This is page 425

Printer: Opaque this

Chapter 9
Iterative Learning Control
Kevin L. Moore

ABSTRACT In this paper we give an overview of the eld of iterative

learning control (ILC). We begin with a detailed description of the ILC
technique, followed by two illustrative examples that give a avor of the
nature of ILC algorithms and their performance. This is followed by a topical classication of some of the literature of ILC and a discussion of the
connection between ILC and other common control paradigms, including
conventional feedback control, optimal control, adaptive control, and intelligent control. Next, we give a summary of the major algorithms, results,
and applications of ILC given in the literature. This discussion also considers some emerging research topics in ILC. As an example of some of the
new directions in ILC theory, we present some of our recent results that
show how ILC can be used to force a desired periodic motion in an initially
non-repetitive process: a gas-metal arc welding system. The paper concludes
with summary comments on the past, present, and future of ILC.

9.1 Introduction
Problems in control system design may be broadly classied into two categories: stabilization and performance. In the latter category a typical problem is to force the output response of a (dynamical) system to follow a
desired trajectory as close as possible, where \close" is typically dened
relative to a specic norm or some other measure of optimality. Although
control theory provides numerous tools for attacking such problems, it is
not always possible to achieve a desired set of performance design requirements. This may be due to the presence of unmodelled dynamics or parametric uncertainties that are exhibited during actual system operation or
to the lack of suitable design techniques for a particular class of systems
(e.g., there is not a comprehensive theory of linear quadratic optimal design
technique for nonlinear systems).
Iterative learning control is a relatively new addition to the control engineer's toolkit that, for a particular class of problems, can be used to
overcome some of the traditional diculties associated with performance
design of control systems. Specically, iterative learning control, or ILC, is
a technique for improving the transient response and tracking performance
of processes, machines, equipment, or systems that execute the same tra-

426

K. L. Moore

jectory, motion, or operation over and over. The classic example of such a
process is a robotic manipulator performing spot welding in a manufacturing assembly line. For instance, such a manipulator might be programmed
to wait in its home position until a door panel is moved into place. It then
carries out a series of welds at pre-dened locations, after which it returns
to its home position until the door panel is removed. The entire process is
then repeated. Although robotic operations and manufacturing present obvious examples of situations in which a machine or process must execute a
given trajectory over and over, there are numerous other problems that can
be viewed from the framework of repetitive operations. In these situations,
iterative learning control can be used to improve the system response. The
approach is motivated by the observation that if the system controller is
xed and if the system's operating conditions are the same each time it
executes, then any errors in the output response will be repeated during
each operation. These errors can be recorded during system operation and
can then be used to compute modications to the input signal that will be
applied to the system during the next operation, or trial, of the system.
In iterative learning control renements are made to the input signal after
each trial until the desired performance level is reached. Research in the
eld of iterative learning control focuses on the algorithms that are used to
update the input signal. Note that in describing the technique of iterative
learning control we use the word iterative because of the recursive nature
of the system operation and we use the word learning because of the renement of the input signal based on past performance in executing a task
or trajectory.
In this paper we give an overview of the eld of iterative learning control.
We begin with a detailed description of the ILC technique, followed by two
illustrative examples that give a avor of the nature of ILC algorithms and
their performance. This is followed by a topical classication of some of
the literature of ILC and a discussion of the connection between ILC and
other common control paradigms, including conventional feedback control,
optimal control, adaptive control, and intelligent control. Next, we give a
summary of the major algorithms, results, and applications of ILC given in
the literature. This discussion also considers some emerging research topics
in ILC. As an example of some of the new directions in ILC theory, we
present some of our recent results that show how ILC can be used to forced
a desired periodic motion in an initially non-repetitive process: a gas-metal
arc welding system. The paper concludes with summary comments on the
past, present, and future of ILC.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

427

9.2 Generic Description of ILC

The basic idea of iterative learning control is illustrated in Figure 9.1.
All the signals shown are assumed to be dened on a nite interval t 2
0 tf ]. The subscript k indicates the trial or repetition number. The scheme
operates as follows: during the k-th trial an input uk (t) is applied to the
system, producing the output yk (t). These signals are stored in the memory
units until the trial is over, at which time they are processed o-line by the
ILC algorithm (actually, it is not always necessary to wait until the end of
the trial to do the processing { it depends on the ILC algorithm you are
using). Based on the error that is observed between the actual output and
the desired output (ek (t) = yd (t) ; yk (t)), the ILC algorithm computes a
modied input signal uk+1 (t) that will be stored in memory until the next
time the system operates, at which time this new input signal is applied
to the system. This new input should be designed so that it will produce a
smaller error than the previous input.

uk

System

uk+1

Learning
Controller

- yk

Memory Memory

Memory




yd

FIGURE 9.1. Iterative learning control conguration.

The iterative learning control approach can be described more precisely
by introducing some additional notation. Let the nonlinear operator f :
U 7! Y mapping elements in the vector space U to those in the vector
space Y be written as y = f (u) where u 2 U and y 2 Y . We assume
suitably dened norms on U and Y as well as an induced norm on f ().
Suppose we are given a system S , dened by y(t) = fS (u(t) t) (here we
assume fS ( t) is an input-output operator and may represent a dynamical
system in the usual way). For this system we wish to drive the output to a
desired response dened by yd(t). This is equivalent to nding the optimal
input u (t) that satises
min
ky (t) ; fS (u(t) t)k = kyd(y) ; fS (u (t) t)k:
u(t) d

428

K. L. Moore

In this context, ILC is an iterative technique for nding u (t) for the case
in which all the signals are assumed to be dened on the nite interval
0 tf ]. The ILC approach is to generate a sequence of inputs, uk (t) in such
a way that the sequence converges to u . That is, we seek a sequence
uk+1 (t) = fL(uk (t0 ) yk (t0 ) yd(t0 ) t)
= fL(uk (t0 ) fS (uk (t0 )) yd (t0 ) t) t0 2 0 tf ]
such that
lim u (t) = u (t) for all t 2 0 tf ]:
k!1 k
Some remarks about this problem include:
1. In a successful ILC algorithm the next input will be computed so
that the performance error will be reduced on the next trial. The
issue is usually quantied by saying that the error should converge,
with convergence measured in the sense of some norm.
2. It is worth repeating that we have dened our signals with two variables, k and t. The trial is indexed with the integer k, while time is
described by the variable t, which may be continuous or discrete.
3. The general algorithm shown introduces a new variable t0 . This reects the fact that after the trial is complete there is eectively no
causality restriction in the ILC operator fL. Thus one may use information about what happened after the input uk (t0 ) was applied when
constructing the input uk+1 (t0 ). The only place this is not possible
is at t = tf . Although we can assume t0 2 0 tf ], realistically we only
need t0 2 t tf ] when computing uk+1 (t).
4. The previous remark is emphasized in Figure 9.2, which illustrates
the distinction between conventional feedback and iterative learning
control. In Figure 9.2(a) it is shown how the ILC approach preserves
information about the eect of the input at each instant during the
iteration and uses that information to compute corrections to the
control signal during the next trial. Figure 9.2(b) shows that in a
conventional feedback strategy the error from the current time step
is used by the controller to compute the input for the next time step.
However, the eect of this decision is not preserved from one trial to
the next.
5. It is usually assumed implicitly that the initial conditions of the system are reset at the beginning of each trial (iteration) to the same
value. This has always been a key assumption in the formulation of
the ILC problem.
6. It is also usually assumed by denition that the trial length tf is xed.
Note, however, that it is possible to allow tf ! 1. This is often done
for analysis purposes.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

Trial (k-1)

Error

...

Trial k

...
t-1

t+1

t-1

t+1

...

Trial (k+1)

...
t-1

t+1

t-1

t+1

429

...

...
t-1

t+1

t-1

t+1

t-1

t+1

t-1

t+1

Input
...

...

...

...

...

...

(a)

Error

...

...
t-1

t+1

t-1

t+1

...

...
t-1

t+1

t-1

t+1

...

...

Input
...

...

...

...

...

...

(b)

FIGURE 9.2. (a) Iterative learning control (b) conventional feedback

control.
7. Ideally, as little information as possible about the system fS should
be used in designing the learning controller system fL (at the least it

should require minimal knowledge of the system parameters).

8. Notwithstanding the previous comment, in the case of full plant
knowledge, the problem is solved if the operator fS is left invertible
and time-invariant. In this case simply let u (t) = fS;1yd (t). If the
system is not invertible and yd(t) is not in the image of fS then the
best we can hope for is to nd a u (t) that minimizes kyd(t) ; y(t)k
over all possible inputs u(t). The goal of the learning control algorithm is to iteratively nd such a u (t).
9. Ideally, the convergence properties of the ILC algorithm should not
depend on the desired response yd (t). If a new desired trajectory
is introduced, the learning controller would simply \learn" the new
optimal input, without changing any of its own algorithms.
10. In order to show convergence and to ensure stability in actual implementations, the system S is usually required to be stable. It has been

430

K. L. Moore

noted in the literature that if we initially have an unstable plant,

then we should rst stabilize it using conventional techniques. As
we discuss later in the paper, recent research has considered simultaneous use of conventional feedback with iterative learning control.
However, the primary role of ILC is to improve performance rather
than to stabilize. As such it is clear that the outcome of an ILC algorithm is derivation of the best possible feedforward signal to input
to the system in order to achieve a desired output. In this sense the
ILC technique produces the output of an optimal prelter for the
system relative to a given desired output and thus can be considered
a feedforward design technique.

9.3 Two Illustrative Examples of ILC Algorithms

Before discussing the literature of iterative learning control it is probably helpful to consider some examples of how the ILC algorithms work.
First we will look at a simple linear example. Then we will present a more
complicated example of an ILC algorithm for motion control of a robotic
manipulator.

9.3.1 A Linear Example

Consider the following second-order, discrete-time linear system described

by
y(t + 1) = ;:7y(t) ; :012y(t ; 1) + u(t)
y(0) = 2
y(1) = 2
This system is stable but always exhibits an \underdamped" behavior by
virtue of the fact that its poles lie on the negative real axis. Suppose we
wish to force the system to follow a signal yd such as that shown in Figure
9.3. This might correspond to a motor velocity trajectory, for example,
where the speed is required to step up and then back down. To apply the
iterative learning control approach to this system we begin by dening
u0 (t) = yd(t): Because we assume no knowledge of the system we wish to
control this is a reasonable denition. Figure 9.4(a) shows the output signal,
denoted y0 (t), that results when this input is applied to the system. (for
reference the gure also shows the desired output). From this we compute
e0 (t) = yd(t) ; y0 (t) and a new input signal u1 (t) is computed according to
u1 (t) = u0 (t) + :5e0 (t + 1)
for t 2 0 tf ;1 ]: At the endpoint, where t = tf , we use
u1 (tf ) = u0 (t) + :5e0 (tf ):

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

431

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5
0

10

15

20

25

30

FIGURE 9.3. Desired system response.

This signal is then applied to the system (which has had its initial conditions reset to the same values as during the rst trial) and the new output
is recorded, a new error is determined, and the next input signal u2 (t) is
computed. The process is then repeated until the output converges to the
desired signal. Figures 9.4(b) and 4(c) show the output signal after ve and
ten trials, respectively. It is clear that the algorithm has forced the output
to the required value for each instant in the interval. Note also the resulting input signal, u10 (t), shown in Figure 9.4(d). It can be seen that the
learning control algorithm has derived an input signal that anticipates the
dynamics of the process, including the two-step deadtime, the oscillatory
poles, and the non-unity DC-gain. Of course, it should be pointed out that
in this example we have set the initial conditions equal to the desired output. Certainly one cannot aect the values of the output that occur before
an input is applied. However, for linear systems, it can be shown that the
algorithm will converge for all time after the deadtime.

9.3.2 An Adaptive ILC Algorithm for a Robotic Manipulator

Because applications of robotic manipulators usually involve some type

of repetitive motion it is natural to consider iterative learning control to
improve the performance of manipulators. In this section we present an
example of an adaptive algorithm for ILC of a robotic manipulator developed by this author (see 160], for example). Consider the simple two-link
manipulator shown in Figure 9.5. The manipulator can be modelled by
A(xk )xk + B (xk  x_ k )x_ k + C (xk ) = uk 
where uk (t) is a vector of torques applied to the joints and
x(t) = (1 (t) 2 (t))T

135
+
:
135
cos

:
54
+
:
27
cos

:
2
2

A(x) = :135 + :135 cos 
:135
2

sin 2
0
B (x x_ ) = ;:135
:27 sin 2 ;:135(sin 2 )_2 

35

432

K. L. Moore

4
2
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

20

25

30

35

(a)
4
2
0
0

10

15
(b)

4
2
0
0

10

15
(c)

10
5
0
0

10

15
(d)

FIGURE 9.4. ILC algorithm behavior: (a) desired output and initial
output (b) desired output and output on the 5th trial (c) desired
output and output on 10th trial (d) input signal on 10th trial.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

C (x) =

433

13:1625 sin 1 + 4:3875 sin(1 + 2 ) :

4:3875 sin(1 + 2 )

v
s  v
g

? m1 H I2
; HHH
;
l
; 1 l2 HH m2
;I
l1= l = 0:3m
1

m1 = 3:0kg
m2 = 1:5kg
FIGURE 9.5. Two-joint manipulator.
To describe the learning controller for this system, rst dene the vectors

yk = (xTk  x_ Tk  xTk )T 
yd = (xTd  x_ Td  xTd )T 
to represent the complete system output and desired trajectory, respectively at the k-th trial. The learning controller is then dened by

uk = rk ; k ;yk + C (xd (0))

rk+1 = rk + k ;ek
k+1 = k +  kek km
Here ; is a xed feedback gain matrix that has been made time-varying
through the multiplication by the gain k . The signal rk can be described as
a time-varying reference input. The adaptation of k combines with rk (t)
to form the ILC part of the algorithm. Notice that with this algorithm
we have combined conventional feedback with iterative learning control.
Beyond these denitions, the operation of the system is the same as for
any learning control system. A reference input r0 and an initial gain 0 are
chosen to drive the manipulator during the rst trial. At the end of each
trial, the resulting output error ek is used to compute the reference rk+1
and the gain k+1 for the next trial. The basic idea of the algorithm is to
make k larger at each trial by adding a positive number that is linked to
the norm of the error so that when the algorithm begins to converge, the
gain k will eventually stop growing. The convergence proof depends on a
high-gain feedback result 160].

