and the experimental tracking results are presented as validation of this extension.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Fundamental Lemma's exact representation of linear time-invariant systems remains a valid approximate predictor for the nonlinear, noisy cable-driven arm once the dataset is large; the paper states this extension in Section IV-B without a formal proof, so the tracking and speed results depend on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers are correct, an FCRA can be position-controlled and trajectory-tracked without cable-specific friction or hysteresis models, which removes a major obstacle to deploying such arms in surgery or industry.
  • The data selection algorithm cuts the per-step computation from about 19 ms to 4 ms, meaning the same planning problem fits comfortably inside a 50 Hz control loop on standard hardware.
  • The hyperparameter study gives a practical sizing rule: keep the Hankel matrix at least square (data length $N$ satisfies inequality (13)) and increase the estimation horizon $n_{\mathrm{ini}}$ when measurement noise is significant, since tracking error improves in both cases.
  • The repeatability experiment suggests that data-driven MPC holds roughly 2 mm positioning accuracy across repeated cycles, with the main drift source being gradual cable elongation rather than the controller itself.
  • Because the method relies only on motor and joint encoder signals, the same pipeline should transfer to other multi-segment cable-driven robots without re-deriving their kinematics or dynamic models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not state: the minimum $\|K_j\|$ used by the DSA is effectively an operating-point or load estimator, so the same computation could provide a real-time payload estimate for adaptive planning.
  • The $G$-matrix predictor built from the best-matching dataset behaves like a local linearization of the nonlinear arm at the current operating condition; this suggests the method works as a regime-switching linear predictor, which may explain why the LTI-based derivation carries over despite the nonlinearity.
  • The square-Hankel rule from inequality (13) might serve as a general heuristic for when data-driven MPC predictions stabilize, but that is an extrapolation from the paper's single-arm simulation, not a proven theorem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven model predictive control (MPC) approach for a flexible cable-driven robotic arm (FCRA). The method constructs an implicit predictor from a Hankel matrix and a G-matrix based on Willems' Fundamental Lemma, integrates it as an equality constraint in an MPC optimization, and introduces a data selection algorithm (DSA) that picks one of several data blocks (collected under different payloads) to reduce per-step computation. An MLP inverse model is trained on the same data to provide reference motor inputs in the MPC cost. The method is evaluated in simulation for hyperparameter tuning and on a three-segment hardware platform for positioning repeatability, single-point tracking, and letter-drawing trajectory tracking. The reported results include an average tracking error of 0.541° versus 1.418° for PID and a per-step solve-time reduction from about 19 ms to 4 ms.

