Advanced Control Systems Model Predictive Control (MPC), Adaptive Control, Robust Control, Sliding Mode Control, Reinforcement Learning based Control
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
This study proposes a layered hybrid control framework for automation and robotics systems that combines Tube-based Robust MPC (RMPC) as a safety envelope, adaptive parameter estimation to narrow online uncertainty, Sliding Mode Control (SMC) as a high-resilience fail-safe, and Reinforcement Learning (RL) as a performance booster through a warm-start/residual policy scheme that is always constrained by Control Barrier Functions (CBF). The study aims to achieve better tracking performance and computational efficiency without sacrificing safety and constraint compliance. The methodology includes constrained nonlinear plant modeling, design of tube invariance-based RMPC with constraint tightening, RLS/concurrent learning-based adaptive estimator, SMC for infeasibility/model drift conditions, and a CBF-based safety filter formulated as an online small QP. Evaluation is done through ablation studies on multi-domain benchmarks and HIL-style tests, with finite-horizon cost, ITAE, constraint violation rate, and computational latency (average and WCET) metrics. The results show that the RL+CBF configuration reduces the finite-horizon cost by about 15.7% compared to pure RMPC, maintaining a violation rate of ~0.35% (better than RMPC: 0.80%) and significantly below that of unfiltered RL (4.20%). The warm-start RL scheme accelerates the completion time of the MPC solver by ≈15–18% over various prediction horizons and reduces the WCET (26.4 → 23.3 ms), supporting real-time implementation. These findings confirm that the integration of RMPC–Adaptive–SMC–RL(+CBF) effectively bridges model-based optimality, online adaptivity, robust resilience, and learning from data in a single architecture that is safety-certified and feasible for real-world applications demanding high uptime.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
[2] [2] D. Q. Mayne, M. M. Seron, and S. V. Raković, “Robust model predictive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances,” Automatica, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 219–224, 2005.
[3] [3] A. Bemporad, M. Morari, V. Dua, and E. N. Pistikopoulos, “The explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 3–20, 2002.
[4] [4] J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, and M. M. Diehl, Model Predictive Control: Theory, Computation, and Design, 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Nob Hill, 2017.
[5] [5] E. F. Camacho and C. Bordons, Model Predictive Control, 2nd ed. London: Springer, 2007.
[6] [6] F. Blanchini, “Set invariance in control,” Automatica, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 1747–1767, 1999.
[7] [7] V. I. Utkin, “Variable structure systems with sliding modes,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 212–222, 1977.
[8] [8] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.
[9] [9] P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2012.
[10] [10] A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017.
[11] [11] M. Z. Romdlony and B. Jayawardhana, “Stabilization with guaranteed safety using Control Lyapunov–Barrier Function,” Automatica, vol. 66, pp. 39–47, 2016.
[12] [12] A. A. Calafiore and M. C. Campi, “The scenario approach to robust control design,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 742–753, 2006.
[13] [13] A. M. Wabersich and M. N. Zeilinger, “A predictive safety filter for learning-based control of constrained systems,” Automatica, vol. 129, p. 109597, 2021.
[14] [14] J. Achiam, D. Held, A. Tamar, and P. Abbeel, “Constrained policy optimization,” in Proc. ICML, 2017, pp. 22–31.
[15] [15] Y. Chow, O. Nachum, E. Duenez-Guzman, and M. Ghavamzadeh, “A Lyapunov-based approach to safe reinforcement learning,” in Proc. NeurIPS, 2018, pp. 8092–8101.
[16] [16] J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv:1707.06347, 2017.
[17] [17] T. Haarnoja, A. Zhou, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor,” in Proc. ICML, 2018, pp. 1861–1870.
[18] [18] B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd, “OSQP: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 12, pp. 637–672, 2020.
[19] [19] H. J. Ferreau, H. G. Bock, and M. Diehl, “qpOASES: A parametric active-set algorithm for quadratic programming,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 6, pp. 327–363, 2014.
[20] [20] E. D. Sontag, “On the input-to-state stability property,” European Journal of Control, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 24–36, 1995.