434

K. L. Moore

To simulate this ILC algorithm for the two-joint manipulator described

above we used rst-order highpass lters of the form
s
H (s) = s 10
+ 10
to estimate the joint accelerations 1 and 2 from the joint velocities _1
and _2 , respectively. The gain matrix ; = P L K ] used in the feedback
and learning control law was dened by

P = 500:0 500:0  L = 650:0 650:0  K = 20:5 20:5 :

These matrices satisfy a Hurwitz condition required for convergence. The
adaptive gain adjustment in the learning controller uses  = :1 and 0 is
initialized to 0:01:
Figure 9.6 shows the resulting trajectory of 1 for several trials. It also
shows the desired trajectory. On the rst trial the observed error is quite
large, as expected, given that we have no knowledge of the system dynamics,
other than the initial condition. However, only one iteration is needed to
make the output distinctly triangular and by the eighth trial the system
is tracking the desired response almost perfectly. Thus the technique has
derived the correct input signal needed to force the system to follow a
desired signal.

9.4 The Literature, Context, Terminology of ILC

9.4.1 Classications of ILC Literature

The eld of iterative learning control has a relatively small, but steadily
growing literature. Table 9.1 gives a topical classication of general results in the eld and Table 9.2 lists references that are specic to robotics
and other applications. The ordering of the references in these two tables is
roughly chronological and references may be listed more than once, depending on their coverage of topics. Also, the classication of a given paper into
a particular category(ies) reects this author's impression of the paper and
is not necessarily the only possibility. Many of the references listed were
obtained from the Engineering Index and the INSPEC electronic databases
using a search strategy dened by: \control" AND \learning" AND \iterative." This is, of course, a very restrictive search strategy and it is quite
likely that we have missed some papers. Unfortunately, the large number of
conferences and journals available today make it impossible to be aware of
every contribution on the subject of iterative learning control, which is discussed in a large number of elds, from robotics, to articial intelligence, to
classical control, to neural networks. Further, the phrase \iterative learning

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

435

TABLE 9.1. Iterative Learning Control Literature: General Results

Category

General/tutorial
Linear systems

Adaptive/identication
Discrete-time
Direct learning
Frequency-domain
General
Multivariable
Non-minimum phase
Norm-optimal
Periodic paramters
Time-delay systems
Time-invariant
Time-varying
Two-dimensional systems

Repetitive control

General
Linear
Discrete
Nonlinear/stochastic
Convergence
Linear
High-gain/nonlinear

Robustness
Linear
Nonlinear

Initial conditions
No-reset

Current cycle feedback

Higer-order ILC
Neural networks
Nonlinear
Discrete
General

Inversion

Papers
160, 169, 140, 162]
96, 177, 178, 23, 145]
183, 185, 160, 191, 143]
162, 134, 72, 70]
222, 241, 202, 5, 10]
23, 190]
112, 113, 239]
244, 115, 243, 246]
87, 146, 108]
98, 153, 66, 1, 136]
103, 144, 68, 237]
229, 222, 157, 158]
83, 26, 142]
73, 184]
4, 196]
8, 7, 10]
174, 101]
217, 90, 241, 91, 181]
15, 14, 12, 17, 21]
167, 166, 163, 152, 25]
150, 179, 182]
15, 11, 89, 91, 121]
75, 126, 139, 6, 178]
9, 3, 195]
140, 145]
156, 80, 81, 223, 211, 228]
128, 98, 97, 209, 3, 203]
223, 43, 27]
151, 211, 122]
21, 88, 99]
91, 210, 130]
111, 21, 24, 168]
176, 141, 149, 148]
202, 210, 58, 61]
85, 86, 41, 247]
33, 218, 32, 31]
240, 46, 247]
200, 219]
129, 40, 39, 34]
208, 170]
242, 245, 177, 135, 41]
39, 58, 36, 170, 42]
21, 217, 64, 100, 36]
34, 100, 42]
116, 165, 234, 230]
30, 224, 51]
101, 199, 141, 44, 45]
84, 215, 154, 161, 141]
201, 104, 135, 48, 106, 238, 28]
76, 180, 49, 123, 52]
235, 221, 236, 187]

436

K. L. Moore

5
0
-5
0

5
(a)

10

5
(b)

10

5
(c)

10

5
(d)

10

5
0
-5
0
5
0
-5
0
5

0
0

FIGURE 9.6. System response for joint angle 1 : (a) desired output and
initial output (b) desired output and output after 2nd trial (c) desired
output and output after 4th trial (d) desired output and output after
8th trial.
control" has only recently become the standard phrase used to describe the
ILC approach and many of the early papers dealing with ILC do not have
all three of these terms in their title. It is inevitable that some work will
be inadvertently omitted. Thus, the citation list has been limited to those
works with which this author is familiar. Note also that Tables 9.1 and 9.2
list only those papers dealing with the ILC approach as we have dened it.
As we discuss below, learning methods in control cover a broader spectrum
than ILC. References dealing with other learning methods and concepts
are not included.
At the risk of oending those who are left out and at the risk of appearing
to lose impartiality, it is also possible to discuss the literature by author.
Such a classication is useful, however, as it gives an idea of the level of
interest in the eld. The concept of iterative learning control in the sense
of Figure 9.1 was apparently rst introduced by Uchiyama in 1978 229].
Because this was a Japanese language publication it was not widely known

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

437

TABLE 9.2. Iterative Learning Control Literature: Robotics and Applications

Category
Robotics
General

Elastic joints
Flexible links
Cartesian coordinates
Neural networks
Cooperating manipulators
Hybrid force/position control
Nonholonomic
Applications
Vehicles
Chemical processing
Machining/manufacturing
Mechanical systems
Miscellaneous
Nuclear reactor
Robotics demonstrations

Papers
15, 13, 16, 55, 235, 11]
109, 222, 157, 158, 19, 54]
111, 112, 77, 82, 113, 164]
56, 24, 174, 155, 168, 205]
22, 95, 248, 249, 204, 146]
96, 67, 102, 242, 207]
125, 117, 194, 124, 118, 18]
114, 59]
212, 213, 148, 57, 147]
225, 78]
230, 30, 224]
254, 216]
110, 105, 149]
175]
232, 231, 138]
251, 29, 50]
132, 37, 133]
137, 119, 47, 250, 79, 120]
228, 131, 187, 188]
198, 66, 65, 68]
179, 253, 159, 189]
127, 186, 93, 74]
92, 35, 62, 38]
192, 63, 197]
107]
110, 109, 19, 205, 248, 204]
146, 105, 96, 207, 59, 175]
78, 194, 30]

in the West until the idea was developed by the Japanese research group
of Arimoto, Kawamura, and Miyazaki, particularly through the middle to
late 1980's 15, 13, 16, 14, 110, 11, 12, 17, 109, 111, 114, 112, 113, 85],
86, 153, 18, 115]. This author was involved in several new ILC results in the
late 1980's to early 1990's 164, 165, 160, 167, 166, 168] 163, 161, 234, 169,
170], including the book Iterative Learning Control for Deterministic Systems 162]. Also during this period, a research group at the Dipartimento di
Infomatica, Sistemistica in Genoa, Italy, including Bondi, Lucibello, Ulivi,
Oriolo, Panzieeri and others, was quite active 24, 146, 59, 175, 147, 149,
150, 148]. Other early researchers included: Mita, et al. 156, 157, 158],
Craig, et al. 55, 54, 56], and Hideg, et al. 87, 108, 88, 89, 90, 91]. Also
of note is the work of Tomizuka, et al. in the area of repetitive control
223, 43, 228, 105, 98, 47, 97, 209]. Other active researchers in ILC include
Horowitz, et al. 205, 154, 95, 96], Sadegh, et al. 205, 204, 203, 78], Saab
201, 199, 202, 200], and C.H. Choi, et al. 250, 104, 48, 49]. A group at
KAIST, centered around Professor Bien, one of the pioneers in ILC research, has made numerous contributions 174, 21, 22, 101, 129, 130, 181].
Another leading research group is based around Professor Longman at

438

K. L. Moore

Columbia University 155, 184, 183, 185, 26, 141, 143, 134, 67, 102, 198],
68, 142, 99, 136, 237, 103, 144, 66, 65, 140, 145] and Professor Phan of
Princeton 192, 190, 189, 187, 188, 186, 191, 70]. Recently the work of
Amann, Owens, and Rogers has produced a number of new ideas 8, 9, 7,
177, 178, 5, 10, 4, 176]. Finally, we mention a very active research group in
Singapore centered around Jian-Xin Xu and Yangquan Chen 242, 245, 241,
41, 40, 239, 39, 240], 83, 36, 37, 38, 35, 62, 63, 42, 138, 219, 244, 243, 246],
33, 34, 218, 32, 31]. It is interesting to note that at the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, held in Seoul in July 1997, over thirty papers were devoted
to iterative learning control. This was nearly ve percent of all the papers
presented. Thus we see that ILC has grown from a single idea to a very
active area of research.

9.4.2 Connections to Other Control Paradigms

Before proceeding to discuss ILC algorithms that have been proposed it

is useful to consider the dierence between iterative learning control and
some of the other common control paradigms. We will also clarify some of
the terminology related to ILC.
Consider Figure 9.7, which shows the conguration of a unity feedback
control system, possibly multi-input, multi-output. Here P represents the
system to be controlled and C denotes the controller. The control system

R-+ E- C
-

U- P

Y-

FIGURE 9.7. Unity feedback control system.

operates by measuring Y , the output of the plant, and comparing it to
the reference input R. The error E is then input to the controller, which
computes an appropriate actuating signal U . This signal is then used to
drive the plant. A typical design problem is to specify a controller for a
given plant, so that the closed-loop system is stable and the output tracks
a desired trajectory with a prescribed set of transient performance characteristics (such as overshoot, settling-time, rise-time, steady-state error,
etc.). Using this gure we may describe a number of controller design problems:
1. Feedback control via pole placement or frequency domain techniques:
These problems can be described as:

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

439

Given P and R, nd C so that the closed-loop has a prescribed set of poles, frequency characteristics, or steadystate error properties.
This problem is obviously dierent from the ILC approach, which, as
we have noted, is not a feedback methodology. The iterative learning
controller cannot aect the system poles.
2. Optimal control: Most optimal control problems can be generally described as:
min
kE k
C
subject to: P and R given and to constraints on U .
In optimal control we conduct an a priori design, based on a model
of the system. If the plant changes relative to the model then the
optimal controller will cease to be optimal. Further, the optimal controller operates in a feedback loop. Note, however, that in the case
of a stable plant it may be possible to design an ILC system that
produces the same output as an optimal controller, because both
methods are concerned with the minimization of a measure of the
error. The dierence is that the ILC algorithm achieves this by injecting the optimal input U into the system, as opposed to forming
it by processing the error in real-time. This can be illuminated by
referring to Figure 9.8, which emphasizes in a dierent way how the
ILC scheme can be viewed as an open-loop control strategy. The key
point is that ILC is a way to derive the signal U , using information
about past behavior of the system. Figure 9.8 points out the obvious
absence of an explicit controller in the ILC approach.

R-+ E-

U- P

Y-

FIGURE 9.8. Another representation of the ILC approach.

