Stabilization of nonlinear systems with unknown delays via delay-adaptive neural operator approximate predictors

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

This speedup improvement is lower than the 100× reported in [1, Table 1] due to the simpler dynamics in this example.

“We note this speedup improvement is lower than the 100 × reported in [1, Table 1] due to the simpler dynamics in this example; however, applying the same approach to more computationally expensive forward dynamics would likely yield even greater gains with DeepONet.”

• cites [1] [1] L. Bhan, P. Qin, M. Krstic, Y. Shi, Neural operators for predictor feedback control of nonlinear delay systems, in: N. Ozay, L. Balzano, D. Panagou, A. Abate (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual Learning for Dynamics &; Control Conference, Vol. 283 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2025, pp. 179-193. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v283/bhan25a.html - sourceDisputed

  Table 1 in Numerical Results reports 8.89 ms for successive approximations, 0.31 ms for FNO, and 1.32 ms for DeepONet—not a 100× speedup. The accompanying text describes about a 30× FNO speedup; it places the larger, approximately 420× result in the appendix, not Table 1. The explanation about simpler dynamics is the citing authors’ own framing, not part of the numerical claim attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Applying the same approach to more computationally expensive forward dynamics would likely yield even greater gains with DeepONet.

“We note this speedup improvement is lower than the 100 × reported in [1, Table 1] due to the simpler dynamics in this example; however, applying the same approach to more computationally expensive forward dynamics would likely yield even greater gains with DeepONet.”

• cites [1] [1] L. Bhan, P. Qin, M. Krstic, Y. Shi, Neural operators for predictor feedback control of nonlinear delay systems, in: N. Ozay, L. Balzano, D. Panagou, A. Abate (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual Learning for Dynamics &; Control Conference, Vol. 283 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2025, pp. 179-193. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v283/bhan25a.html - sourceDisputed

  The citation is attached to the claim that Table 1 reports a 100× speedup; the prediction about more expensive forward dynamics is the citing authors’ own extrapolation. In Numerical Results (Table 1), the reported times are 8.89 ms for successive approximations, 1.32 ms for DeepONet, and 0.31 ms for FNO—approximately 7× and 29× speedups, respectively, not 100×. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

[1] introduced operator learning to approximate the predictor mapping, achieving speedups of 1000× compared to traditional solvers, but this was limited to nonlinear systems with constant, known delays.

“Recently, [1] introduced operator learning to approximate the predictor mapping, achieving speedups of 1000 × compared to traditional solvers, but this was limited to nonlinear systems with constant, known delays.”

• cites [1] [1] L. Bhan, P. Qin, M. Krstic, Y. Shi, Neural operators for predictor feedback control of nonlinear delay systems, in: N. Ozay, L. Balzano, D. Panagou, A. Abate (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual Learning for Dynamics &; Control Conference, Vol. 283 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2025, pp. 179-193. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v283/bhan25a.html - sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction says the paper proposes learning a neural-operator approximation of the predictor mapping, and the Conclusion says it focuses on constant, known input delays. The 1000× speedup is not supported: Section 4 reports about 30× for one comparison and up to approximately 420× under finer temporal discretization. Its reference to 1000 is the number of samples averaged, not a speedup factor. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

Theorem 3 approximates P, analogous to the direct control law as in [24, Theorem 3], producing an additive error and a semi-global practical result without the derivative.

“In contrast, Theorem 3 approximates ˘ P -analogous to the direct control law as in [24, Theorem 3]-producing an additive error and a semi-global practical result without the derivative.”

• cites [24] [24] L. Bhan, Y. Shi, M. Krstic, Neural operators for bypassing gain and control computations in PDE backstepping, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 69 (8) (2024) 5310-5325. doi:10.1109/TAC.2023.3347499. - sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

In [31, Theorem 4] and [30, Theorem 4], the gain kernel is approximated, introducing a multiplicative error and yielding global stability, but requiring approximation of the update parameter's time derivative.

