Hubbry Logo
Machine learning controlMachine learning controlMain
Open search
Machine learning control
Community hub
Machine learning control
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Machine learning control
Machine learning control
Machine learning control
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Machine learning control (MLC) is a subfield of machine learning, intelligent control, and control theory which aims to solve optimal control problems with machine learning methods. Key applications are complex nonlinear systems for which linear control theory methods are not applicable.

Types of problems and tasks

[edit]

Four types of problems are commonly encountered:

  • Control parameter identification: MLC translates to a parameter identification[1] if the structure of the control law is given but the parameters are unknown. One example is the genetic algorithm for optimizing coefficients of a PID controller[2] or discrete-time optimal control.[3]
  • Control design as regression problem of the first kind: MLC approximates a general nonlinear mapping from sensor signals to actuation commands, if the sensor signals and the optimal actuation command are known for every state. One example is the computation of sensor feedback from a known full state feedback. Neural networks are commonly used for such tasks.[4]
  • Control design as regression problem of the second kind: MLC may also identify arbitrary nonlinear control laws which minimize the cost function of the plant. In this case, neither a model, the control law structure, nor the optimizing actuation command needs to be known. The optimization is only based on the control performance (cost function) as measured in the plant. Genetic programming is a powerful regression technique for this purpose.[5]
  • Reinforcement learning control: The control law may be continually updated over measured performance changes (rewards) using reinforcement learning.[6][7]

Adaptive Dynamic Programming

[edit]

Adaptive Dynamic Programming (ADP), also known as approximate dynamic programming or neuro-dynamic programming, is a machine learning control method that combines reinforcement learning with dynamic programming to solve optimal control problems for complex systems. ADP addresses the "curse of dimensionality" in traditional dynamic programming by approximating value functions or control policies using parametric structures such as neural networks. The core idea revolves around learning a control policy that minimizes a long-term cost function , defined as , where is the system state, is the control input, is the instantaneous reward, and is a discount factor. ADP employs two interacting components: a critic that estimates the value function , and an actor that updates the control policy . The critic and actor are trained iteratively using temporal difference learning or gradient descent to satisfy the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation:  

 

where describes the system dynamics. Key variants include heuristic dynamic programming (HDP), dual heuristic programming (DHP), and globalized dual heuristic programming (GDHP).[7]

ADP has been applied to robotics, power systems, and autonomous vehicles, offering a data-driven framework for near-optimal control without requiring full system models. Challenges remain in ensuring stability guarantees and convergence for general nonlinear systems.  

Applications

[edit]

MLC has been successfully applied to many nonlinear control problems, exploring unknown and often unexpected actuation mechanisms. Example applications include:

Many more engineering MLC application are summarized in the review article of PJ Fleming & RC Purshouse (2002).[12]

As is the case for all general nonlinear methods, MLC does not guarantee convergence, optimality, or robustness for a range of operating conditions.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Machine learning control

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Machine learning control (MLC) is an interdisciplinary approach that leverages algorithms to design, optimize, and deploy control strategies for dynamic systems, enabling data-driven adaptation to uncertainties, nonlinearities, and complex environments where traditional model-based methods fall short. By analyzing historical and , MLC techniques predict system behaviors, approximate unknown dynamics, and generate effective control laws that map sensor inputs to outputs, thereby enhancing stability, performance, and robustness. This field bridges —rooted in principles like feedback and stability from —and , which excels in from data without explicit programming. At its core, MLC addresses limitations of classical control paradigms, such as proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers or linear quadratic regulators (LQR), which rely on precise mathematical models of the system and struggle with high-dimensional or nonlinear scenarios. Instead, MLC employs evolutionary algorithms like to evolve control policies through iterative optimization of cost functions that penalize deviations from desired states. Other methods include for tasks like and fault detection, as well as for sequential decision-making in dynamic settings. These methods often involve off-line training on experiential data to discover generalized controllers, followed by on-line deployment for real-time adjustments, ensuring the system remains stable while minimizing energy use or tracking errors. Notable applications of MLC span , where it enables adaptive locomotion in unstructured terrains; autonomous vehicles, for and obstacle avoidance; and energy systems, such as smart grids for predictive load balancing and building climate control to reduce consumption. In , MLC facilitates estimation and feedback for precise manipulation of qubits, while in , it supports nonlinear flight control under varying conditions. As of 2025, ongoing research emphasizes hybrid approaches combining ML with classical control to improve interpretability, handle real-time computational demands, and provide theoretical guarantees for safety-critical systems.