3. Adaptive control: On the surface one might think that ILC and adaptive control were very similar. The key dierence however, is exactly
the dierence between Figure 9.7 and Figure 9.8 { the fact that one
lacks an explicit controller. Iterative learning control is dierent from
conventional adaptive control in that most adaptive control schemes

440

K. L. Moore

are on-line algorithms that adjust the controller's parameters until a

steady-state equilibrium is reached. This allows such algorithms to
essentially implement some type of standard feedback controller such
as in item (1) above while dealing with parametric uncertainty or
time-varying parameters in the plant. Of course, it is true that if the
plant changes in a learning control scheme, the learning controller will
adapt by adjusting the input for the next trial, based on the measured performance error of the current trial. However, in a learning
control scheme, it is the commanded reference input that is varied
(in an o-line fashion), at the end of each trial or repetition of the
system, as opposed to the parameters of a controller.
4. Robust Control: Referring again to Figure 9.7, robust control is a
set of design tools to deal with uncertainty in the plant. With this
broad denition one could call ILC a robust control scheme, because
ideally the ILC algorithm does not require information about the
plant. Again, however, ILC is not the same as robust control in that
there is no explicit controller.
5. Intelligent Control: Recently a number of control paradigms have
developed that can be loosely gathered under the umbrella of socalled intelligent control techniques. These include articial neural
networks, fuzzy logic, and expert systems. One thing all these have
in common is that they usually involve learning in some form or
another. As such, the phrase \learning control" often arises and in
general ILC as we have described it here can also be classied as
a form of intelligent control. However, it should be made clear that
ILC is a very specic type of intelligent control and involves a fairly
standard system-theoretic approach to algorithms, as opposed to the
articial intelligence- or computer science-oriented approaches often
found in neural nets, fuzzy logic, and expert system techniques.
Although recently the word \learning" has become almost ubiquitous, it
is, unfortunately, often the cause of misunderstanding. In a general sense,
learning refers to the action of a system to adapt and change its behavior
based on input/output observations. We have noted in 162] that in the
cybernetics literature the term learning has been used to describe the ability
of a system to respond to changes in its environment. Many systems have
this ability at dierent levels. Thus, when using the term learning control,
we must dene the meaning carefully. For ILC we use the word learning in
the sense of the architecture shown in Figure 9.1, where the concern is with
iteratively generating a sequence of input trajectories, uk+1 ! u (t). In
addition to the word \learning," further confusion can arise when placing
it together with the word \control." This is because the term \learning
control" is not unique in the control literature. Researchers in the elds of
adaptive control 226], stochastic control and cybernetics 206, 172, 173],

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

441

and optimal control 193] have all used the term learning control to describe
their work. Most of these references, however, refer to learning in the sense
of
adapting or changing controller parameters on-line, as opposed to the oline learning of ILC. Other authors have considered the general problems of
learning from a broader view than either ILC or adaptation of parameters.
71, 227] are early works on the subject. 233] gives a recent mathematical perspective. Several researchers have also considered learning control
as a special case of learning in general, in the context of intelligent systems 94, 214, 53, 252]. A particularly visionary work in this regard is 2].
We mention one other area in which the phrase \learning control" arises:
reinforcement learning control. Reinforcement learning controllers are sophisticated stochastic search engines and are very much an ILC technique
in the sense that we have dened ILC. They work by evaluating the outcome of an action after the action and its eect are over. The next action
is then chosen based on the outcome of the previous action. Because of the
stochastic nature of this approach we will not discuss it further, but refer
the reader to 20, 69, 220, 161]. Likewise we will not consider any explicitly
stochastic learning controllers 206, 60].
Finally, after saying what ILC is not, we should say what ILC is. Terms
used to describe the process of Figure 9.1 include \betterment process"
(Arimoto's original description), \iterative control," \repetitive control,"
\training," and \iterative learning control." As in the discussion about
the term \learning," one must be careful to dene what is meant in any
particular usage of a word or phrase. For instance, the term \repetitive
control" is used to mean ILC but is also used to describe the control of
periodic systems (see the discussion in the next section). Also, in 248]
the term \virtual reference" is introduced to describe the optimal input
signal derived by the learning controller. This emphasizes the fact that
ILC algorithms produce the output of an optimal prelter and what we are
doing in essence is to compute a \virtual" or \not-real" input to try to fool
the system into going to where we want it to go.

9.5 ILC Algorithms and Results

In this section we will describe some of the work in the eld of iterative
learning control. Our comments will roughly follow the organization of
Tables 9.1 and 9.2, although some topics will be discussed in a dierent
order. Also, due to space limitations we cannot individually address each
paper listed in the references and, as in the discussion of the table, the
same caveat applies: it is inevitable that some work will be inadvertently
omitted. However, the results we describe will give a reasonably complete
picture of the status of the eld of iterative learning control. We also refer

442

K. L. Moore

the reader to 162], 96], 177], 23], and 145], each of which contains a
signicant amount of tutorial information.

9.5.1 Basic Ideas

The rst learning control scheme proposed by Arimoto, et al. involved the
derivative of the error ek (t) = yd (t) ; yk (t) 15]. Specically, the algorithm
had the form
uk+1 = uk + ;e_ k :
This is the continuous-time version of the algorithm we gave in the linear
example above:
uk+1 (t) = uk (t) + ;ek (t + 1):
For the case a linear time-invariant (LTI) system, with signals dened over
the interval 0 tf ], and with a state-space description (A,B,C), Arimoto, et
al. showed that if CB > 0 and if the induced operator norm kI ; CB ;ki
satises
kI ; CB ;ki < 1
and some initial condition requirements are met, then
lim y (t) ! yd (t)
k!1 k
in the sense of the -norm, dened as
kx(t)k = sup fe;t 1max
jxi jg
ir
0ttf

where x(t) is an r-dimensional vector. Arimoto, et al. also gave convergence

conditions for this type of learning control algorithm when it was applied to
time-varying plants and certain nonlinear models encountered in robotics.
In subsequent papers Arimoto and his co-workers proposed a variety of
dierent learning control algorithms. The primary dierences between the
various approaches they have developed is in how the error is utilized in the
learning control algorithm. The most general linear algorithm presented is
found in 11], where the input is updated according to

Z
uk+1 = uk + "ek + ;e_ k + # ek dt:

This algorithm essentially forms a PID-like system for processing the error
from the previous cycle, while maintaining a linear eect on the past input
signal.
Much of the early work in ILC focused on linear operators, with learning
laws of the form:
uk+1 = Tu uk + Te (yd ; yk )

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

443

where Tu and Te are both linear operators. This is really the most general
linear algorithm we might consider because it allows separate weighting
of both the current input and the current error. In 162] we proved the
following sucient condition:
Theorem For the LTI plant yk = Ts uk , the proposed LTI learning control algorithm
uk+1 = Tu uk + Te (yd ; yk )
converges to a xed point u (t) if
kTu ; Te Ts ki < 1:
The xed point u is given by
u (t) = (I ; Tu + Te Ts );1 Te yd(t)
and the resulting xed point of the error is given by
e (t) = klim
(yk ; yd) = (I ; Ts (I ; Tu + Te Ts );1 Te )yd(t)
!1

for t 2 t0  tf ].
The gist of almost all of the ILC results is related to proper selection of
the learning operators Tu and Te for specic classes of systems. In the
remainder of this section we will discuss some of these results.

Optimization-Based Approaches
One approach taken by some authors is to pick Te so as to force the convergence to follow some gradient of the error. For example, in 222] the
discrete-time learning control algorithm
uk+1 (t) = uk (t) + Gek (t + 1)
is used, with the gain G optimized using gradient methods to minimize the
quadratic cost of the error
J = 12 eTk (i + 1)Qek (i + 1):
between successive trials. The authors consider several techniques for choosing G, specically using the steepest-descent, Gauss-Newton, and NewtonRaphson methods. The rst two result in a constant gain G, giving a learning controller with exactly the same form as Arimoto, et al. For the NewtonRaphson method the result is a time-varying gain Gk which is dierent for
each trial. In 73] the update algorithm has the form
uk+1 = uk +
k Tp ek 
where Tp is the adjoint operator of the system and
k is a time-varying
gain computed from the error and the adjoint to provide a steepest-descent
minimization of the error at each step of the iteration. This work also
explicitly considered multivariable systems.

444

K. L. Moore

Norm-Optimal ILC
A more recent approach to ILC algorithm design has been developed by
Amann, et al. 8, 7, 5, 10]. They compute the change in the input so as to
minimize the cost

Jk+1 = kek+1 k2 + kuk+1 ; uk k2:

It is shown that the optimal solution produces a similar result to that of
73]:
uk+1 = uk + G ek+1 
where G is the adjoint of the system. Note however, that in Amann's
algorithm the error is from the current cycle (e.g., ek+1 ). Thus the resulting
ILC algorithm can be thought of as combining previous cycle feedback (a
feedforward eect) with current cycle feedback (a feedback eect). We will
discuss this more below. A discussion of the convergence of norm-optimal
ILC for discrete-time systems is given in 5, 10].
Frequency-Domain Approaches
Several authors have considered ILC from the frequency domain perspective. In perhaps the rst of these, 157, 158], the input update law is dened
by
Uk+1 (s) = L(s)Uk (s) + aEk (s)]:
Convergence is shown in the sense of the L2 norm (time or frequency),
although in 162] it was noted that this algorithm will produce a non-zero
error. Arimoto's original algorithm is considered in the frequency domain
in 1]. In 146] ILC algorithms with completely independent operators Te
and Tu are designed in the frequency domain. Hideg, et al. have considered
a number of frequency domain results for ILC 87, 108]. An interesting
approach to ILC based on the discrete Fourier transform is given in 153].
The DFT is used to get a locally linear representation of the system, which
is then inverted. The results becomes equivalent to those of this author
162] described in the next paragraph. By far, the denitive works on the
use of frequency domain techniques in ILC have been made by Longman,
et al. See 68, 237, 103, 144], for example. A key concept introduced in
these works is the idea of phase cancellation through learning. An excellent
review of this approach can be found in 145].
Discrete-Time Systems
A number of researchers have considered ILC specically for discrete-time
systems, primarily motivated by the fact that all practical implementations
will results in a discrete-time ILC algorithm. We have already mentioned
the early work of 222]. More recent analysis of the convergence properties of
the Arimoto-type \D-algorithms" was given in 202]. The issue of instability

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

445

in ILC implementations due to the sampling delay has been considered in

241, 23].
It is interesting to consider the discrete-time linear case 162]. Consider
again Figure 9.1 and dene
uk = (uk (0) uk (1)     uk (N ; 1))
yk = (yk (m) yk (m + 1)     yk (N ; 1 + m))
yd = (yd (m) yd (m + 1)     yd(N ; 1 + m))
where k denotes the trial, m is the relative gain of the linear plant, and N
is the length of the trial. We will suppose that m = 1. Also, we will use the
truncated l1 -norm, given by
kxk1 = 1max
jxi j
iN
and the corresponding induced norm for a matrix H is given by
N
X

kH ki = kH k1 = max
(
i

j =1

jhij j):

The linear plant can then be described by yk = Huk , where H is a matrix

of rank N whose elements are the Markov parameters of the plant:
2 h1 0
0 ::: 0 3
0 ::: 0 7
66 h2 h1
h1 : : : 0 777 :
H = 66 h.3 h.2
..
. . . .. 5
4 ..
..
.
.

hN hN ;1 hN ;2 : : : h1

For this situation, consider the ILC algorithm:

uk+1 = uk + Aek 
where
2 1 yd (1)
0
:::
0 3
1 yd(1)
:::
0 77
66 2 yd (2)

y
(3)

y
(2)
:
:
:
0 77:
6
3
d
2
d
A=6 .
..
.. 5
...
4 ..
.
.
N yd(N ) N ;1 yd(N ; 1) : : : 1 yd(1)
In 162] it was shown that there exist gains i such that kek k1 ! 0.
Further, it is possible to rearrange this algorithm
uk+1 = uk + Aek
into the form
uk = Ak yd 

446

K. L. Moore

whereAk is interpreted as an approximate inverse matrix that is updated

at the end of each trial according to
Ak+1 = Ak + $Ak 
with
2 1 ek (1)
0
0
:::
0 3
2 ek (1)
0
:::
0 77
66 1 ek (2)

e
(3)

e
(2)

e
(1)
:
:
:
0 77 :
6
1
k
2
k
3
k
$A = 6
..
..
.. 5
...
4 ...
.
.
.
1 ek (N ) 2 ek (N ; 1) 3 ek (N ; 2) : : : N ek (1)
The same result in 162] that shows convergence of the error also shows
that Ak ! H ;1 .
The preceding discussion highlights a key result in ILC: the essential
nature of ILC algorithms is to derive the output of the best possible inverse
of the system dynamics. The same result has appeared in a variety of forms
in several papers. In the case of linear systems, related continuous-time
results are found in 160, 169, 157, 156].
Various Classes of Systems
Much of the work in ILC has focused on applying the basic ILC algorithm
to dierent classes of systems. We have discussed discrete-time linear systems above. Other early results in ILC forlinear systems were given by
Arimoto, et al. in various papers 15, 14, 11, 12, 17]. 19] considers learning control schemes similar to Arimoto at al., with application to linear
robotic manipulator models. 152] uses a coprime factorization approach
to ILC design for linear systems. 150] formulates an ILC algorithm that
involves learning the initial conditions of the plant. A novel application
of ILC for linear systems in given in 25], which formulates a generalized
predictive controller such as often used in process control. A particularly
thorough analysis is given by Amann, et al. in 9], which gives an H1 approach to the design of ILC algorithms. Many of the papers by Arimoto,
et al. also considered time-varying systems, as did the results in 174, 101].
174] considers a class of linear time-varying plants. They use a parameter
estimator together with an inverse system model to generate the new input
for each trial. Their technique is also applied to the learning control of a
robotic manipulator which looked at periodic variation of plant parameters. 89]considered general LTV multivariable systems. We also mention
specically 162], which explored the connections between adaptive control
and ILC for linear systems. Other investigations along these lines include
183, 185, 191, 143, 134, 72, 70] Non-minimum phase systems have been
discussed in 162, 4, 196]. The work in 196] uses the Nevanlinna algorithm
of H1 control to design an ILC algorithm of the form
Uk+1 (s) = P (s)Uk (s) + Q(s)Ek (s)