“In [31, Theorem 4] and [30, Theorem 4], the gain kernel is approximated, introducing a multiplicative error and yielding global stability, but requiring approximation of the update parameter's time derivative.”

• cites [31] [31] L. Bhan, Y. Shi, M. Krstic, Adaptive control of reaction-diffusion PDEs via neural operator-approximated gain kernels, Systems & Control Letters 195 (2025) 105968. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2024.105968. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0167691124002561 - sourcePartly supported

  Theorem 4 in §5 establishes global stability with a neural-operator-approximated gain kernel, and its proof includes a perturbation term involving the product of the parameter-estimation error and the kernel. But §4, Theorem 3 treats the update parameter’s time derivative, λₜ, as an input used to approximate the kernel’s time derivative, kₜ; it does not require approximation of λₜ itself. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites [30] [30] M. Lamarque, L. Bhan, Y. Shi, M. Krstic, Adaptive neuraloperator backstepping control of a benchmark hyperbolic pde, Automatica 177 (2025) 112329. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2025.112329. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0005109825002225 - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Theorem 3 is weaker than [24, Theorem 7] because it depends on the delay projection bounds D, D.

“Notice that Theorem 3 is weaker than the result in [24, Theorem 7] because it depends on the delay projection bounds D , D .”

• cites [24] [24] L. Bhan, Y. Shi, M. Krstic, Neural operators for bypassing gain and control computations in PDE backstepping, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 69 (8) (2024) 5310-5325. doi:10.1109/TAC.2023.3347499. - sourceCould not verify

  The cited paper’s Theorem 3 (section “PDE Error (L 2 Norm over x)”; page unavailable) concerns semiglobal practical stability under neural-operator approximation. Searches for “Theorem 7” and “delay projection bounds” found no passage addressing the claimed comparison or the bounds D, D. The copy therefore does not establish what the citing sentence attributes to [24, Theorem 7]. (LLM, conf=0.76)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Neural operators show strong generalization capabilities.

“In particular, our numerical simulations confirm stability under approximate predictors, highlight the strong generalization capabilities of neural operators, and demonstrate a substantial computational speedup of up to 15 × compared to a baseline fixed-point method.”

May combine two claims.

The region of attraction persists as long as the approximation errors remain sufficiently small and the initial delay estimation error is close enough.

“Nonetheless, we show that this region persists as long as the approximation errors remain sufficiently small and the initial delay estimation error is close enough.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

Under Assumptions 1-5 and the stated functional, there exist KL and K∞ functions and constants γ*, ε*, R_Υ such that if γ < γ*, ε < ε*, and |Υ(0)| ≤ R_Υ, then the feedback law U(t)=κ(ˆp_NO(1,t)) with the estimator guarantees the stated bounds for all solutions.

“such that if γ &lt; γ ∗ , ϵ &lt; ˆ ϵ ∗ , and the initial state is constrained to | Υ(0) | ≤ R Υ , then, the feedback law U ( t ) = κ (ˆ p NO (1 , t )) with the estimator”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The plant (6a)-(6c) satisfies Assumptions 1–5.

May combine two claims.

Additive errors arise in the Lyapunov bounds, which still permit an ISS-like stability result when the distributed input is known.

“Now, additive errors arise in the Lyapunov bounds, which still permit an ISS-like stability result when the distributed input is known.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Both DeepONet and FNO perform similarly, though DeepONet achieves a larger speedup.

“Both perform similarly, though DeepONet achieves a larger speedup (Table 1).”

The quote only partly states this claim.

Theorem 3: Under Assumptions 1-4, if γ<γ*, b>b*, ε<ε*, and the initial state is constrained, then the closed-loop system with the approximate predictor is semi-globally practically asymptotically stable with bounds depending on ε and delay projection bounds.