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Machine learning control (MLC) is a hybrid subfield that merges principles from , , and classical control theory to tackle problems, especially in complex nonlinear dynamical systems where conventional linear techniques prove insufficient. This integration enables the design of controllers that adapt to uncertainties and high-dimensionality without relying on precise analytical models of the system. By formulating control as an optimization task over a cost function—typically minimizing error or energy while satisfying constraints—MLC leverages computational methods to derive effective input-output mappings from sensor data to actuators. The scope of MLC centers on data-driven methodologies that learn control policies or tune parameters through interactions with the system, drawing from various paradigms tailored to control objectives. is employed for tasks like , where labeled input-output pairs predict dynamics; aids in or to preprocess sensor data; and serves as a primary enabler for sequential in uncertain environments. These approaches emphasize from simulations or real-world trials, allowing controllers to generalize to unseen conditions and handle nonlinearities that defy traditional parametrization. A foundational prerequisite for understanding MLC is familiarity with core control theory concepts, such as state-space representations—where the system's evolution is modeled as x˙=f(x,u)\dot{x} = f(x, u) with state xx and input uu—and feedback loops that adjust uu based on observed xx to achieve stability or performance goals. Readers are assumed to have introductory knowledge of , including neural networks and optimization, but MLC extends these by embedding them within closed-loop system dynamics. This setup distinguishes MLC from pure applications, as it prioritizes real-time applicability and in physical systems. A key distinction within MLC lies between model-free and model-based strategies: model-free methods directly learn policies from trial-and-error interactions, bypassing explicit dynamics modeling for faster in black-box scenarios, while model-based techniques first infer the underlying model from before computing optimal controls, offering interpretability at the cost of computational overhead. Adaptive dynamic programming represents a foundational model-based technique in this .

Historical Development

The field of machine learning control originated in the , building on foundations in systems and approximate dynamic programming (ADP), which sought to address complex, nonlinear problems beyond traditional linear methods. Early contributions included the application of (RL) to control tasks, as explored by Barto, who highlighted how RL could enable adaptive performance improvement through trial-and-error interactions with dynamic environments. Concurrently, evolutionary algorithms emerged as a means for parameter optimization, with Bäck and Schwefel providing an overview of their application in optimization tasks without requiring differentiability of objective functions. These developments marked the initial shift toward data-driven techniques, influenced by advances in during the decade. In the 2000s, the integration of neural networks with ADP gained prominence, enabling approximate solutions to problems in high-dimensional spaces. A comprehensive survey by Fleming and Purshouse illustrated how evolutionary algorithms, often combined with neural approaches, were applied to challenges such as and robust tuning. Key figures like Frank Lewis advanced ADP frameworks, developing neural network-based methods for policy and value iteration that approximated Bellman equations for feedback control. This period solidified ADP as a bridge between dynamic programming and , with seminal works emphasizing stability guarantees in adaptive schemes. The witnessed a surge in (DRL) for systems, driven by enhanced computational power and large-scale data availability, which facilitated the transition from rule-based to fully data-driven paradigms. Pioneering efforts, such as Mnih et al.'s demonstration of human-level control in using deep Q-networks, extended to applications by enabling end-to-end learning of policies for complex dynamics. Lewis's ongoing contributions further refined ADP with deep architectures, focusing on convergence and real-time implementation. By the early , DRL methods had advanced in applied control settings, with research highlighting challenges and insights for real-world deployment.