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

447

in the frequency domain. This algorithm is shown to converge, but, as

shown in the more general work of 4], the presence of the RHP zero in
the plant causes slow convergence and a non-zero error. Another class of
problems that has been considered for ILC is systems that exhibit timedelay 217, 90, 241, 91, 181]. The approach in 90] is to include a delayed
version of the previous cycle error in the update law, resulting in an ILC
algorithm of the form

uk+1 (t) = uk (t) + 1 e_ k (t) + 2 ek (t) + 3 ek (t ;  )

where  is the time delay of the linear system. For this system the paper
demonstrates conditions for convergence. Another important issue is the
ability of an ILC algorithm to converge in the face of actuator saturation
constraints. Two works that have considered this problem are 141, 49].
Two-Dimensional Systems Theory
Note that when we combine the plant, expressed in dynamical form as
yk (t + 1) = Tp uk (t), with the learning controller update law uk+1 (t) =
Tuuk (t) + Te yd(t + 1) ; yk (t + 1)] and if we change the notation slightly
we end up with the equation:

y(k + 1 t + 1) = Tp (Tu u(k t) + Te yd(t + 1) ; y(k t + 1)])

This is a linear equation indexed by two variables: k and t. As such it is pos-

sible to apply two-dimensional systems theory to analyze the convergence

and stability properties of the ILC system. This has been investigated by
several researchers. For example, in 126] the problem is considered for a
standard (A B C ) state-space representation of linear systems. If Tu = I
and Te = K , a constant gain matrix, it is shown that the ILC algorithm
converges if I ; CBK is stable. A particularly in-depth discussion of this
approach is found in 75]. 139] considers robustness of ILC algorithms
from the perspective of two-dimensional system theory. Amann, et al. have
also considered two-dimensional analysis 6, 178, 9], using results based
on Lyapunov stability analysis techniques 195]. 3] present an analysis of
repetitive control (see below) using two-dimensional system theory.
Convergence and Robustness
Much of the past and recent work in ILC has focused on demonstrating
convergence of ILC algorithms and analyzing the robustness of the convergence properties. Of course, convergence is implicitly considered in every
paper on ILC appearing in the references. However, some authors have explicitly considered these issues. In 99] the phenomena of initial convergence
followed by divergence is explored and techniques are given to avoid the
problem. 88] describes the fact that the actual norm used can distort the
true picture of the stability of the ILC algorithm. 91] considers convergence

448

K. L. Moore

for systems with time delay properties. In a result that parallels a number
of results about the performance of ILC, 210] proves that the there exist
no bounded operator Te such that the update law uk+1 = uk + Tuek results
in exponential convergence for linear systems. However, the paper shows
that by introducing a digital controller it is possible to achieve exponential
convergence in exchange for certain non-zero residuals. Much of the most
well-developed work regarding convergence is by Amann, et al. Be careful
to note, however, that the ILC update law used in much of this work is
not the same as the one we used in most of this paper. Rather, Amann's
work uses current cycle feedback along with previous cycle feedback. One
of the main approaches to studying convergence in ILC is to invoke highgain results. In the robotics example given above, the convergence proof
is based on the fact that when the adaptive gain k gets big enough then
the ILC algorithm will converge. Amann explores this carefully in several
papers (see 8], for example). Other references in which a high-gain condition is invoked are listed in Table 9.1. One of the new directions for the
study of convergence is to consider modication to the ILC update law.
For instance, in 21] the authors use errors from more than one previous
cycle to update the input. By doing this they show that convergence can
be improved. This is called higher-order ILC.
Associated with the question of convergence is that of robustness. Generally, the results that are available consider a convergent ILC algorithm
and study how robust its convergence properties are to various types of disturbances or uncertainties. Much recent work has focused on mis-match in
initial condition from trial to trial. 86] computed error bounds due to the
eects of state and output noise as well as initial condition mis-match. In
129] a very good analysis of this eect is given and it is shown how undesirable eects due to mismatch can be overcome by utilizing a previous cycle
pure error term in the learning controller. 202] considers robustness and
convergence for a \D-type" ILC algorithm. A condition is given for a class
of linear systems to ensure global robustness to state disturbances, measurement noise, and initialization errors. Another approach to robustness
has been to combine current cycle feedback with previous cycle feedback
41, 40]. In particular, in 40] a typical \D-type" ILC algorithm is combined with a scheme for learning the initial condition. This information is
then used to oset the eect of the initial condition mis-match. For linear
systems, 139] shows how to use H1 theory in a two-dimensional systems
theory framework to address modelling uncertainty.

9.5.2 Nonlinear Systems

Most of the basic results described above were derived primarily for linear
systems. However, researchers have also considered the learning control
problem for dierent classes of nonlinear systems. Of particular interest
to many researchers are the classes of nonlinear systems representative of

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

449

robotic manipulator models. However, ILC for nonlinear systems has also
been considered independent of robotics.
Suppose now that our system is dened by

yk (t) = fP (uk (t) t)

where fP is a nonlinear function. According to our problem statement we
seek a system fL such that the sequence

uk+1 (t) = fL(uk (t) yk (t) yd (t) t) ! u (t)

where the optimal input u (t) minimizes the norm of the nal error
kyd(t) ; fP (u (t) t)k:
To deal with this problem, we can seek a contraction requirement to develop
sucient conditions for convergence. This is the approach of almost every
result available in the literature that deals with nonlinear learning control.
Suppose that we have uk (t) 2 U , where U is an appropriately dened space.
Then for the learning algorithm

uk+1 = fL(uk  fP (uk ) yd )

we will obtain convergence if for all x y 2 U there exists a constant 0 <
 < 1 so that
kfL(x fP (x) yd ) ; fL(y fP (y) yd )k  kx ; yk:
The question that can then be posed is the following: what conditions on
the plant and the learning controller will ensure that the iteration is a contraction mapping? The papers listed in Table 9.1 present various answers
to this question and are primarily distinguished by the dierent restrictions
that are placed on the system. Several representative examples are given
in the next few paragraphs.
235, 221, 236] apply the idea of learning control to the problem of determining the inverse dynamics of an unknown nonlinear system. In 221]
the following ILC algorithm is proposed:

uk+1 = uk + (yd ; yk ):
This is a simple linear learning control algorithm, with unity weighting on
both the current input and the current error. If yk (t) = fP (uk ), where fP ()
is continuous on the interval of interest, then convergence is guaranteed if
kI ; fP0 (u)k < 1

for all inputs u 2 S , where S is convex subset of the space of continuous

function and fP0 (u) is the derivative of fP with respect to its argument

450

K. L. Moore

u. This result gives a class of systems for which the ILC algorithm will
converge.
However, the previous result is very general and is not always easily
checked. Less general results can be obtained by restricting the plant and
the ILC algorithms to have a more specic structure. Let the plant be
described by
x_ k = a(xk  t) + bp (t)uk 
yk = c(xk  t) + dp (t)uk 
with a(x t) and c(x t) Lipschitz in their arguments. Let the ILC update
law be

v_ k = Ac (t)vk + Bc (t)ek 
uk+1 = Cc (t)xk + Dc (t)ek + uk :
For this setup, convergence can be shown if 215]
kI ; dp (t)Dc (t)k < 1:

Notice that this result depends only on the direct transmission terms from
the plant and the learning controller.
A similar results was given in 84]. For the system

x_ k = f (xk  t) + B (x t)uk 

yk (t) = g(xk  t)
with a learning algorithm given by

uk+1 = uk + L(yk )(y_d ; y_k )

it is shown that convergence is obtained if f () and B () are Lipschitz and
L() satises
kI ; L(g(x t) t)g(x t)B (x t)k < 1:
We can see that this convergence condition has the same form as in the
other examples.
An alternative to applying contraction mapping conditions is to use Lyapunov analysis. This is typical in the analysis of learning in neural networks,
which can be considered a type of learning control problem. This is also
the approach taken in the convergence analysis of a novel learning control
scheme proposed in 154]. The technique is based upon a new method of
nonlinear function identication. As in the case of contraction mapping
techniques, however, the use of Lyapunov analysis techniques requires that
we place varying levels of assumptions on the plant and the learning controller in order to obtain useful convergence conditions. The three examples

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

451

above give an idea of the types of analysis and results available for nonlinear ILC. Interested readers can consult the references listed in Table 9.1 for
additional information. We have previously noted in 162] that there is not
a unifying theory of iterative learning control for nonlinear systems. This
does not seem to have changed as of this writing. Results from contraction
mapping or Lyapunov techniques usually provide sucient, but general
conditions for convergence, which must be applied on a case-by-case basis.
To obtain more useful results it is often necessary to restrict our attention
to more specic systems, as in the examples above. One example of this is
the problem of learning control for robotic manipulators. By assuming that
the nonlinear system has the standard functional form typical of a manipulator, researchers have been able to establish specic learning controllers
that will converge. We mention as a nal comment that many researchers
have begun to use neural networks as one tool for nonlinear ILC. In most
papers, for instance 234], by this author, the results show an approach
that works, but there is little analysis to say why it works. Consequently,
it is our view that the more general problem of ILC for nonlinear systems
is still an open area of research.

9.5.3 Robotics and Other Applications

We have noted several times that robotics is the natural application area
for ILC. Arimoto, et al.'s original work included a discussion of learning
control for robotics and others have independently proposed similar learning and adaptive, motivated by robotic control problems 55, 56, 54]. It is
beyond the scope of this single paper to discuss ILC for robotics in any
suitable detail. The interested reader can refer to the references in Table
9.2 to identify papers dealing with dierent aspects of ILC and robotics.
In particular, we recommend 96], which contains a good summary of ILC
for robotics. Also, to get a avor for the types of algorithms that are used,
the reader may refer back to the representative example of an ILC algorithm applied to a simulated two-joint manipulator that was given earlier
in the paper. See also 24], which rst gave the high-gain feedback, modelreference approach to learning control that motivated the adaptive result
presented in the example. It should be clear from Table 9.2 that researchers
have considered a wide-variety of problems in robotics. It is also interesting to point out the large number of actual demonstrations of ILC using
robots. Indeed, in 248] an incredible demonstration of an ILC algorithms
is reported in which a robot arm iteratively learns to catch a ball in a cup
(the Japanese Kendama game).
In addition to robotics, iterative learning control has been applied to an
increasing number of applications, as shown in Table 9.2. Most of these
have been to problems that involve repetitive or iterative operations. For
instance, in chemical processing, ILC has been applied to batch reactor
control problems, which is inherently an iterative activity 251, 50, 132].

452

K. L. Moore

Other applications emphasize learning on-line based on rejection of periodic or repeatable errors that occur during normal step changes or other
operational procedures 232, 231, 127, 107]. Many of these consider periodic
systems and apply ILC to solve disturbance rejection or tracking problems,
including applications for controlling peristaltic pump used in dialysis 93],
coil-to-coil control in a rolling mill 74], vibration suppression 92], and a
nonlinear chemical process 29]. Motion control of non-robotic systems has
also attracted a signicant amount of research eort for ILC applications,
including a scanner driver for a plain paper copier 253], a servo system
for a VCR 131], a hydraulic servo for a machining system 47], an inverted pendulum 179], a cylindrical cutting tool 79], CNC machine tools
228, 119, 250, 120], and an optical disk drive 159]. 137] also describes an
application to self-tuning a piezo-actuator. Following the next section we
apply some new approaches to learning control to a gas-metal arc welding
problem 170].

9.5.4 Some New Approaches to ILC Algorithms

In this section we will discuss three specic emerging areas in ILC research.
The rst is the intersection between repetitive control and ILC, which has
led to the idea of \no-reset" or \continuous" ILC. The second area is the
development of ILC algorithms that do not t the standard form of uk+1 =
Tu uk + Te ek : We end with what has been called \direct learning control."
Repetitive Control and No-Reset/Continuous ILC
Strictly speaking, repetitive control is concerned with cancelling an unknown periodic disturbance or tracking an unknown periodic reference signal 96]. The solutions that have been developed in the literature tend to
focus on the internal model principle to produce a periodic controller 80].
As such, the repetitive controller is a feedback controller as opposed to
the ILC scheme, which ultimately acts as a feedforward controller. Other
dierences include the fact that the ILC algorithms act on a nite horizon whereas the repetitive controllers are continuous and the fact that the
typical assumption of ILC is that each trial starts over at the same initial
condition whereas the repetitive control system does not start with such
an assumption. Despite these dierences however, it is instructive to consider the repetitive control strategy (a good summary of repetitive control
design is found in 128]), because the intersection between the strict denitions of repetitive control and ILC is a fertile ground for research. It is
also interesting to note that the topical breakdown between the two elds
is very similar, with progress reported in the eld of repetitive control for
linear systems 156, 80, 81], multivariable systems 203], based on modelmatching and 2-D systems theory 3], for discrete-time systems explicitly
97, 223, 43, 27], using frequency domain results 98, 211], nonlinear sys-

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

453

tems 151], and stochastic systems 43, 122]. Also note that the connections
between ILC and repetitive control are not new. In particular, see many
of the works by Longman, et al. (145], for example), which make it clear
that ILC and repetitive control are really the same beast.
To illustrate how ILC and repetitive control are similar, we consider a
simulated vibration suppression problem. Consider a simple system dened
by
y(t) = Kp (u(t) + Tdd(t))
where we dene
;Td s
Td = Gd (s) = K dse + 1 :
d