“Theorem 3 Let the system (6a) , (6b) , (6c) satisfy Assumptions 1, 2, 3, 4. Define the functional”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The plant ˙X=f(X,Ω) with Ω scalar is strongly forward complete.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: There exists κ∈C2 such that the feedback law U(t)=κ(X(t)) guarantees that the delay-free plant is globally exponentially stable.
• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The function f, the Jacobian matrix ∂f/∂X, the control law κ and its derivative satisfy specified growth conditions with constants M1, M2, M3, M4 > 0.

The quote only partly states this claim.

Substituting the stability estimate yields the existence of class K∞ functions α*1, α*2, α*3 such that an inequality holds when Γ(0) ≤ (α*1)^-1(Γ - α*2(ε) - α*3(ΔD)).

“Therefore, substituting in the stability estimate in (58), we obtain the exists of class K ∞ functions α ∗ 1 , α ∗ 2 , α ∗ 3 such that”

May combine two claims.

Without delay compensation, the system oscillates to a limit cycle; with compensation, the FNO predictor stabilizes the system.

“Figure 2 shows that, without delay compensation, the system oscillates to a limit cycle. However, with compensation, the FNO predictor stabilizes the system.”

May combine two claims.

Consistent with theory, the unknown actuated input required a smaller ε tolerance, and thus more training data and a larger network to achieve stabilization.

“Consistent with theory, the unknown actuated input required a smaller ϵ tolerance, and thus more training data and a larger network to achieve stabilization.”

May combine two claims.

Using Assumption 5 and the class K∞ functions relating Ξ to ˆW0(t), | ̇ˆD(t)| ≤ γα40(ˆW0(t)) and | ̈ˆD(t)| ≤ γα41(ˆW0(t)).

“Using Assumption 5, and the class K ∞ functions relating Ξ to ˆ W 0 ( t ), we have | ˙ ˆ D ( t ) | ≤ γα 40 ( ˆ W 0 ( t )) and | ¨ ˆ D ( t ) | ≤ γα 41 ( ˆ W 0 ( t )).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The plant (6a)-(6c) satisfies Assumptions 1–5.

May combine two claims.

Among tested architectures, only the FNO stabilized the system, achieving an order-of-magnitude lower test loss.

“Among tested architectures, only the FNO stabilized the system, achieving an order-of-magnitude lower test loss”

May combine two claims.

Neural operators can achieve arbitrarily small approximation errors, satisfying the conditions of the stability theorems.

“To bridge theory and practice, we show that neural operators-a flexible class of neural network-based approximators-can achieve arbitrarily small approximation errors, thus satisfying the conditions of our stability theorems.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Any reference to a neural operator is an architecture of Definition 1 with a viable kernel function such that Theorem 1 holds.

May combine two claims.

[17] does not consider delay-adaptive cases, leaving stability for predictors with unknown delays unestablished.

“Yet, this work does not consider delay-adaptive cases, leaving stability for predictors with unknown delays unestablished.”

• cites [17] [17] I. Karafyllis, M. Krstic, Predictor Feedback for Delay Systems: Implementations and Approximations, Birkh¨ auser Cham, 2017. - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

It may seem counterintuitive that ε* increases with Γ, but this is expected: a larger radius of states allows for a larger transient, thus loosening the ε* bound.

“Additionally, it may seem counterintuitive that ϵ ∗ increases with Γ, but this is expected: a larger radius of states allows for a larger transient, thus loosening the ϵ ∗ bound.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Exact predictor feedback for unknown delays was initially addressed in [18].

“While exact predictor feedback for unknown delays was initially addressed in [18], introducing an approximate predictor significantly complicates the analysis.”

• cites [18] [18] D. Bresch-Pietri, M. Krstic, Delay-Adaptive Control for Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 59 (5) (2014) 1203-1218. doi:10.1109/TAC.2014.2298711. - [4] C. Kravaris, R. A. Wright, Deadtime compensation for nonlinear processes, AIChE Journal 35 (9) (1989) 1535-1542. arXiv:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aic.690350914, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690350914. URL https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/aic.690350914 Fig. 2. Chemostat (135) with Z (0) = 2 , S (0) = 2, ˆ D (0) = 1 . 8, with target setpoint at the unstable equilibriu sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

In many real-world systems, the actuator is often unknown and subject to uncertain or unmeasured delays.