Significance. If the central performance claims hold, the paper would provide a practical demonstration of purely data-driven MPC for a cable-driven arm, with a data-selection mechanism that addresses real-time computational constraints. The hardware validation and the explicit study of hyperparameter effects are strengths. However, the unsupported extension of the LTI data-driven predictor to the nonlinear FCRA and the lack of an ablation separating the data-driven predictor from the inverse-model feedforward currently leave the main tracking-error claim unsubstantiated. The computational speedup claim also needs to account for selection overhead. The work is potentially significant for the robotics community, but these load-bearing issues require substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (8)] The predictor in Eq. (8) is obtained by applying Willems' Fundamental Lemma, which is an LTI result, to data from a nonlinear cable-driven system. The paper states in Sec. IV-B that 'when the data volume N is large, the method can be effectively extended to nonlinear systems,' but no proof or formal argument is given, and the preceding sentence concedes that the linear-system inferences 'do not necessarily hold for nonlinear systems.' Because the MPC constraint (10b) uses this G-matrix as the plant model, the tracking results in Sec. V rest on an unsubstantiated modeling assumption. Please either provide a rigorous justification (e.g., an approximate behavioral model with a quantified error bound), cite a sound nonlinear extension from the literature, or reframe the method as a heuristic whose validity is established only by the closed-loop experiments, with the experiments designed to isolate the predictor's contribution.
  2. [Sec. IV-C/E and V-D, Eq. (10a), Table III] The MPC cost in Eq. (10a) includes the term ||u_k - u_tar_k||^2_R, where u_tar is computed from an inverse MLP model trained on the same collected data (Sec. IV-E), while the PID baseline in Fig. 8 has no such feedforward. Without an ablation that removes or isolates the u_tar term, or a feedforward-equipped PID baseline, the reported reduction from 1.418° to 0.541° in Table III cannot be attributed to the data-driven predictor or the DSA; the inverse-model feedforward alone could plausibly account for most of the improvement. Please add ablation experiments, for example: (i) PID with inverse-model feedforward, (ii) the proposed MPC with the u_tar term removed, and (iii) the proposed MPC without DSA using all data.
  3. [Sec. V-D, Table III] Table III reports a single average error per target position with no trial count, standard deviation, or confidence interval. Given the measured positional repeatability in Table II (STD.DEV up to 2.640 mm, 3-sigma up to 10.380 mm), the claimed margin between 0.541° and 1.418° may lie within run-to-run variability. Report mean ± std over multiple independent repetitions per condition, and clearly state whether these tracking experiments are the same runs used for the positioning test or separate trials.
  4. [Sec. V-A/V-B, Sec. IV-D] The reported solve-time reduction from 19 ms to 4 ms omits the time spent on the DSA selection step, which involves solving (11) for each of the M groups. In addition, the data-length notation is inconsistent: Sec. V-A states N = 120000 with M = 6, while Fig. 6 and inequality (13) use N = 401 and treat N as the block length. Please clarify the relationship among N, Ns, and M, and report end-to-end per-step wall-clock time including data selection, optimization, and communication.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V-B, Eq. (12)] The tracking-error metric in Eq. (12) is printed as '1/c Ta-1 sum' and appears to lack a normalization by Ta; it also yields squared units if interpreted literally. Please state the exact formula and specify whether Table III reports RMSE in degrees.
  2. [Sec. IV-C] In Sec. IV-C the decision variable u_k is described as 'motor velocities,' while Sec. IV-A defines the model input as motor angles θ and Sec. IV-B uses input sequence u^d as motor angles. Please clarify whether the input to the Hankel/G-matrix model is the motor angle or the motor velocity, since this is essential for reproducing the MPC implementation.
  3. [Sec. IV-D, Eq. (11)] In Eq. (11), 'σ_L,th ⊂ σ' should read 'σ_L,th ∈ σ' (or the set σ should be defined); the current notation is mathematically imprecise.
  4. [Sec. V-A, Table I] Table I contains a typo in the header 'Load W eight(kg)'; also, the row labels 'Payload1' through 'Payload3' should be explained in the caption or text.
  5. [Sec. V-D, paragraph after Eq. (10)] The parameter listing 'Q = 10000I1X6, R = 70I1X9, S = 0.01I1X6, F = 0.01I1X9, P = 0.1I1X6' uses a nonstandard notation 'I1X6'; please use standard notation such as Q = 10000·I_6, R = 70·I_9, and so on, with the identity-matrix dimension made explicit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor definitional circularity in the DSA 'best match' criterion; the central tracking claim is not forced by construction.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV-D (Data Search Algorithm), Eq. (11) and following paragraph]
    "Using minimizing ∥Kj∥2, the minimum value corresponds to the data sequence {ud 1:N,be, yd 1:N,be}, which is identified as the most suitable. This selected data sequence {ud 1:N,be, yd 1:N,be} is then used to construct the G matrix. Furthermore, the minimum ∥Kj∥ can be a criterion to select the corresponding inverse MLP reference model as input reference."