Thus the system consists of a constant gain plant with an additive disturbance that is delayed and attenuated before it is applied to the plant. We
suppose d(t) is periodic (sinusoidal) with a known frequency. Suppose we
wish to drive the output of the system to zero. It is clear that after all
transients have died away the output will be periodic with the same period
as the disturbance. This suggests a way to apply an ILC-like algorithm to
the problem. We simply view each cycle of the output as a trial and apply
the standard ILC algorithm. Because the output is periodic we can expect
to have no problem with initial conditions at the beginning of each \trial."
The typical ILC update would be:

uk+1 (t) = uk (t) + Te ek (t:)

However, assuming a period of N, we know that uk+1 (t) = uk (t + N ) (after
the transients have died out). Thus the update law is eectively:

u(t + N ) = u(t) + Te e(t)

or, alternately,

u(t) = u(t ; N ) + Te e(t ; N ):

But, this is simply a delay factor, as depicted in Figure 9.9, and this last
equation is what has been called \... the familiar repetitive control law..." in
203]. Thus our ILC algorithm reduces in this case to a repetitive controller.
Regardless of the implementation of the algorithm, the resulting controller
easily suppresses the disturbance from the output, as shown in Figure 9.10.
From this example one can see that ILC applied to a periodic, continuoustime situation is equivalent to repetitive control. This has been addressed
recently by several researchers. The idea is called \no-reset" ILC in 208]
because the system never actually starts, stops, resets, and then repeats.
Rather, the operation is continuous. This suggests calling an ILC approach
to such a control system to be a \continuous" iterative learning controller.
Below we give an example of an extended version of the idea for a system

454

K. L. Moore

- + E - Tez;N
oS+
{ 6S
S
S

qj
D

- +? -

-Y

FIGURE 9.9. A periodic representation of the ILC algorithm.

that is not periodic, but rather is chaotic. As we comment in the conclusions, the study of continuous ILC algorithms is a very promising research
area.
Current Cycle Feedback and Higher-Order ILC
The standard ILC algorithm that we have described generally has the form:
uk+1 (t) = Tu uk (t0 ) + Te ek (t0 )
where t0 2 t tf ] and where we will assume for now that Tu and Te are
general operators and could possibly be nonlinear. There have been two
distinct modications to this equations that have been presented in the
literature:
1. Higher-Order ILC: This was rst suggested in 21] and has also been
called \multi-period" ILC in 242, 245]. The algorithm has the form:
uk+1 (t) = Tu uk (t0 ) + Te1 ek (t0 ) + Te2 ek;1 (t0 ) +   
That is, our update law is now looking back past the most recent
previous cycle to bring in more data about the past performance of
the system. In 21] it is noted that this modication can improve the
rate of convergence. Note that this is also a natural algorithm when
viewing the ILC process from the perspective of two-dimensional
systems theory. Other works that consider higher-order ILC include
217, 64, 100, 36, 34, 100, 42].
2. Current Cycle Feedback: An idea that goes back at least as far as
1987 83] is to combine iterative learning control with conventional
feedback control. This has been done in a couple of dierent ways.
Algorithms in 242, 245, 135, 41, 39, 58] and others update the input
according to
uk+1 (t) = Tu uk (t0 ) + Teff ek (t0 ) + Tefb ek+1 (t):

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

455

1
0
-1
0

10

15

20

25
(a)

30

35

40

45

50

10

15

20

25
(b)

30

35

40

45

50

10

15

20

25
(c)

30

35

40

45

50

0.5
0
-0.5
0
0.5
0
-0.5
0

FIGURE 9.10. System response for continuous ILC example: (a) disturbance input (b) output signal (c) ILC produced input signal.
Thus we have simply added the error from the current cycle to the
ILC algorithm. In such a scheme it is easy to show for a plant Tp and
with Tu = I the sucient condition for convergence becomes:
k(I + TpTefb );1 (I ; TpTeff )k < 1:
Thus we see a combination of the normal ILC convergence condition
with a more common feedback control type expression. Amann, et
al. have given a slightly dierent form of the current error feedback
algorithm:
uk+1 (t) = Tu uk (t0 ) + Te ek+1 (t0 ):
This expression does not explicitly use past cycle error information,
but does keep track of the previous inputs. Most of the results on
norm-optimal ILC by Amann, et al. use this form of an update algorithm. An obvious advantage of either of these current error feedback
algorithms is that it is possible to ensure stability in both trial convergence and with respect to time relative to the closed-loop system.
Others to consider current cycle feedback include 36, 170, 42].

456

K. L. Moore

Figure 9.11 gives a graphical representation of these two dierent strategies

that shows pictorially where in time the values that are used in the update
equation are taken from. Notice also that these two major modications

Trial (k-1)

Error

...

...
t-1

Trial k

...

t t+1

Trial (k+1)

...
t-1

...

t t+1

...
t-1

t+1

Input
...

...
t-1 t

...

...
t-1 t

t+1

...

...
t-1 t t+1

t+1

(a)

Error

...

...
t-1 t t+1

...

...

...

t-1 t t+1

...
t-1

t+1

Input
...

...
t-1 t

t+1

...

...
t-1 t

t+1

...

...
t-1 t t+1

(b)

FIGURE 9.11. Two new ILC strategies: (a) higher-order learning control (b) current cycle feedback.
can be combined to give what may be the most general form of an ILC
algorithm:

uk+1 (t) = Tfb ek+1 (t) + Tu uk (t0 ) + Te1 ek (t0 ) + Te2 ek;1 (t0 ) +   
This algorithm was considered by Xu in 36, 42]. With such an algorithm
it may be possible to take exploit the advantages of both the current error
feedback and the higher-order elements. This will certainly be an important
area for additional research.
Direct Learning
One nal category that we would like to address is what has recently been
called \direct learning" 239]. The concern in this area of study is that

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

457

once an ILC algorithm has converged and is then presented with a new
trajectory to follow it will lose any memory of the previous trajectory, so
that if it is presented again it will have to re-learn. Of course, in practice we
may keep track of the optimal input U corresponding to dierent desired
outputs, but at a more fundamental level, this represents a shortcoming of
the ILC approach. Arimoto, et al. considered this in some earlier papers
112, 113]. Also, in 162] an approach was given for \learning with memory."
Recently, however, the problem was posed in two interesting ways:
1. Can we generate the optimal inputs for signals that have the same
shape and magnitude, but dierent time scales by learning only one
signal 239, 243]?
2. Can we generate the optimal inputs for signals that have the same
shape and time scales, but dierent magnitudes 246]?
At this time there are no denitive conclusions that can be drawn, but this
will be an important research area in the future (see also 244, 115]).

9.6 Example: Combining Some New ILC

Approaches
In the previous section we ended by describing a number of new approaches
to ILC. In this section we given an example of an ILC algorithm that combines the ideas of current cycle feedback and continuous ILC to develop
a controller for a nonlinear, chaotic system in which the goal is to force
a prescribed periodic motion. We have noted that two of the fundamental assumptions associated with iterative learning control are that (1) each
trial has the same length and (2) after each trial the system is reset to
the same value. The learning controller we illustrate here does not require
these assumptions. Our design is motivated by the problem of controlling
a gas-metal arc welding process. In this process the time interval between
detachments of mass droplets from the end of a consumable electrode is
considered to be a trial. This interval, as well as the mass that detaches,
is deterministically unpredictable for some operating points. Our control
objective is to force the mass to detach at regular intervals with a uniform amount of mass in each detached droplet. Thus our problem can be
cast in an iterative learning control framework where both the trial length
and the initial conditions at the beginning of each trial are non-uniform.
However, by careful consideration of when the trial ends, relative to when
we desire the trial to end, it is possible to force the time of the trial to
the desired value, using a cascaded, two-level iterative learning controller
combined with a current error feedback algorithm that performs an approximate feedback linearization relative to one of the input-output pairs.

458

K. L. Moore

9.6.1 GMAW Model

In 171] the following simplied model of the gas-metal arc welding process
(GMAW) is given:

x_ 1 = x2
x_ 2 = m1(t) (;2:5x1 ; 10;5x2 + F + I 2 )
m_ = k2 I + k5 I 2 Ls
Reset condition:

m(t) =

m(t)
if m  25
m(1 ; 0:8( 1+e;110x2 ) + 0:125) otherwise

Here x1 denotes the position of a droplet of molten metal growing on the

end of the welding wire, x2 is its velocity, and the mass of the droplet is
m. The system is forced by F = 1, which represents various gravitational
and aerodynamic forces, and two other inputs: I , which is the current
from the welding power supply, and Ls , which denotes the distance the
wire protrudes from the contact tube of the welding system (simply called
stickout). The other feature of the model is the \reset" condition, reecting
the fact that after the droplet grows to a certain size it detaches. In this
example we simply use a xed constraint for detachment, although in reality
the condition is variable. After detachment some mass remains attached to
the end of the wire, resulting in a new droplet that begins growing until it
detaches. The amount of mass that remains behind is a key to the dynamic
behavior of the process. In the model above we have made the mass that
detaches proportional to a sigmoidal function of droplet velocity. We also
reset the velocity and position to zero whenever the mass detaches. This
produces a model that in fact closely emulates a real GMAW process in
what is called the globular mode. Figure 9.12 gives a typical uncontrolled
response of the mass for this model, where I = 1 and Ls = 0:1.

9.6.2 ILC-Based Control Strategy

As noted above, our control objective is to force the mass to detach at

regular intervals with a uniform amount of mass in each detached droplet.
This implies the desired waveform for the mass of the droplet as shown in
Figure 9.13. This waveform has a maximum equal to the value at which the
GMAW model resets. This is a simplication that we will relax in future
work.
In considering ways to control the GMAW process, one idea was to consider a droplet detachment as an event. This in turn led to the idea of

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

459

30

mass

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10

20

30

40

50
time

60

70

80

90

100

0.6
0.4

vel

0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4

FIGURE 9.12. Uncontrolled response of the GMAW model.

25

20

15

10

5
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

FIGURE 9.13. Desired mass waveform.

viewing each detachment event as a trial, which then motivated us to consider an ILC approach. Specically, the time interval between detachments
of mass droplets from the end of the consumable electrode is considered to
be a trial. Because this interval and the amount of mass that detaches is
deterministically unpredictable for some operating points one would think
that we could not use ILC because of having violated the basic ILC assumptions of requiring both the trial length and the initial conditions at
the beginning of each trial to be uniform. Nevertheless, as we show below
it is possible to control the process to follow the desired mass waveform
using an ILC approach.
A standard ILC-type algorithm for updating the control inputs for the
GMAW system dynamics without the reset condition, and with a xed trial

40

460

K. L. Moore

length might have the form:

Ik+1 (t) = Ik (t) + kp ek (t + 1)

Ls k+1 (t) = Ls k (t) + kd e_k (t + 1)
where k denotes the trial and e = md(t) ; m(t) is the mass error. The
diculty with direct application of such an algorithm in the case of the
GMAW system is that in general each trial (i.e., time between detachments)
may have a dierent length. A second diculty is that the mass may not
always reset to the same value. A third diculty is that the system is
unstable. These problems are addressed separately in our ILC algorithm:
1. Unstable Dynamics: First, the fact that our system is unstable leads
us to introduce what is often called current cycle feedback 23]. For
this system we assume both mass and velocity can be measured. We
then use an approximate feedback linearization controller to control
the droplet velocity by adjusting the current. This controller compensates for the division by m(t) in the velocity dynamics by multiplying the current by the square root of the mass (using physical
information about the process that allows us to know the functional
form through which current inuences the dynamics). Notice that it
is necessary with this model to assume measurement of velocity. A
scheme based only on mass will not work because the velocity state
is not observable from mass measurements.
2. Non-uniform reset value: Again using knowledge of the physics of the
process, at each trial we use a simple ILC routine to adjust the setpoint of velocity based on the error in the reset value at the beginning
of the trial.
3. Non-uniform trial length: There are four cases that might arise in
trying to control the detachment interval in the GMAW system:
(a) The actual mass resets before the desired waveform resets.
(b) The actual mass resets after the desired waveform resets.
(c) Both the actual and the desired mass waveform reset simultaneously.
(d) Neither the actual or the desired mass waveform have reset.
Here the term reset refers to a trial completing (i.e., the mass drops
o and the system resets). Space limitations prohibit a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the approach we have developed
to handle the non-uniform trial length. Basically, the approach is as
follows:

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

461

(a) If the actual mass resets before the desired mass, then reset the
desired mass and continue, using a typical ILC update algorithm.
(b) If the desired mass resets before the actual mass, then (1) set
the inputs and the desired mass to some xed waveform (e.g., a
nominal constant)& (2) continue until the actual mass resets& (3)
reset the desired mass when the actual mass resets and continue
using a typical ILC update algorithm.
(c) If the actual mass on previous trials has always reset at a time
less that the desired reset time, then the rst time the system
goes past the longest time the system had ever previously run
the ILC algorithm will not have an error signal to use. To handle
this all errors should be initialized at zero and updated only as
data becomes available.
What is happening in item (b) is that if the actual system has not
reset by the time we want it to, we simply suspend the ILC algorithm.
That is, it should not be doing anything at time greater than the
period of the desired output waveform. Thus, we just provide the
system a nominal input and wait until the actual mass resets. We
then continue, computing the errors for our ILC algorithm from the
beginning of the past trial. Likewise, in item (c) we wish to ensure
that, if the duration of the previous trial was shorter than desired,
but the current trial's length is longer than the previous trial's length,
then we do not compute changes to the input for times greater than
the previous trial (because then you would actually be in the current
trial).
4. ILC algorithm to adjust the slope: The nal piece of our controller is
the use of a standard ILC algorithm to update the stickout based on
errors from the previous trial. We do not adjust the current, which
is dedicated to controlling the velocity using current (present) error
feedback.
Algorithmically, the ILC procedure can be represented in terms of a new
quantity, called the \duration." The duration, denoted as td k , is the length
of trial k. Using this notation, and dening the desired mass to be md (t),
the desired trial length to be tdd , and the starting time of each trial to be
ts k , the ILC algorithm can be written as:

