Learning-Based Synthesis of Robust Linear Time-Invariant Controllers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in learning for control allow to synthesize vehicle controllers from learned system dynamics and maintain robust stability guarantees. However, no approach is well-suited for training robustly-stabilizing linear time-invariant (LTI) controllers using arbitrary learned models of the dynamics. This article introduces a method to do so. It uses a robust control framework to derive robust stability criteria. It also uses simulated policy rollouts to obtain gradients on the controller parameters, which serve to improve the closed-loop performance. By formulating the stability criteria as penalties with computable gradients, they can be used to guide the controller parameters toward robust stability during gradient descent. The approach is flexible as it does not restrict the type of learned model for the simulated rollouts. The robust control framework ensures that the controller is already robustly stabilizing when first implemented on the actual system and no data is yet collected. It also ensures that the system stays stable in the event of a shift in dynamics, given the system behavior remains within assumed uncertainty bounds. We demonstrate the approach by synthesizing a controller for simulated autonomous lane-change maneuvers. This work thus presents a flexible approach to learning robustly stabilizing LTI controllers that takes advantage of modern machine learning techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".