    The selection criterion in Eq. (11) defines 'most suitable' as the data block that minimizes ∥Kj∥² while representing the currently measured input-output window. The paper then presents as an experimental finding that this minimizing block 'best match[es] the current state' and, in Table I, that the minimum corresponds to the load closest to the actual load. That is a restatement of the optimization objective: the argmin of a matching cost is, by construction, the best match under that cost. This step is therefore definitional rather than an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is the standard data-driven predictive control construction: Willems' Fundamental Lemma (cited to external works [7] and [24]) builds the Hankel matrices, and Eq. (8) forms the least-squares predictor G := Yf [Up; Yp; Uf]†. No author-uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The DSA adds an online data-block selection step, and the only definitional circularity is the paper's claim that the minimizing ∥Kj∥ block is 'the most suitable' and 'best match[es]' the current state; this is true by the definition of the optimization in Eq. (11), not by independent validation. That step is minor and does not force the reported tracking accuracy, which is obtained from new physical trajectories. The unsupported extension from LTI theory to the nonlinear FCRA ('When the data volume N is large, the method can be effectively extended to nonlinear systems') is an unproven assumption and a correctness risk, not a circularity. Similarly, the missing ablation separating the inverse-MLP feedforward term ∥uk − utar k ∥²_R from the data-driven predictor is an experimental-design concern, not a constructional equivalence, because the tracking error is measured on the real closed-loop system rather than derived from the fitted values. Overall, the derivation is self-contained apart from a minor definitional labeling of the DSA selection criterion.

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

The core predictor is standard data-driven MPC; the new load-bearing elements are the unproved nonlinear extension and the heuristic data-selection criterion, which are assumptions rather than derived results.

free parameters (4)
  • State dimension h = 15
    Introduced in Sec. V-B as 'the number of states' without derivation; it sets the required data length in condition (13) and is not tied to the arm's physical state count.
  • MPC hyperparameters = l=6, nini=2, Q=10000I, R=70I, S=0.01I, F=0.01I, P=0.1I
    Section V-D lists the values used on the real system; they are tuned in simulation and applied without a sensitivity analysis on hardware.
  • Slack variable sigma in Eq. (11)
    Introduced to handle noise but never specified, bounded, or weighted; the DSA implementation is therefore incomplete.
  • Data block size N and group count M = M=6, N=120000 (Sec. V-A); N=401 (Sec. V-B)
    The paper states N=120000 in the DSA experiment but uses N=401 in the hyperparameter study; the relationship between N and Ns is ambiguous, affecting reproducibility of the G-matrix construction.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Willems' Fundamental Lemma applies to the system: the Hankel matrix representation in Eq. (4) is valid.
    Invoked in Sec. IV-B; the lemma requires LTI dynamics and persistent excitation, but the FCRA is nonlinear and noisy, as the paper acknowledges.
  • ad hoc to paper Large data volume N extends the LTI predictor to nonlinear systems.
    Stated in Sec. IV-B: 'When the data volume N is large, the method can be effectively extended to nonlinear systems.' No proof or formal argument is given.
  • domain assumption Minimizing ||K_j|| in Eq. (11) selects the data block that best matches the current operating condition.
    Proposed in Sec. IV-D and supported only by the load-matching experiment in Table I; no theoretical justification is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-Driven MPC with Data Selection for Flexible Cable-Driven Robotic Arms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5IICQXH

@misc{pith2026250715677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-Driven MPC with Data Selection for Flexible Cable-Driven Robotic Arms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5IICQXH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15677}
}
read the original abstract