I'(t) = (jI'2 (t ; 1) ; k1 (V spk ; v(t ; 1))

+k2 (V spk ; v(t))j)1=2
V spk = V spk;1 ; k3 (md (ts k )) ; m(ts k ))

462

K. L. Moore

'(t)(m(t))1=2
I (t) = I8
Ls (t ; tdk;1 )
>
>
>
< +k4 (m_ d (t ; td k;1 + 1)
Ls (t) = > ;m_ (t ; tdk;1 + 1)) if (t ; tsk )
 tdk;1
>
>
: Ls (t ; 1)
otherwise
It should be emphasized again that the desired mass waveform is dened
according to when the actual trial ends relative to the desired trial length.
If the actual trial ends then the desired mass is reset to its initial value as
the next trial begins. If the trial lasts longer than the desired length then
the desired mass is set as follows (and, the ILC algorithm for stickout is
discontinued until the next trial begins):

md (t) =

md(t ; ts k ) if (t ; ts k )  tdd
mdmax
otherwise

Figure 9.14 shows a sample simulation of the ILC algorithm applied to

the same open-loop system shown in Figure 9.12. It can be seen that the
frequency of the system is locked into the desired frequency within less than
ten trials (detachments events). Note that for our algorithm and desired
mass waveform it is essential that both the error between the actual and
desired mass waveform and the derivative of the error go to zero. This is
because we are resetting the desired waveform to its initial value each time
a detachment event occurs.
The results we have presented here are very promising, especially from
a theoretical perspective. The idea of a variable trial is novel in the area
of iterative learning control, as is the idea of a variable initial condition
at the beginning of each trial. There are a number of things that we are
planning as a follow-on to this work. We are currently working to relax
the assumption of a xed reset criteria. We have also begun to develop a
theoretical explanation for the eectiveness of our algorithms. This includes
establishing the class of systems to which the technique can be applied as
well as studying convergence. Finally, we are considering application of
these ideas to develop the notion of a generalized phase-locked, frequencylocked loop for nonlinear systems.

9.7 Conclusion: The Past, Present, and Future of

ILC
In this paper we have given an overview of the eld of iterative learning
control. We have illustrated the essential nature of the approach using several examples, discussions of descriptive gures, and through a discussion
of the connection between ILC and other common control paradigms. We

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

463

40

20
0
1

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.5
0
20

0
-20
20

edot

0
-20
4

2
0
2

Ls

0
-2
time

FIGURE 9.14. System response using the iterative learning control

algorithm: (a) mass (b) velocity (c) error (d) derivative of error (e)
current (f) stickout.
have given a comprehensive introduction to the literature, including a topical classication of some of the literature and a summary of the major
algorithms, results, applications, and emerging areas of ILC.
Because ILC as a distinct eld is perhaps less than fteen years old, it
is dicult to assess its past history, its present value, and the potential future impact it may have in the world of control systems. Regarding the past
of ILC, it is clear that the pioneering work of Arimoto and his colleagues
stimulated a new approach to controlling certain types of repetitive systems. The concept of iterative learning is quite natural, but had not been
expressed in the algorithmic form of ILC until the early 1980's. As we have
described in this paper, early work in the eld demonstrated the usefulness and applicability of the concept of ILC, particularly for linear systems,
some classes of nonlinear systems, and the well-dened dynamics of robotic
systems. The present status of the eld reects the continuing eorts of researchers to extend the earlier results to broader classes of systems, to apply
these results to a wider range of applications, and to understand and inter-

464

K. L. Moore

pret ILC in terms of other control paradigms and in the larger context of
learning in general. Looking to the future, it seems clear to this author that
there a number of areas of research in ILC that promise to be important.
These include:
1. Integrated Higher-Order ILC/Current-Cycle Feedback: We have noted
that by including current-cycle feedback together with higher-order
past-cycle feedback it is possible to simultaneously stabilize and achieve the desired performance, including possible improvements in convergence rates from the system. However, more work is needed to
understand this approach.
2. Continuous ILC/Repetitive Control: This is one of the most important areas for future research. The last example presented above
shows the value of such an approach. What is needed now is to understand how the technique can be made more general. Also it must also
be reconciled with the more strict denitions of repetitive and periodic control. However, a particular vision of this author is that ILC
can be used in a continuous situation when the goal is to produce
a periodic response so as to produce what can be called a nonlinear, phase-locked, frequency-locked loop. This can lead to signicant
applications in motor control (pulse-width modulated systems) and
communications.
3. Robustness and Convergence Analysis: What is still needed is more
rigorous and more conclusive results on when algorithms will converge
and how robust this convergence will be. Such information can be
used to develop comprehensive theories of ILC algorithm design.
4. System-Theoretic Analysis: In the same vein as robustness and convergence, more work is needed to characterize the capabilities of ILC
algorithms. One such analysis is extend the 2-D analysis that some
authors have applied to linear systems to the nonlinear case in order
to provide combined global convergence and stability results. Another
is to explore the connections with other optimal control methodologies. As an example, if one poses the problem of L2 minimization of
error on a xed interval 0 tf ] and solves it using ILC, one would
expect the resulting u (t) to be the same as the u (t) that results
from solving a standard linear quadratic regulator problem on the
same interval. It would also be interesting to consider the same type
of comparison for mixed-sensitivity problems that do not have analytical solutions to see if it is possible in such cases to derive the
optimal input using ILC. These same comments also apply to ILC
for nonlinear systems.
5. Connections to More General Learning Paradigms: One of the important areas of research for ILC in the future will be developing

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

465

ways to make it more general and understanding ways to connect it

to other learning methodologies. The ILC methodology described in
this paper can be described as \trajectory learning." Unfortunately, if
a new trajectory is introduced, the algorithms typically \forget" what
was learned in previous learning cycles. As we have noted, some researchers have considered this problem 112, 113, 239] but there is
much more work to be done. Of particular importance is to connect
ILC with some of the object-oriented approaches to learning that are
being developed in the articial intelligence community.
6. Wider Variety of Applications: There will almost certainly be a widervariety of applications of ILC in the future, particularly as more results are developed related to continuous and current-cycle ILC.
In short, iterative learning control is an interesting approach to control
based on the idea of iterative renement of the input to a system based
on errors recorded during past trials. It has had a stimulating period of
development up to its present state-of-the art and it has a promising future,
with numerous areas open for continued research and application.
Acknowledgments: This project has been partially funded by the INEEL
University Research Consortium. The INEEL is managed by Lockheed
Martin Idaho Technologies Company for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Idaho Operations Oce, under Contract No. DE-AC07-94ID13223. The author also gratefully acknowledges Ms. Anna Mathews' assistance in procuring references through the Idaho State University interlibrary loan system.

1] Hyun-Sik Ahn, Soo-Hyung Lee, and Do-Hyun Kim. Frequencydomain design of iterative learning controllers for feedback systems.
In IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, volume 1, pages 352{357, Athens, Greece, July 1995.
2] J. Albus. Outline for a theory of intelligence. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21(3):473{509, May/June 1991.
3] David M. Alter and Tsu-Chin Tsao. Two-dimensional exact model
matching with application to repetitive control. Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, 116:2{9, March 1994.
4] N. Amann and D. H. Owens. Non-minimum phase plants in iterative
learning control. In Second International Conference on Intelligent
Systems Engineering, pages 107{112, Hamburg-Harburg, Germany,
September 1994.
5] N. Amann and D. H. Owens. Iterative learning control for discrete
time systems using optimal feedback and feedforward actions. In

466

K. L. Moore

Proceedings of the 34th Conference on Decision and Control, New

Orleans, LA, July 1995.

6] N. Amann, D. H. Owens, and E. Rogers. 2D systems theory applied

to learning control systems. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference
on Decision and Control, Lake Buena Vista, FL, December 1994.
7] N. Amann, D. H. Owens, and E. Rogers. Iterative learning control using optimal feedback and feedforward actions. International Journal
of Control, 65(2):277{293, September 1996.
8] N. Amann, D. H. Owens, and E. Rogers. Robustness of norm-optimal
iterative learning control. In Proceedings of International Conference
on Control, volume 2, pages 1119{1124, Exeter, UK, September 1996.
9] N. Amann, D. H. Owens, E. Rogers, and A. Wahl. An H1 approach
to linear iterative learning control design. International Journal of
Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, 10(6):767{781, NovemberDecember 1996.
10] N. Amann, H. Owens, and E. Rogers. Iterative learning control
for discrete-time systems with exponential rate of convergence. IEE
Proceedings-Control Theory and Applications, 143(2):217{224, March
1996.
11] S. Arimoto. Mathematical theory of learning with applications to
robot control. In Proceedings of 4th Yale Workshop on Applications
of Adaptive Systems, pages 379{388, New Haven, Connecticut, May
1985.
12] S. Arimoto. System theoretic study of learning control. Transactions
of Society of Instrumentation and Control Engineers, 21(5):445{450,
1985.
13] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura, and F.Miyazaki. Can mechanical robots
learn by themselves? In Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium
of Robotics Research, pages 127{134, Kyoto, Japan, August 1984.
14] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura, and F. Miyazaki. Bettering operation of
dynamic systems by learning: A new control theory for servomechanism or mechatronic systems. In Proceedings of 23rd Conference on
Decision and Control, pages 1064{1069, Las Vegas, Nevada, December 1984.
15] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura, and F. Miyazaki. Bettering operation of
robots by learning. Journal of Robotic Systems, 1(2):123{140, March
1984.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

467

16] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura, and F. Miyazaki. Iterative learning control

for robot systems. In Proceedings of IECON, Tokyo, Japan, October
1984.
17] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, and S. Tamaki. Learning
control theory for dynamic systems. In Proceedings of 24th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 1375{1380, Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida, December 1985.
18] Suguru Arimoto. Ability of motion learning comes from passivity
and dissipativity of its dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian
Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
19] C. Atkeson and J. McIntyre. Robot trajectory learning through practice. In Proceedings of the 1986 IEEE Conference on Robotics and
Automation, San Francisco, California, April 1986.
20] A. Barto, R. Sutton, and C. Anderson. Neuron-like adaptive elements
that can solve dicult learning control problems. IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13(5):834{846, September 1983.
21] Z. Bien and K. M. Huh. Higher-order iterative control algorithm. In
IEE Proceedings Part D, Control Theory and Applications, volume
136, pages 105{112, May 1989.
22] Z. Bien, D. Hwang, and S. Oh. A nonlinear iterative learning method
for robot path control. Robotica, 9:387{392, 1991.
23] Shun Boming. On Iterative Learning Control. PhD thesis, National
University of Singapore, Singapore, 1996.
24] P. Bondi, G. Casalino, and L. Gambardella. On the iterative learning
control theory for robotic manipulators. IEEE Journal of Robotics
and Automation, 4(1):14{22, February 1988.
25] Gary M. Bone. A novel iterative learning control formulation of generalized predictive control. Automatica, 31(10):1483{1487, 1995.
26] C. K. Chang, R. W. Longman, and M. Phan. Techniques for improving transients in learning control systems. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, American Astronautical Society, 76:2035{2052,
1992.
27] W.S. Chang and I.H. Suh. Analysis and design of dual-repetitive
controllers. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
28] Chien Chern Cheah and Danwei Wang. Model reference learning
control scheme for a class of nonlinear systems. International Journal
of Control, 66(2):271{287, January 1997.