“In many real-world systems-biological feedback loops, vaccine distribution, or economic interventions-the actuator is often unknown and subject to uncertain or unmeasured delays.”

May combine two claims.

Following [40, Theorem C.3], there exist functions β1∈KL and α1:3∈K∞ such that a stability estimate holds when ε and ΔD are small enough relative to W.

“Following [40, Theorem C.3], we have that there exists functions β 1 ∈ KL and α 1:3 ∈ K ∞ such that”

• cites [40] [40] M. Krstic, P. V. Kokotovic, I. Kanellakopoulos, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design, 1st Edition, John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc., USA, 1995. -Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The proof of Lemma 2 is exactly the same as the proof of [18, Lemma 1] except the boundary term at x=1.

“Since we used the exact backstepping transform in (37), the proof of Lemma 2 is exactly the same as the proof of [18, Lemma 1] except the boundary term at x = 1 which is obtained via direct substitution of U ( t ) = κ ( ˘ P NO ( · )) -κ ( ˘ P ( · )) in (37).”

• cites [18] [18] D. Bresch-Pietri, M. Krstic, Delay-Adaptive Control for Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 59 (5) (2014) 1203-1218. doi:10.1109/TAC.2014.2298711. - [4] C. Kravaris, R. A. Wright, Deadtime compensation for nonlinear processes, AIChE Journal 35 (9) (1989) 1535-1542. arXiv:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aic.690350914, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690350914. URL https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/aic.690350914 Fig. 2. Chemostat (135) with Z (0) = 2 , S (0) = 2, ˆ D (0) = 1 . 8, with target setpoint at the unstable equilibriu sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The input U controls the activator protein concentration with a delay due to the time to pass through an inlet pipe.

“The input U controls the activator protein concentration with a delay due to the time to pass through an inlet pipe.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The pipe is equipped with a UV spectrometer such that the distributed input u(·,t) is known.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Under control feedback law (9), [18, Theorem 1] states that the plant is globally asymptotically stable.

“Then, under the control feedback law (9), [18, Theorem 1] states that the plant is globally asymptotically stable.”

• cites [18] [18] D. Bresch-Pietri, M. Krstic, Delay-Adaptive Control for Nonlinear Systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 59 (5) (2014) 1203-1218. doi:10.1109/TAC.2014.2298711. - [4] C. Kravaris, R. A. Wright, Deadtime compensation for nonlinear processes, AIChE Journal 35 (9) (1989) 1535-1542. arXiv:https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/aic.690350914, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690350914. URL https://aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/aic.690350914 Fig. 2. Chemostat (135) with Z (0) = 2 , S (0) = 2, ˆ D (0) = 1 . 8, with target setpoint at the unstable equilibriu sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The biological system in [41] consists of two proteins: an activator protein that promotes expression of itself and a repressor protein that represses the expression of the activator.

“For numerical validation, we consider the biological system in [41] consisting of two proteins. The activator protein that promotes expression of itself and a repressor protein that represses the expression of the activator.”

• cites [41] [41] D. Del Vecchio, Design and analysis of an activator-repressor clock in e. coli, in: 2007 American Control Conference, 2007, pp. 1589-1594. doi:10.1109/ACC.2007.4282275. - sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

This is the first result for implementing any type of approximate predictor when the delay is constant but unknown.

“This represents the first result for implementing any type of approximate predictor when the delay is constant but unknown.”

May combine two claims.

The analysis applies to any uniform predictor, while simulations with neural operators demonstrated stability and significant computational gains over numerical methods.

“The analysis applies to any uniform predictor, but simulations with neural operators demonstrated stability and significant computational gains over numerical methods.”