PreprintCited by 0Stability and Control of Uncertain SystemsAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationAdvanced Control Systems Design

Sampling-Horizon Neural Operator Predictors for Nonlinear Control under Delayed Inputs

Open access
Bhan, Luke, Quawas, Peter, Krstic, Miroslav, Shi, Yuanyuan·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Modern control systems frequently operate under input delays and sampled state measurements. A common delay-compensation strategy is predictor feedback; however, practical implementations require solving an implicit ODE online, resulting in intractable computational cost. Moreover, predictor formulations typically assume continuously available state measurements, whereas in practice measurements may be sampled, irregular, or temporarily missing due to hardware faults. In this work, we develop two neural-operator predictor-feedback designs for nonlinear systems with delayed inputs and sampled measurements. In the first design, we introduce a sampling-horizon prediction operator that maps the current measurement and input history to the predicted state trajectory over the next sampling interval. In the second design, the neural operator approximates only the delay-compensating predictor, which is then composed with the closed-loop flow between measurements. The first approach requires uniform sampling but yields residual bounds that scale directly with the operator approximation error. In contrast, the second accommodates non-uniform, but bounded sampling schedules at the cost of amplified approximation error, revealing a practical tradeoff between sampling flexibility and approximation sensitivity for the control engineer. For both schemes, we establish semi-global practical stability with explicit neural operator error-dependent bounds. Numerical experiments on a 6-link nonlinear robotic manipulator demonstrate accurate tracking and substantial computational speedup of 25$\times$ over a baseline approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2603.29119

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Bhan, L., Quawas, P., Krstic, M., & Shi, Y.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7147503986
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Stability and Control of Uncertain Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Advanced Control Systems Optimization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Advanced Control Systems Design
Keywords
neural operators, predictor feedback, input delay compensation, sampled measurements, nonlinear control, non-uniform sampling, semi-global practical stability, residual bounds, robot manipulator control, trajectory prediction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review