468

K. L. Moore

29] Chien Chong Chen, Chyi Hwang, and Ray Y. K. Yang. Optimal periodic forcing of nonlinear chemical processes for performance improvements. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 72:672{682,
August 1994.
30] Peter C. Y Chen, James K. Mills, and Kenneth C. Smith. Performance improvement of robot continuous-path operation through iterative learning using neural networks. Machine Learning, 23:191{220,
May-June 1996.
31] Y. Chen and H. Dou. Robust curve identication by iterative learning. In Proceedings of the 1st Chinese World Congress on Intelligent
Control and Intelligent Automation, Beijing, China, 1993.
32] Y. Chen, M. Sun, and H. Dou. Dual-staged P-type iterative learning
control schemes. In Proceedings of the 1st Asian Control Conference,
Tokyo, Japan, 1994.
33] Y. Chen, C. Wen, and M. Sun. Discrete-time iterative learning control of uncertain nonlinear feedback systems. In Proceedings of the
2nd Chinese World Congress on Intelligent Control and Intelligent
Automation, Xi'an, China, 1997.
34] Y. Chen, C. Wen, and M. Sun. A high-order iterative learning controller with initial state learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd Chinese
World Congress on Intelligent Control and Intelligent Automation,
Xi'an, China, 1997.
35] Y. Chen, C. Wen, J.-X. Xu, and M. Sun. extracting projectile's
aerodynamic drag coecient curve via high-order iterative learning
identication. In Proceedings of 35th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
36] Y. Chen, J.-X. Xu, and T.H. Lee. Feedback-assisted high-order iterative learning control of uncertain nonlinear discrete-time systems. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Control, Automation,
Robotics, and Vision, Singapore, December 1996.
37] Y. Chen, J.-X. Xu, T.H. Lee, and S. Yamamoto. Comparative studies
of iterative learning control schemes for a batch chemical process.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Singapore Int. Symposium on Control
Theory and Applications, Singapore, July 1997.
38] Y. Chen, J.-X. Xu, T.H. Lee, and S. Yamamoto. An iterative learning
control in rapid thermal processing. In Proceedings of IASTED Int.
Conference on Modeling, Simulation, and Optimization, Singapore,
August 1997.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

469

39] Y. Chen, J.-X. Xu, and T.-H. Tong. An iterative learning controller
using current iteration tracking error information and initial state
learning. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
40] Yangquan Chen, Changyun Wen, Jian-Xin Xu, and Mingxuan Sun.
Initial state learning method for iterative learning control of uncertain
time-varying systems. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, volume 4, pages 3996{4001, Kobe, Japan,
December 1996.
41] Yangquan Chen, Jian-Xin Xu, and Tong Heng Lee. Current iteration
tracking error assisted iterative learning control of uncertain nonlinear discrete-time systems. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, volume 3, pages 3038{3043, Kobe,
Japan, December 1996.
42] Yangquan Chen, Jian-Xin Xu, and tong Heng Lee. Current iteration tracking error assisted high-order iterative learning control of
discrete-time uncertain nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
43] Kok Kia Chew and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Steady state and stochastic performance of a modied discrete-time prototype repetitive controller. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control,
112:35{41, March 1990.
44] Chiang-Ju Chien. A discrete iterative learning control of nonlinear
time- varying systems. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, volume 3, pages 3056{3061, Kobe, Japan,
December 1996.
45] Chiang-Ju Chien. On the iterative learning control of sampled-data
systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul,
Korea, July 1997.
46] Chiang-Ju Chien and Jing-Sin Liu. P-type iterative learning controller for robust output tracking of nonlinear time-varying systems.
International Journal of Control, 64(2):319{334, May 1996.
47] Tsu chin Tsao and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Robust adaptive and repetitive digital tracking control and application to a hydraulic servo for
noncircular machining. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, 116:24{32, March 1994.
48] Chong-Ho Choi and Tae-Jeong Jang. Iterative learning control for
a general class of nonlinear feedback systems. In Proceedings of the
1995 American Control Conference, pages 2444{2448, Seattle, WA,
June 1995.

470

K. L. Moore

49] Chong-Ho Choi and Tae-Jeong Jang. Iterative learning control of

nonlinear systems with consideration on input energy. In Proceedings
of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
50] Jeong-Woo Choi, Hyun-Goo Choi, Kwang-Soon Lee, and Won-Hong
Lee. Control of ethanol concentration in a fed-batch cultivation of
acinetobacter calcoaceticus RAG-1 using a feedback-assisted iterative
learning algorithm. Journal of Biotechnology, 49:29{43, August 1996.
51] Jin Young Choi and Hyun Joo Park. Neural-based iterative learning
control for unknown systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
52] Wonsu Choi and Joongsun Yoon. An intelligent time-optimal control.
In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea,
July 1997.
53] Michel Cotsaftis. Robust asymptotic stability for intelligent controlled dynamical systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
54] J. Craig, P. Hsu, and S. Sastry. Adaptive control of mechanical manipulators. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 190{195, San Francisco, California, April 1986.
55] J.J. Craig. Adaptive control of manipulators through repeated trials.
In Proceedings of 1984 American Control Conference, pages 1566{
1572, San Diego, California, June 1984.
56] John Craig. Adaptive Control of Robot Manipulators. AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1988.
57] Y.Q. Dai, K. Usui, and M. Uchiyama. A new iterative approach to
solving inverse exible-link manipulator kinematics. In Proceedings
of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan,
December 1996.
58] D. de Roover. Synthesis of a robust iterative learning controller using
an H1 approach. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
59] Alessandro DeLuca and Stefano Panzieri. End-eector regulation
of robots with elastic elements by an iterative scheme. International
Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, 10:379{393, JulyOctober 1996.
60] Zhidong Deng, Zaixing Zhang, and Zengqi Sun. Asynchronous
stochastic learning control with accerlerative factor in multivariable
systems. In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Conference

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

61]

62]

63]

64]

65]

66]

67]

68]

69]

471

on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, volume 4, pages 3790{3794, Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 1995.
Tae-Yong Doh, Jung-Hoo Moon, Kyung Bog Jin, and Myung Jin
Chung. An iterative learning control for uncertain systems using
structured singular value. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
H. Dou, Z. Zhou, Y. Chen, J.-X. Xu, and J. Abbas. Robust motion control of electrically stimulated human limb via discrete-time
high-order iterative learning scheme. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics, and Vision,
Singapore, December 1996.
Huifang Dou, Zhaoying Zhou, Yangquan Chen, Jian-Xin Xu, and
James J. Abbas. Robust control of functional neurouscular stimulation system by discrete-time iterative learning scheme. In Proceedings
of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
Huifang Dou, Zhaoying Zhou, Mingxuan Sun, and Yangquan Chen.
Robust high-order P-type iterative learning control for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, volume 2, pages 923{
928, Beijing, China, October 1996.
H. Elci, R.W. Longman, M.Q. Phan, J. Juang, and R. Ugoletti. Automated learning control through model updating for precision motion
control. In ASME Winter Meeting, Adaptive Structures and Materials Systems Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, November 1994.
H. Elci, R.W. Longman, M.Q. Phan, J. Juang, and R. Ugoletti. Discrete frequency-based learning control for precision motion control.
In Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, San Antonio, Texas, October 1994.
H. Elci, M. Phan, and R. W. Longman. Experiments in the use of
learning control for maximum precision robot trajectory tracking. In
Proceedings of the 1994 Conference on Information Science and Systems, pages 951{958, Princeton University, Department of Electrical
Engineering, Princeton, NJ, 1994.
H. Elci, H. N. Juang R. W. Longman, M. Phan, and R. Ugoletti.
Automated learning control through model updating for precision
motion control. Adaptive Structures and Composite Materials: Analysis and Applications, ASME, AD-45/MD-54:299{314, 1994.
J. A. Franklin. Renement of robot motor skills through reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of 27th Conference on Decision and
Control, pages 1096{1101, Austin, Texas, December 1988.

472

K. L. Moore

70] James A. Frueh and Minh Q. Phan. System identication and inverse
control using input-output data from repetitive trials. In Proceedings
of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
71] K.S. Fu. Learning control systems | review and outlook. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 15:210{215, April 1970.
72] Mitsuo Fukuda and Seiichi Shin. Model reference learning control
with a wavelet network. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
73] K. Furuta and M. Yamakita. The design of a learning control system
for multivariable systems. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 371{376, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 1987.
74] S. S. Garimella and K. Srinivasan. Application of iterative learning
control to coil-to-coil control in rolling. In Proceedings of the 1995
American Control Conference, Seattle, WA, June 1995.
75] Zheng Geng, Robert Carroll, and Jahong Xie. Two-dimensional
model and algorithm analysis for a class of iterative learning control
systems. International Journal of Control, 52(4):833{862, December
1989.
76] D. Gorinevsky. An approach to parametric nonlinear least square
optimization and application to task-level learning control. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 42(7):912{927, 1997.
77] Y.L. Gu and N.K. Loh. Learning control in robotic systems. In
Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control,
pages 360{364, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 1987.
78] Kennon Guglielmo and Nader Sadegh. Theory and implementation
of a repetitive robot controller with Cartesian trajectory description.
Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 118:15{21,
March 1996.
79] Reed D. Hanson and Tsu-Chin Tsao. Compensation for cutting
force induced bore cylindricity dynamic errors - a hybrid repetitive
servo/iterative learning process feedback control approach. In Proceedings of the Japan/USA Symposium on Flexible Automation, volume 2, pages 1019{1026, Boston, MA, July 1996.
80] S. Hara, T. Omata, and M. Nakano. Synthesis of repetitive control systems and its application. In Proceedings of 24th Conference
on Decision and Control, pages 1387{1392, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida,
December 1985.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

473

81] S. Hara, Y. Yamamoto, T. Omata, and M. Nakano. Repetitive control system: A new type servo system for periodic exogenous signals.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 33(7):659{668, July 1988.
82] E. Harokopos. Optimal learning control of mechanical manipulators
in repetitive motions. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 396{401, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 1987.
83] H. Hashimoto and J.-X. Xu. Learning control systems with feedback. In Proceedings of the IEEE Asian Electronics Conference, Hong
Kong, September 1987.
84] J.E. Hauser. Learning control for a class of nonlinear systems. In
Proceedings of 26th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 859{
860, Los Angeles, California, December 1987.
85] G. Heinzinger, D. Fenwick, B. Paden, and F. Miyazaki. Robust learning control. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Decision and
Control, pages 436{440, Tampa, Florida, December 1989.
86] Greg Heinzinger, Dan Fenwick, Brad Paden, and Fumio Miyazaki.
Stability of learning control with disturbances and uncertain initial
conditions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 37(1), January
1992.
87] L. Hideg and R. Judd. Frequency domain analysis of learning systems. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Decision and Control,
pages 586{591, Austin, Texas, December 1988.
88] L. M. Hideg. Stability and convergence issues in iterative learning
control. In Proceedings Intelligent Engineering Systems Through Articial Neural Networks in Engineering Conference, volume 4, pages
211{216, St. Louis, MO, November 1994.
89] L. M. Hideg. Stability of LTV MIMO continuous-time learning control schemes: a sucient condition. In Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE
International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 285{290, 1995.
90] L. M. Hideg. Time delays in iterative learning control schemes. In
Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent
Control, pages 5{20, Monterey, CA, August 1995.
91] L. M. Hideg. Stability and convergence issues in iterative learning
control - II. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 480{485, Dearborn, MI, September
1996.

474

K. L. Moore

92] Gunnar Hillerstrom. Adaptive suppression of vibrations-a repetitive

control approach. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 4(1), January 1996.
93] Gunnar Hillerstrom and Jan Sternby. Application of repetitive control to a peristaltic pump. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 116:786{789, December 1994.
94] J. Hodgson. Structures for intelligent systems. In Proceedings of
IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 348{
353, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 1987.
95] R. Horowitz, W. Messner, and J. B. Moore. Exponential convergence
of a learning controller for robot manipulators. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 36(7):890{894, July 1991.
96] Roberto Horowitz. Learning control of robot manipulators. Journal
of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 115:402{411, June
1993.
97] Jwushemg Hu and Masayoshi Tomizuka. A digital semented repetitive control algorithm. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, 116:577{582, December 1994.
98] Jwushung Hu and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Adaptive asymptotic tracking of repetitive signals - a frequency domain approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 38(19), October 1993.
99] Y. C. Huang and R. W. Longman. The source of the often observed
property of initial convergence followed by divergence in learning and
repetitive control. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, 90:555{
572, 1996.
100] Kyungmoo Huh. A study on the robustness of the higher-order iterative learning control algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian
Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
101] D. H. Hwang, Z. Bien, and S. R. Oh. Iterative learning control
method for discrete-time dynamic systems. In IEE Proceedings Part
D, Control Theory and Applications, volume 138, pages 139{144,
March 1991.
102] H. S. Jang and R. W. Longman. A new learning control law with
monotonic decay of the tracking error norm. In Proceedings of the
Fifteenth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control
and Computing, pages 314{323, Coordinated Sciences Laboratory,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1994.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

475

103] H. S. Jang and R. W. Longman. Design of digital learning controllers

using a partial isometry. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences,
93:137{152, 1996.
104] Tae-Jeong Jang, Chong-Ho Choi, and Hyun-Sik Ahn. Iterative learning control feedback systems. Automatica, 31(2):243{248, February
1995.
105] Doyoung Jeon and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Learning hybrid force
and position control of robot manipulators. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 9:423{431, August 1993.
106] Y. An Jiang, D. J. Clements, and T. Hesketh. Betterment learning
control of nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, volume 2, pages 1702{1707, New
Orleans, LA, December 1995.
107] W. Jouse and J. Williams. PWR Heat-Up Control by Means of a SelfTeaching Neural Network. In Proceedings of International Conference
on Control and Instrumentation in Nuclear Installations, Glasgow,
May 1990.
108] R. P. Judd, R. P. Van Til, and L. Hideg. Equivalent Lyapunov and
frequency domain stability conditions for iterative learning control
systems. In Proceedings of 8th IEEE International Symposium on
Intelligent Control, pages 487{492, 1993.
109] S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, and S. Arimoto. Applications of learning
method for dynamic control of robot manipulators. In Proceedings
of 24th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 1381{1386, Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida, December 1985.
110] S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, and S. Arimoto. Hybrid position/force
control of robot manipulators based on learning method. In Proceedings of '85 International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pages
235{242, Tokyo, Japan, September 1985.
111] S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, and S. Arimoto. Convergence, stability
and robustness of learning control schemes for robot manipulators.
In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Robotic Manipulators: Modelling, Control, and Education, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
November 1986.
112] S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, and S. Arimoto. Intelligent control
of robot motion based on learning method. In Proceedings of
IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 365{
370, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January 1987.