Flexible cable-driven robotic arms (FCRAs) offer dexterous and compliant motion. Still, the inherent properties of cables, such as resilience, hysteresis, and friction, often lead to particular difficulties in modeling and control. This paper proposes a model predictive control (MPC) method that relies exclusively on input-output data, without a physical model, to improve the control accuracy of FCRAs. First, we develop an implicit model based on input-output data and integrate it into an MPC optimization framework. Second, a data selection algorithm (DSA) is introduced to filter the data that best characterize the system, thereby reducing the solution time per step to approximately 4 ms, which is an improvement of nearly 80%. Lastly, the influence of hyperparameters on tracking error is investigated through simulation. The proposed method has been validated on a real FCRA platform, including five-point positioning accuracy tests, a five-point response tracking test, and trajectory tracking for letter drawing. The results demonstrate that the average positioning accuracy is approximately 2.070 mm. Moreover, compared to the PID method with an average tracking error of 1.418{\deg}, the proposed method achieves an average tracking error of 0.541{\deg}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15677 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The FCRA successfully follows a predefined trajectory using our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the System Framework. The system consists of two main components: the control system and the data-driven MPC real-time planning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Motor arrangement. (a) illustrates the arrangement of each motor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The real-world setup of the FCRA, with the number of segments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The repeatability test has five pre-defined target positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Intermediate steps of “SMC”. (a)-(c) present the trajectory tracking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Manipulability, force, and compli- ance analysis for planar continuum manipulators,

    I. A. Gravagne and I. D. Walker, “Manipulability, force, and compli- ance analysis for planar continuum manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation , vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 263–273, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    An investigation of the intrinsic force sensing capabilities of continuum robots,

    K. Xu and N. Simaan, “An investigation of the intrinsic force sensing capabilities of continuum robots,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 576–587, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Position control of medical cable-driven flexible instruments by combining machine learning and kinematic analysis,

    R. A. Porto, F. Nageotte, P. Zanne, and M. de Mathelin, “Position control of medical cable-driven flexible instruments by combining machine learning and kinematic analysis,” in 2019 international con- ference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 7913– 7919

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Hysteresis compensator with learning-based hybrid joint angle estimation for flexible surgery robots,

    D. Baek, J.-H. Seo, J. Kim, and D.-S. Kwon, “Hysteresis compensator with learning-based hybrid joint angle estimation for flexible surgery robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6837–6844, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    D3-arm: High-dynamic, dexterous and fully decoupled cable-driven robotic arm,

    H. Luo, J. Xu, S. Li, H. Liang, Y . Chen, C. Xia, and X. Wang, “D3-arm: High-dynamic, dexterous and fully decoupled cable-driven robotic arm,” in 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Design, kinematics and control of a modular cable-driven manipulator for fine manipulation,

    W. Li, W. Xu, B. Lin, and L. Yan, “Design, kinematics and control of a modular cable-driven manipulator for fine manipulation,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, 2022, pp. 833–838

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness guarantees,

    J. Berberich, J. K ¨ohler, M. A. M ¨uller, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Data-driven model predictive control with stability and robustness guarantees,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1702– 1717, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Distributionally robust chance constrained data-enabled predictive control,

    J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Distributionally robust chance constrained data-enabled predictive control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 3289–3304, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Robust stability analysis of a simple data-driven model predictive control approach,

    J. Bongard, J. Berberich, J. K ¨ohler, and F. Allg¨ower, “Robust stability analysis of a simple data-driven model predictive control approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 2625– 2637, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Practical adaptive integral terminal sliding mode control for cable-driven manipulators,

    Y . Wang, F. Yan, K. Zhu, B. Chen, and H. Wu, “Practical adaptive integral terminal sliding mode control for cable-driven manipulators,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 78 575–78 586, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Kinematics and the implementation of an elephant’s trunk manipulator and other continuum style robots,

    M. W. Hannan and I. D. Walker, “Kinematics and the implementation of an elephant’s trunk manipulator and other continuum style robots,” Journal of robotic systems , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 45–63, 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    Task-space con- trol of continuum manipulators with coupled tendon drive,

    D. B. Camarillo, C. R. Carlson, and J. K. Salisbury, “Task-space con- trol of continuum manipulators with coupled tendon drive,” in Exper- imental Robotics: The Eleventh International Symposium . Springer, 2009, pp. 271–280

    2009

  5. [13]