Core Concepts

Types of Control Problems Addressed

Machine learning control addresses a variety of control problems that traditional methods struggle with due to model complexity or lack of prior knowledge. One prominent category involves parameter identification, where machine learning techniques estimate and tune controller parameters from observational data. For instance, genetic algorithms have been employed to optimize proportional-integral-derivative (PID) gains in systems like automated guided vehicles, enabling adaptive tuning without explicit system models. Similarly, evolutionary programming methods iteratively refine PID parameters by minimizing performance errors in data-driven simulations, offering robustness to nonlinearities. Another key formulation treats control as a regression problem. In the first kind, directly maps sensor inputs to outputs, approximating feedback policies for real-time in dynamic environments. The second kind extends this by using evolutionary or optimization-based regression to derive laws that minimize specified cost functions, such as tracking errors or energy consumption, particularly in model-free settings. Machine learning control is particularly suited to problems in nonlinear systems, where high-dimensional state spaces and uncertain dynamics render analytical solutions intractable. These approaches handle environments by learning approximate value functions or policies that balance immediate costs with long-term objectives, often mitigating the curse of dimensionality through data-efficient representations. For example, neural network-based methods solve high-dimensional Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations for continuous-time systems with unknown parameters, achieving near-optimal performance in simulations of reconfigurable dynamics. Reinforcement learning tasks within machine learning control focus on iteratively updating control laws via reward signals to maximize cumulative performance over extended horizons. This paradigm is effective for sequential under partial , where agents learn policies that adapt to environmental feedback without predefined models. Representative benchmarks illustrate these problem types, such as suppression in fluid flows, where identifies sensor-actuator mappings to reduce drag by up to 43% in channel simulations through designs. Another example is adaptive thermal control in buildings, addressing nonlinear heat dynamics and occupancy variations; optimizes HVAC policies to maintain comfort while reducing energy use by 15-20% in mixed-mode environments.

Comparison with Classical Control Methods

Classical control methods, including the Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller, (LQR), and (MPC), are fundamentally model-based techniques that rely on explicit knowledge of to design controllers. The PID controller computes control actions as a linear of the current error, its , and , enabling effective regulation for simple, low-order linear systems with minimal modeling effort. formulates the control problem as minimizing a quadratic cost function for linear time-invariant systems with known state-space models, yielding optimal feedback gains under assumptions of full state and quadratic performance metrics. , in contrast, employs receding-horizon optimization by predicting future system trajectories using an internal model and solving problems online, making it suitable for multivariable systems with input/output constraints. These methods excel in environments where accurate models are available and systems exhibit predictable, often linear behavior. Machine learning control (MLC) provides distinct advantages over classical approaches, particularly in managing nonlinearity, parametric uncertainty, and high-dimensional state spaces without necessitating complete explicit models. By leveraging data-driven techniques, such as neural networks or , MLC can approximate from input-output data, enabling adaptation to unmodeled effects and environmental variations that classical methods struggle with. For instance, in systems with strong nonlinearities like fluid flows or robotic manipulators, MLC achieves superior tracking performance by learning policies directly from or real-world trajectories, bypassing the need for hand-crafted linearizations. This data-centric paradigm also facilitates scalability to high dimensions, where classical model identification becomes infeasible due to the exponential growth in required data and computational resources. A key limitation of classical control lies in its reliance on assumptions or simplified models, which often leads to degraded or instability in complex, high-dimensional systems plagued by the curse of dimensionality. In such scenarios, the computational burden for methods like MPC escalates dramatically with increasing state variables, as the optimization landscape expands exponentially, rendering real-time implementation impractical without aggressive approximations. Moreover, sensitivity to model inaccuracies—common in uncertain or time-varying environments—can amplify errors, whereas MLC mitigates this through iterative learning from diverse datasets. Hybrid approaches bridge these paradigms by augmenting classical methods with MLC components, such as using to tune MPC parameters or approximate nonlinear models within an optimization framework, thereby enhancing robustness while preserving some analytical structure. For example, data-driven surrogates can replace costly dynamic models in MPC, reducing solve times by orders of magnitude in high-fidelity simulations without sacrificing . These integrations trade off the interpretability of classical designs against the adaptive performance of MLC, often resulting in systems that are more deployable in safety-critical applications through combined verification strategies. Fundamentally, classical control guarantees stability via rigorous tools like Lyapunov functions, which certify asymptotic convergence by constructing energy-like potentials that decrease along system trajectories under the designed feedback. MLC, however, typically yields probabilistic policies lacking inherent stability proofs, necessitating post-hoc analyses or constraints during training to ensure Lyapunov-like conditions are met, as unchecked learning can lead to oscillatory or divergent behaviors in closed-loop operation.

