High-precision trajectory tracking in changing environments through L<inf>1</inf> adaptive feedback and iterative learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As robots and other automated systems are introduced to unknown and dynamic environments, robust and adaptive control strategies are required to cope with disturbances, unmodeled dynamics and parametric uncertainties. In this paper, we propose and provide theoretical proofs of a combined L1adaptive feedback and iterative learning control (ILC) framework to improve trajectory tracking of a system subject to unknown and changing disturbances. The L1adaptive controller forces the system to behave in a repeatable, predefined way, even in the presence of unknown and changing disturbances; however, this does not imply that perfect trajectory tracking is achieved. ILC improves the tracking performance based on experience from previous executions. The performance of ILC is limited by the robustness and repeatability of the underlying system, which, in this approach, is handled by the L1adaptive controller. In particular, we are able to generalize learned trajectories across different system configurations because the L1adaptive controller handles the underlying changes in the system. We demonstrate the improved trajectory tracking performance and generalization capabilities of the combined method compared to pure ILC in experiments with a quadrotor subject to unknown, dynamic disturbances. This is the first work to show L1adaptive control combined with ILC in experiment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".