Design of norm-optimal iterative learning controllers: The effect of an iteration-domain Kalman filter for disturbance estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iterative learning control (ILC) has proven to be an effective method for improving the performance of repetitive control tasks. This paper revisits two optimization-based ILC algorithms: (i) the widely used quadratic-criterion ILC law (QILC) and (ii) an estimation-based ILC law using an iteration-domain Kalman filter (K-ILC). The goal of this paper is to analytically compare both algorithms and to highlight the advantages of the Kalman-filter-enhanced algorithm. We first show that for an iteration-constant estimation gain and an appropriate choice of learning parameters both algorithms are identical. We then show that the estimation-enhanced algorithm with its iteration-varying optimal Kalman gains can achieve both fast initial convergence and good noise rejection by (optimally) adapting the learning update rule over the course of an experiment. We conclude that the clear separation of disturbance estimation and input update of the K-ILC algorithm provides an intuitive architecture to design learning schemes that achieve both low noise sensitivity and fast convergence. To benchmark the algorithms we use a simulation of a single-input, single-output mass-spring-damper system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".