Key Methods

Adaptive Dynamic Programming

Adaptive dynamic programming (ADP) combines principles of dynamic programming and to approximate solutions for nonlinear systems through iterative value and policy updates, effectively addressing the in high-dimensional or continuous state spaces where exact computation is infeasible. This approach enables learning-based control without requiring a complete model of the , making it suitable for real-world applications involving uncertainty and nonlinearity. The architecture of ADP typically employs an -critic framework, where neural networks approximate the components: the critic network estimates the value function V(x)V(x), representing the long-term cost-to-go from state xx, while the actor network generates the control policy u(x)u(x) based on current state observations. The critic is trained to minimize the temporal difference error between predicted and actual value estimates, and the actor is updated using gradients derived from the critic to improve policy performance. At its foundation, ADP solves the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation for continuous-time systems, given by J(x)=min⁡u[xTQx+uTRu+∇VT(f(x)+g(x)u)]=0,J(x) = \min_u \left[ x^T Q x + u^T R u + \nabla V^T (f(x) + g(x) u) \right] = 0, where QQ and RR are positive definite weighting matrices for state and control penalties, f(x)f(x) and g(x)g(x) describe the x˙=f(x)+g(x)u\dot{x} = f(x) + g(x) u, and V(x)V(x) is the optimal value function. For discrete-time formulations, the Bellman optimality equation is V(xk)=min⁡u[xkTQxk+ukTRuk+γV(xk+1)],V(x_k) = \min_u \left[ x_k^T Q x_k + u_k^T R u_k + \gamma V(x_{k+1}) \right], with γ∈(0,1]\gamma \in (0,1] as the discount factor and xk+1=f(xk)+g(xk)ukx_{k+1} = f(x_k) + g(x_k) u_k. ADP encompasses several variants tailored to different approximation needs. Heuristic dynamic programming (HDP) focuses on directly approximating the value function to reduce computational demands. Dual heuristic programming (DHP) improves accuracy by approximating the derivatives of the value function, enabling better gradient-based policy updates. Globalized dual heuristic programming (GDHP) extends DHP by incorporating Q-function gradients and goal representations for enhanced performance in complex environments. These methods support both online learning, which adapts policies in real-time using streaming data, and offline learning, which leverages pre-collected trajectories for batch processing. Convergence in ADP is achieved through approximate policy iteration, where policies are alternately evaluated and improved until the is reached for nonlinear s, assuming initial stabilizing policies and properties like . Stability guarantees are provided via Lyapunov , constructing Lyapunov functions such as VL(x)=xTPxV_L(x) = x^T P x to demonstrate that error dynamics remain bounded and the closed-loop is ultimately uniformly bounded under persistent excitation conditions.

Reinforcement Learning Techniques

Reinforcement learning (RL) techniques for control problems frame the system as a (MDP), where the state sts_t represents the system's configuration, the action ata_t denotes the control input, the reward rtr_t encodes performance objectives such as or energy efficiency, and transitions follow st+1∼P(st+1∣st,at)s_{t+1} \sim P(s_{t+1} | s_t, a_t). The goal is to learn a π(a∣s)\pi(a|s) that maximizes the expected cumulative discounted reward E[∑t=0∞γtrt]\mathbb{E} \left[ \sum_{t=0}^\infty \gamma^t r_t \right], with discount factor 0<γ<10 < \gamma < 1 balancing immediate and future rewards. This formulation allows RL to handle stochastic dynamics and partial inherent in many control tasks, differing from deterministic classical methods by emphasizing sequential decision-making under uncertainty. Key RL algorithms for control include value-based methods like , which estimates the action-value function Q(s,a)Q(s,a) to select optimal actions via a=arg⁡max⁡aQ(s,a)a = \arg\max_a Q(s,a). The updates iteratively as Q(s,a)←Q(s,a)+α[r+γmax⁡a′Q(s′,a′)−Q(s,a)],Q(s,a) \leftarrow Q(s,a) + \alpha \left[ r + \gamma \max_{a'} Q(s',a') - Q(s,a) \right], where α\alpha is the learning rate and s′s' is the next state; this enables off-policy learning from experience replay, making it suitable for sample-efficient control in discrete action spaces. Policy gradient methods, in contrast, directly parameterize and optimize the policy π(a∣s;θ)\pi(a|s; \theta) by ascending the gradient of expected return, approximated as ∇θJ(θ)≈E[∇θlog⁡π(a∣s;θ)A(s,a)],\nabla_\theta J(\theta) \approx \mathbb{E} \left[ \nabla_\theta \log \pi(a|s; \theta) A(s,a) \right], with advantage A(s,a)A(s,a) reducing variance; these are particularly effective for stochastic policies in noisy environments. In control applications, adaptations address domain-specific needs, such as safe exploration to prevent unsafe actions during learning. Constrained RL incorporates safety via formulations like constrained MDPs, where policies optimize rewards subject to probabilistic constraints on costs (e.g., avoiding state violations), often using Lagrangian methods or shielding to bound risk. Model-based RL enhances this by learning a dynamics model P^(s′∣s,a)\hat{P}(s'|s,a) from data, then using it for forward and —such as —to enable predictive control with fewer real-world interactions than model-free approaches. Continuous action spaces, prevalent in engineering control, are handled by actor-critic architectures extending policy gradients to deterministic policies. The Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) updates the actor policy μ(s∣θ)\mu(s|\theta) using ∇θJ≈E[∇aQ(s,a∣ω)∣a=μ(s∣θ)∇θμ(s∣θ)],\nabla_\theta J \approx \mathbb{E} \left[ \left. \nabla_a Q(s,a|\omega) \right|_{a=\mu(s|\theta)} \nabla_\theta \mu(s|\theta) \right], while the critic Q(s,a∣ω)Q(s,a|\omega) learns via temporal-difference errors; this off-policy method scales to high-dimensional controls like robotic manipulation. A representative example is stabilizing an , where an RL agent learns through trial-and-error to apply cart forces that balance the pole upright, achieving stable equilibrium from diverse initial conditions after thousands of simulated episodes.