    An overview of industrial model predictive control technology,

    S. J. Qin and T. A. Badgwell, “An overview of industrial model predictive control technology,” in AIche symposium series , vol. 93, no. 316. New York, NY: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1971-c2002., 1997, pp. 232–256

    1971

  6. [14]

    Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,

    Z. Jian, Z. Yan, X. Lei, Z. Lu, B. Lan, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 3679–3685

    2023

  7. [15]

    Quadruped guidance robot for the visually impaired: A comfort-based approach,

    Y . Chen, Z. Xu, Z. Jian, G. Tang, L. Yang, A. Xiao, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Quadruped guidance robot for the visually impaired: A comfort-based approach,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 12 078–12 084

    2023

  8. [16]

    Toward a data-driven template model for quadrupedal locomotion,

    R. T. Fawcett, K. Afsari, A. D. Ames, and K. A. Hamed, “Toward a data-driven template model for quadrupedal locomotion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7636–7643, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Data-enabled predictive control: In the shallows of the deepc,

    J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Data-enabled predictive control: In the shallows of the deepc,” in 2019 18th European Control Conference (ECC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 307–312

    2019

  10. [18]

    Data-driven model predictive control: closed-loop guarantees and experimental results,

    J. Berberich, J. K ¨ohler, M. A. M ¨uller, and F. Allg ¨ower, “Data-driven model predictive control: closed-loop guarantees and experimental results,” at-Automatisierungstechnik, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 608–618, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Data-driven predic- tive control with online adaption: Application to a fuel cell system,

    L. Schmitt, J. Beerwerth, M. Bahr, and D. Abel, “Data-driven predic- tive control with online adaption: Application to a fuel cell system,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Data-enabled predictive control for grid-connected power converters,

    L. Huang, J. Coulson, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Data-enabled predictive control for grid-connected power converters,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 8130–8135

    2019

  13. [21]

    Comparison of end-to- end and hybrid deep reinforcement learning strategies for controlling cable-driven parallel robots,

    H. Xiong, T. Ma, L. Zhang, and X. Diao, “Comparison of end-to- end and hybrid deep reinforcement learning strategies for controlling cable-driven parallel robots,” Neurocomputing, vol. 377, pp. 73–84, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Manipulability optimization of redundant manipulators using reinforcement learning,

    H. Yang, X. Li, D. Meng, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Manipulability optimization of redundant manipulators using reinforcement learning,” Industrial Robot: the international journal of robotics research and application, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 830–840, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Reinforcement learning based pushing and grasping objects from un- graspable poses,

    H. Zhang, H. Liang, L. Cong, J. Lyu, L. Zeng, P. Feng, and J. Zhang, “Reinforcement learning based pushing and grasping objects from un- graspable poses,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 3860–3866

    2023

  16. [24]

    A note on persistency of excitation,

    J. C. Willems, P. Rapisarda, I. Markovsky, and B. L. De Moor, “A note on persistency of excitation,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 325–329, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    Osqp: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,

    B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd, “Osqp: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 637–672, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Twist snake: Plastic table-top cable- driven robotic arm with all motors located at the base link,

    K. Tanaka and M. Hamaya, “Twist snake: Plastic table-top cable- driven robotic arm with all motors located at the base link,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 7345–7351

    2023

  19. [27]

    Parametricnet++: A 6dof pose estimation network with sparse key- point recovery for parametric shapes in stacked scenarios,

    Y . H. Xie, W. J. Lv, X. Y . Zhang, Y . H. Chen, and L. Zeng, “Parametricnet++: A 6dof pose estimation network with sparse key- point recovery for parametric shapes in stacked scenarios,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024,...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Sd- net: Symmetric-aware keypoint prediction and domain adaptation for 6d pose estimation in bin-picking scenarios,

    D.-T. Huang, E.-T. Lin, L. Chen, L.-F. Liu, and L. Zeng, “Sd- net: Symmetric-aware keypoint prediction and domain adaptation for 6d pose estimation in bin-picking scenarios,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2024, pp. 2747–2754

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.