Neural Network-Based Approaches

Neural networks play a central role in machine learning control by approximating complex nonlinear dynamics and control policies, enabling effective handling of systems where traditional linear models fail. In , neural networks learn the underlying dynamics function f(x,u)≈NN(x,u)f(x, u) \approx \mathrm{NN}(x, u), where xx represents the state and uu the input, using data-driven approaches to capture unmodeled behaviors in control systems. This approximation allows for accurate prediction of system trajectories without relying on explicit physical models. Seminal work, such as that by Lewis et al. (1999), demonstrated that multilayer neural networks can identify and control nonlinear dynamical systems by training on input-output , achieving on benchmarks like the . Additionally, neural networks directly approximate control policies as π(u∣x)\pi(u|x) through architectures, mapping states to actions in a supervised manner to mimic optimal controllers for real-time decision-making. For sequential control tasks involving time-dependent dynamics, recurrent neural networks (RNNs) extend designs by incorporating feedback loops that maintain hidden states across time steps, making them suitable for modeling evolving systems in machine learning control. (LSTM) networks, a variant of RNNs, address vanishing gradient issues in standard RNNs by using gating mechanisms to selectively retain or forget information, thus handling long-range temporal dependencies in dynamic processes like chemical reactors or mechanical systems. These architectures enable the network to process sequential inputs and outputs, preserving memory of prior states for predictive control in continuous-time environments. Training neural networks for these roles typically employs on collected trajectories, minimizing a loss such as L=∥y−NN(x,u)∥2\mathcal{L} = \| y - \mathrm{NN}(x, u) \|^2, where yy is the observed next state, often optimized via with . This data-efficient approach contrasts with model-free methods by leveraging simulated or experimental data to refine approximations iteratively. Integration with (MPC) forms hybrid NN-MPC frameworks, where the neural network serves as a for fast forward simulations within the MPC optimization horizon, reducing computational demands for nonlinear plants while ensuring . Recent advancements include (PINNs), which embed control equations directly into the loss function—such as incorporating differential constraints like dxdt=f(x,u)\frac{dx}{dt} = f(x, u)—to enforce physical consistency during , improving for underactuated systems. Transfer learning further enhances neural network controllers by pre-training on source systems and fine-tuning on target ones, adapting policies across similar dynamics with minimal new data, as shown in RNN-based identification where only a subset of parameters is updated for rapid deployment. A representative example is RNN-based predictive control for nonlinear plants, such as distillation columns, where the network predicts future states over a receding horizon using backpropagation through time (BPTT) to unroll the recurrence and compute gradients across sequences, achieving low tracking errors in simulated benchmarks while outperforming linear MPC.

Applications

Industrial and Engineering Systems

Machine learning control (MLC) has been extensively applied in industrial and engineering systems to manage complex, nonlinear processes where traditional methods struggle with uncertainties and dynamic variations. In chemical processes, (RL) techniques optimize reactor operations and columns by learning policies that minimize while maintaining product quality. For instance, soft actor-critic methods automate internals design for processes. Recent advances in RL (2023-2025) have been applied to flowsheet synthesis and optimization in chemical plants. In power systems, adaptive dynamic programming (ADP) addresses load balancing in smart grids by approximating policies for distributed energy resources, ensuring stability amid fluctuating demands. ADP algorithms have been shown to achieve consensus tracking with bounded errors in multi-agent grid scenarios, facilitating real-time adjustments. Complementing this, neural network-based () enhances integration by forecasting and optimizing power flows in hybrid systems, such as PV-battery setups, to reduce curtailment and improve grid reliability. These approaches have yielded 10-20% improvements in energy efficiency for incorporation. Manufacturing processes benefit from genetic algorithms in adaptive , where they evolve control parameters for CNC operations to adjust feed rates dynamically, minimizing and production time. In systems, enhances control by predicting and mitigating flow instabilities, as seen in applications that discover physics-informed strategies for industrial pipelines and reactors. A seminal review by Fleming and Purshouse (2002) highlighted evolutionary algorithms' role in such , a foundation extended in modern case studies like HVAC optimization in commercial buildings, where RL-driven systems reduce energy use by 10% through predictive zoning and . Overall, MLC delivers improved efficiency in uncertain industrial environments, with reported gains of 10-20% in operational performance over classical methods, including reduced costs and enhanced throughput in processes like and .

Robotics and Autonomous Vehicles

In robotics, machine learning control has enabled advanced manipulation tasks through learned dynamics models that approximate complex, behaviors without relying on explicit analytical formulations. A 2025 review highlights how these models, often based on neural networks, facilitate precise control in unstructured environments by predicting future states from high-fidelity simulations and sensor data. techniques further support locomotion in uncertain terrains, where policies trained via model-free methods like proximal policy optimization allow quadrupedal robots to navigate rough surfaces with adaptive foot placement, demonstrating robustness in real-world trials with minimal sim-to-real gaps. Specific advances include real-time deep learning-enhanced (DL-MPC) for 3-degree-of-freedom (3-DOF) biped robot legs, which integrates neural approximators to handle dynamic uncertainties and achieve tracking errors below 5% during swing phases at computational speeds suitable for onboard deployment. has proven effective for cross-environment in drones, enabling control policies pre-trained in simulated windy conditions to fine-tune rapidly for varying altitudes and payloads, reducing adaptation time by factors of 3-5 in field tests. For continuum robots, machine learning-based surveys from 2021 to 2025 emphasize data-driven approaches like Gaussian processes for , allowing compliant manipulation in confined spaces such as surgical interventions with sub-millimeter accuracy. In autonomous vehicles, addresses path planning and obstacle avoidance by optimizing policies that balance speed, safety, and comfort in dynamic traffic scenarios, with algorithms like deep Q-networks enabling collision-free maneuvers in simulations that transfer to hardware with 95% success rates. Neural network-based enhances trajectory tracking by embedding learned approximations of into optimization loops, improving lateral deviation by 15-25% over linear MPC in high-speed cornering on real test tracks. Policy learning via for self-driving cars has advanced through efficient algorithms that incorporate expert demonstrations, allowing vehicles to generalize across urban and highway environments while minimizing intervention needs in pilot studies. Machine learning control tackles high-dimensional state spaces in these applications using model-free reinforcement learning, which scales to continuous action spaces via actor-critic architectures without requiring full environment models, as demonstrated in robust quadruped policies that handle 20+ joint states effectively. Safety in human-robot interaction is bolstered by constrained deep reinforcement learning frameworks that enforce barrier certificates during policy optimization, ensuring collision avoidance in collaborative tasks like shared workspace assembly with probabilistic safety guarantees exceeding 99%.

Challenges and Future Directions

Theoretical Challenges

One of the primary theoretical challenges in machine learning control (MLC) is ensuring stability and convergence, particularly in nonlinear (RL) settings where formal proofs remain elusive despite empirical successes. Unlike classical control methods that often rely on Lyapunov functions for global stability guarantees, nonlinear RL-based controllers lack systematic theoretical frameworks to verify closed-loop stability, as the inherent of value function approximations and policy updates hinders the derivation of such functions. In adaptive dynamic programming (ADP), Lyapunov-based analyses have been developed to prove convergence under specific assumptions, such as linear-in-the-parameters structures, but these do not generalize to deep neural networks where nonlinear activations introduce unmodeled dynamics. Recent efforts, including 2023-2025 studies on regional stability for (RNN)-based control systems, have proposed linear matrix inequality conditions to establish local stability regions, yet global guarantees remain an . Sample efficiency poses another significant hurdle, as MLC methods, especially exploration-heavy RL techniques, demand vast amounts of data to learn effective policies in high-dimensional state spaces. The curse of dimensionality exacerbates this issue, leading to exponential growth in sample requirements as the dimensionality increases, which limits applicability to real-world control problems with continuous or high-dimensional observations. For instance, standard RL algorithms in linearly parameterized Markov decision processes require sample complexities that scale poorly with state-action space sizes, prompting research into structured approximations to mitigate these demands. Robustness to perturbations is a critical concern, with MLC controllers exhibiting sensitivity to , adversarial attacks, and model mismatches that can destabilize performance in uncertain environments. Adversarial perturbations, even small ones, can mislead optimization in deep RL, causing significant degradation in control accuracy, as demonstrated in robust adversarial RL frameworks that train against worst-case disturbances. Safe control under constraints further complicates this, as ensuring (e.g., avoiding unsafe states) while maximizing rewards lacks tight theoretical bounds, with surveys highlighting the need for barrier functions to certify safety probabilistically rather than deterministically. Optimality gaps arise from approximation errors in value functions and the non-convex nature of policy spaces, preventing convergence to global optima in MLC. Function approximation introduces biases that bound the sub-optimality gap, with lower bounds showing persistent performance losses under biased estimators, particularly in ADP where value iteration errors accumulate over iterations. In deep RL, non-convex policy optimization landscapes yield only local optima, as policy gradient methods converge to stationary points without global guarantees, underscoring the challenge of theoretical optimality in complex control tasks. Control-oriented RL surveys from 2023-2025 emphasize these issues by deriving convergence bounds under restrictive assumptions, such as linear dynamics or known models, but note that general nonlinear cases still evade comprehensive theoretical closure. Recent advancements in machine learning control (MLC) have increasingly emphasized transfer learning and federated approaches to adapt controllers across diverse systems with minimal data requirements. For instance, transfer learning-based optimal control methodologies, developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), enable the reuse of pre-trained models from source systems to target environments, significantly reducing computational time and data needs for feedback control design in energy systems. This approach has shown promise in physics-informed applications, where models transfer knowledge from simulated to real-world dynamics, enhancing scalability for complex control tasks. Federated learning extensions further support collaborative training across distributed devices without sharing raw data, preserving privacy in multi-agent control scenarios like smart grids. Hybrid methods integrating safe (RL) with () represent a key trend, addressing constraints in control-oriented RL. A 2025 survey on safe RL highlights control theory-based methods, constrained Markov decision processes, and recovery-based techniques that ensure during exploration, with applications in and process control. These hybrids combine RL's adaptability with 's predictive guarantees; for example, deep RL agents dynamically tune parameters in real-time for HVAC systems, achieving savings while maintaining bounds. Another 2025 review of control-oriented RL underscores recent theoretical progress in stability guarantees for hybrid frameworks, enabling deployment in safety-critical domains like autonomous navigation. The integration of with MLC facilitates real-time control on resource-constrained devices, particularly for autonomous systems. Edge AI deployments in , as outlined in a 2025 survey, process locally to minimize latency, supporting loops in dynamic environments like unmanned vehicles. This trend extends to for control optimization, where quantum circuits enhance parameter estimation in high-dimensional systems; a 2025 study demonstrates learning-based quantum control that outperforms classical methods in fidelity for manipulation tasks. Such integrations enable low-latency , with edge-deployed neural controllers reducing response times to milliseconds in robotic applications. Sustainability-driven MLC focuses on energy-efficient control for green processes, leveraging algorithms to minimize resource consumption. Green AI practices, reviewed in 2024, optimize ML models for lower computational footprints in control tasks, such as predictive maintenance in renewable energy systems, reducing carbon emissions through efficient hyperparameter tuning. In circular economies, 2025 architectures combine ML with optimization for sustainable resource management in manufacturing, achieving energy savings via adaptive control of production lines. Notable 2024 milestones include deep learning-enhanced MPC for robotic systems, such as real-time controllers for 3-DOF biped legs that improve trajectory tracking accuracy by integrating neural dynamics models with MPC horizons. Deep residual MPC frameworks further advanced social in crowded environments, enabling robots to learn collision-free policies from real-world than traditional methods. In 2025, reviews on learned dynamics and RL in chemical control emphasize offline RL for process optimization, where agents learn from historical to stabilize reactors, reducing operational costs in simulated benchmarks. Emerging for enhances control robustness by integrating vision, , and ; a 2025 review details fusion techniques that boost accuracy in autonomous driving, informing policies.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214785321013808
  2. https://faculty.washington.edu/sbrunton/mlcbook/CH02_MLC.pdf
  3. https://www.siam.org/publications/siam-news/articles/control-and-machine-learning/
  4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385709537_A_Comprehensive_Review_of_Artificial_Intelligence_and_Machine_Learning_in_Control_Theory
  5. https://www.nist.gov/publications/review-machine-learning-control-building-operations
  6. https://academic.oup.com/nsr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nsr/nwaf269/8191249
  7. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.05604.pdf
  8. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1162/evco.1993.1.1.1
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967066102000813
  10. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118453988
  11. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08196
  12. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41379-3
  13. https://ww3.math.ucla.edu/camreport/cam21-03.pdf
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10090012/
  15. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3709010
  16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40435-020-00665-4
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005109889900022
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330268034_Classical_Control_Theory_and_Methods_of_Artificial_Intelligence_and_the_Curse_of_Dimensionality
  19. https://www.dynsyslab.org/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/mesbah-acc22.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918302903
  21. https://www.dynsyslab.org/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/berkenkamp-nips17.pdf
  22. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9306903/
  23. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5227780/
  24. https://web.stanford.edu/class/psych209/Readings/SuttonBartoIPRLBook2ndEd.pdf
  25. https://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~dayan/papers/cjch.pdf
  26. https://people.cs.umass.edu/~barto/courses/cs687/williams92simple.pdf
  27. https://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume16/garcia15a/garcia15a.pdf
  28. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.00592
  29. https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02971
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2650295_Neural_network_control_of_robots_and_nonlinear_dynamical_systems
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095741741730626X
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959152421000586
  33. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-061523-102317
  34. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11316
  35. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Temperature-prediction-and-model-predictive-control-Hieu-Anh/abc3a462a184f81c01cddff48d5aa67cce173429
  36. https://www.mdpi.com/2305-7084/9/2/34
  37. https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aic.18584
  38. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/13/6/1791
  39. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10214080/
  40. https://www.ieee-jas.net/en/article/doi/10.1109/JAS.2024.124809
  41. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4826/6/2/32
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0736584523000960
  43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336281782_OPTIMISATION_OF_THE_MACHINING_PROCESS_USING_GENETIC_ALGORITHM
  44. https://arxiv.org/html/2504.02354v2
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967066102000813
  46. https://proekspert.com/case-studies/hvac-optimization/
  47. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/manufacturing/2025-smart-manufacturing-survey.html
  48. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.adt1497
  49. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.adi9579
  50. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66104-y
  51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369-025-10064-6
  52. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2021.730330/full
  53. https://arxiv.org/html/2404.00340v1
  54. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17213
  55. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.04412
  56. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2022.854212/full
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926580525001700
  58. https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/physics-informed-machine-learning-energy-and-environment/optimal-control-transfer-learning
  59. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-29168.pdf
  60. https://arxiv.org/html/2505.17342v1
  61. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rnc.70152
  62. https://arxiv.org/html/2507.00523v1
  63. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.03164v1
  64. https://www.edge-ai-vision.com/2025/03/optimizing-edge-ai-for-effective-real-time-decision-making-in-robotics/
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231224008671
  66. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43621-025-01846-x
  67. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10646
  68. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.21885
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.