476

K. L. Moore

113] S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, and S. Arimoto. Realization of robot

motion based on a learning method. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, 18(1):126{134, January/February 1988.
114] S. Kawamura, F. Miyazaki, M. Matsumori, and S. Arimoto. Learning
control scheme for a class of robot systems with elasticity. In Proceedings of 25th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 74{79,
Athens, Greece, December 1986.
115] Sadao Kawamura and Norihisa Fukao. Use of feedforward input patterns obtained through learning control. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
116] M. Kawato, K. Furukawa, and R. Suzuki. A hierarchical neuralnetwork model for control and learning of voluntary movement. Biological Cybernetics, 57:169{185, February 1987.
117] B. K. Kim, W. K. Chung, and Y. Youm. Robust learning control for
robot manipulators based on disturbance observer. In IECON Proceedings (Industrial Electronics Conference), volume 2, pages 1276{
1282, Taipei, Taiwan, 1996.
118] Bong-Keun Kim, Wan-Kyun Chung, and Youngil Youm. Iterative
learning method for trajectory control of robot manipulators based
on disturbance observer. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
119] Dong-Il Kim and Sungkwun Kim. On iterative learning control algorithm for industrial robots and CNC machine tools. In Proceedings of
IECON '93 - 19th Annual Conference of IEEE Industrial Electronics,
volume 1, pages 601{606, Maui, HI, November 1993.
120] Dong-Il Kim and Sungkwun Kim. An iterative learning control
method with application for CNC machine tools. IEEE Transactions
on Industry Applications, 32(1):66{72, January-February 1996.
121] Won Cheol Kim and Kwang Soon Lee. Design of quadratic criterionbased iterative learning control by principal component analysis. In
Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July
1997.
122] Jacek B. Krawczyk. Properties of repetitive control of partially observed processes. Computers and Mathematics with Applicattions,
24:111{124, October-November 1992.
123] Tae-Yong Kuc and Chae-Wook Chung. Learning control of a class of
hybrid nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

477

124] Tae-Yong Kuc and Chae-Wook Chung. An optimal learning control of robot manipulators. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
125] Tae-Yong Kuc, Jin S. Lee, and Byung-Hyun Park. Tuning convergence rate of a robust learning controller for robot manipulators. In
Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
volume 2, pages 1714{1719, New Orleans, LA, 1995.
126] Jerzy E. Kurek and Marek B. Zaremba. Iterative learning control
sysnthesis based on 2-D system theory. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 38(1), January 1993.
127] R. J. LaCarna and J. R. Johnson. A learning controller for the
megawatt load-frequency control problem. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 10(1):43{49, January 1980.
128] G. F. Ledwich and A. Bolton. Repetitive and periodic controller
design. In IEE Proceedings Part D, Control Theory and Applications,
volume 140, pages 19{24, January 1993.
129] Hak-Sung Lee and Zeungnam Bien. Study on robustness of iterative
learning control with non-zero initial error. International Journal of
Control, 64:345{359, June 1996.
130] Hak-Sung Lee and Zeungnam Bien. Robustness and convergence of a
pd-type iterative learning controller. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian
Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
131] Ju Jang Lee and Jong Woon Lee. Design of iterative learning controller with VCR servo system. IEEE Transactions on Consumer
Electronics, 39:13{24, February 1993.
132] K. S. Lee, S. H. Bang, S. Yi, J. S. Son, and S. C. Yoon. Iterative
learning control of heat up phase for a batch polymerization reactor.
Journal of Process Control, 6(4):255{262, August 1996.
133] Kwang Soon Lee and Jay H. Lee. Constrained model-based predictive control combined with iterative learning for batch or repetitive
processes. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul,
Korea, July 1997.
134] S. C. Lee, R. W. Longman, and M. Phan. Direct model reference
learning and repetitive control. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, 85, March 1994.
135] T. H. Lee, J. H. Nie, and W. K. Tan. Developments in learning
control enhancements for nonlinear servomechanisms. Mechatronics,
5(8):919{936, December 1995.

478

K. L. Moore

136] G. Lee-Glauser, J. N. Juang, and R. W. Longman. Comparison

and combination of learning controllers: computational enhancement
and experiments. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics,
19(5):1116{1123, 1996.
137] C. James Li, Homayoon S. M. Beigi, and Shengyi Li. Nonlinear
piezo-actuator control by learning self-tuning regulator. Journal of
Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 115:720{723, December 1993.
138] Guo Li, Hao Li, and Jian-Xin Xu. The study and design of the longitudinal learning control system of the automobile. In Proceedings
of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
139] Yieth-Jang Liang and D. P. Looze. Performance and robustness issues in iterative learning control. In Proceedings of 32nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, volume 3, pages 1990{1995, San
Antonio, TX, December 1993.
140] R. Longman, M.Q. Phan, and J. Juang. An overview of a sequence of
research developments in learning and repetitive control. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Motion and Vibration
Control, Yokohama, Japan, September 1992.
141] R. W. Longman, C. K. Chang, and M. Phan. Discrete time learning
control in nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the 1992 AIAA/AAS
Astrodynamics Conference, pages 501{511, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 1992.
142] R. W. Longman and Y. C. Huang. Use of unstable repetitive control
for improved tracking accuracy. Adaptive Structures and Composite Materials: Analysis and Applications. ASME, AD-45/MD-54:315{
324, 1994.
143] R. W Longman and Y.S. Ryu. Indirect learning control algorithms
for time-varying and time-invariant systems. In Proceedings of the
Thirtieth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control
and Computing, pages 731{741, Coordinated Science Laboratory,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1992.
144] R. W. Longman and Y. Wang. Phase cancellation learning control
using FFT weighted frequency response identication. Advances in
the Astronautical Sciences, 93:85{101, 1996.
145] Richard W. Longman. Design methodologies in learning and repetitive control. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference,
Seoul, Korea, July 1997.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

479

146] Alessandro De Luca, Giorgio Paesano, and Giovanni Ulivi. A

frequency-domain approach to learning control: implementaion for
a robot manipulator. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
39(1), February 1992.
147] P. Lucibello. Output regulation of exible mechanisms by learning.
In Proceedings of the 1992 Conference on Decision and Control, Tucson, AZ, December 1992.
148] P. Lucibello. On trajectory tracking learning of exible joint arms.
International Journal of Robotics and Automation, 11(4):190{194,
1996.
149] Pasquale Lucibello. Repositioning control of robotic arms by learning. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 39(8), August 1994.
150] Pasquale Lucibello. Output zeroing with internal stability by learning. Automatica, 31(11):1665{1672, November 1995.
151] C. C. H. Ma. Stability robustness of repetitive control systems with
zero phase compensation. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 112:320{324, September 1990.
152] C. C. H. Ma. Direct adaptive rapid tracking of short complex trajectories. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control,
116:537{541, September 1994.
153] Tetsuya Manabe and Fumio Miyazaki. Learning control based on
local linearization by using DFT. Journal of Robotic Systems,
11(2):129{141, 1994.
154] W. Messner, R. Horowitz, W. Kao, and M. Boals. A new adaptive
learning rule. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 36(2):188{
197, February 1991.
155] R. H. Middleton, G. C. Goodwin, and R. W. Longman. A method for
improving the dynamic accuracy of a robot performing a repetitive
task. International Journal of Robotics Research, 8:67{74, 1989.
156] T. Mita. Repetitive control of mechanical systems. In Proceedings of
1984 ATACS, Izu, Japan, 1984.
157] T. Mita and E. Kato. Iterative control and its application to motion control of robot arm { a direct approach to servo-problems. In
Proceedings of 24th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 1393{
1398, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, December 1985.
158] T. Mita and E. Kato. Iterative control of mechanical manipulators.
In Proceedings of 15th ISIR, Tokyo, Japan, 1985.

480

K. L. Moore

159] Jung-Ho Moon, Moon-Noh Lee, Myung Jin Chung, Soo Yul Jung,
and Dong Ho Shin. Track-following control for optical disk drives
using an iterative learning scheme. IEEE Transactions on Consumer
Electronics, 42(2):192{198, May 1996.
160] K.L. Moore. Design Techniques for Transient Response Control.
PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1989.
161] K.L. Moore. A reinforcement-learning neural network for the control of nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of 1991 American Control
Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, June 1991.
162] K.L. Moore. Iterative Learning Control for Deterministic Systems.
Springer-Verlag, Advances in Industial Control, London, U.K., 1993.
163] K.L. Moore, S.P. Bhattacharyya, and M. Dahleh. Some results on
iterative learning. In Proceedings of 1990 IFAC World Congress,
Tallin, Estonia, USSR, August 1990.
164] K.L. Moore, M. Dahleh, and S.P. Bhattacharyya. Learning control for robotics. In Proceedings of 1988 International Conference on Communications and Control, pages 976{987, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, October 1988.
165] K.L. Moore, M. Dahleh, and S.P. Bhattacharyya. Articial neural
networks for learning control. TCSP Research Report 89{011, Department of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, July 1989.
166] K.L. Moore, M. Dahleh, and S.P. Bhattacharyya. Iterative learning
for trajectory control. In Proceedings of 28th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, Tampa, Florida, December 1989.
167] K.L. Moore, M. Dahleh, and S.P. Bhattacharyya. Some results on iterative learning control. TCSP Research Report 89{004, Department
of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas, January 1989.
168] K.L. Moore, M. Dahleh, and S.P. Bhattacharyya. Adaptive gain
adjustment for a learning control method for robotics. In Proceedings
of 1990 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 1990.
169] K.L. Moore, M. Dahleh, and S.P. Bhattacharyya. Iterative learning
control: A survey and new results. Journal of Robotic Systems, 9(5),
July 1992.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

481

170] K.L. Moore and Anna Mathews. Iterative learning control for systems with non-uniform trial length with applications to gas-metal arc
welding. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul,
Korea, July 1997.
171] D.S. Naidu, K.L. Moore, R. Yender, and J. Tyler. Gas metal arc
welding control: Part I { modeling and analysis. In Proceedings of
the 2nd World Congress of Nonlinear Analysts, Athens, Greece, July
1996.
172] K. Narendra and M. Thathachar. Learning automata | a survey.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 4(4):323{334,
July 1974.
173] K. Narendra and M Thathacher. Learning Automata. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Clis, New Jersey, 1989.
174] S.-R. Oh, Z. Bien, and I. Suh. An iterative learning control method
with application for the robot manipulator. IEEE Journal of Robotics
and Automation, 4(5):508{514, October 1988.
175] Giuseppe Oriolo, Stefano Panzieri, and Giovanni Ulivi. Iterative
learning controller for nonholonomic robots. In IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 3, pages 2676{2681,
Minneapolis, MN, 1996.
176] D. H. Owens. Iterative learning control-convergence using high gain
feedback. In Proceedings of the 1992 Conference on Decision and
Control, volume 4, page 3822, Tucson, AZ, December 1992.
177] D. H. Owens, N. Amann, and E. Rogers. Iterative learning control-an
overview of recent algorithms. Applied Mathematics and Computer
Science, 5(3):425{438, 1995.
178] D. H. Owens, N. Amann, and E. Rogers. Systems structure in iterative learning control. In Proceedings of International Conference on
System Structure and Control, pages 500{505, Nantes, France, July
1995.
179] H. Ozaki, C. J. Lin, T. Shimogawa, and H. Qiu. Control of mechatronic systems by learning actuator reference trajectories described
by B-spline curves. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, volume 5, pages 4679{4684,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, October 1995.
180] B. H. Park and Jin S. Lee. Continuous type fuzzy learning control
for a class of nonlinear dynamics system. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.

482

K. L. Moore

181] Kwang-Hyun Park, Zeungnam Bien, and Dong-Hwan Hwang. Design

of an iterative learning controller for a class of linear dynamic systems
with time- delay. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference,
Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
182] M. Phan. A formulation of learning control for trajectory tracking
using basis functions. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
183] M. Phan and R. W. Longman. Liapunov based model reference
learning control. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, pages
927{936, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Coordinated
Science Laboratory, September 1988.
184] M. Phan and R. W. Longman. A mathematical theory of learning
control for linear discrete multivariable systems. In Proceedings of the
AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Conference, pages 740{746, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 1988.
185] M. Phan and R. W. Longman. Indirect learning control with guaranteed stability. In Proceedings of the 1989 Conference on Information
Sciences and Systems, pages 125{131, Johns Hopkins University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Baltimore, MD,
1989.
186] M. Phan, Y. Wei, L. Horta, J. Juang, and R. Longman. Learning control for slewing of a exible panel. In Proceedings of the
1989 VPI&SU/AIAA Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Large
Structures, ?, May 1989.
187] M.Q. Phan and M. Chew. Application of learning control theory
to mechanisms, part 1: Inverse kinematics and parametric error compensation. In Proceedings of the 23rd ASME Mechanisms Conference,
Minneapolis, MN, September 1994.
188] M.Q. Phan and M. Chew. Application of learning control theory
to mechanisms, part 2: reduction of residual vibrations in electromechanical bonding machines. In Proceedings of the 23rd ASME Mechanisms Conference, Minneapolis, MN, September 1994.
189] M.Q. Phan and M. Chew. Synthesis of four-bar function generators
by an iterative learning control procedure. In Proceedings of the 25th
ASME Mechanisms Conference, Irvine, California, August 1996.
190] M.Q. Phan and J. Juang. Designs of learning controllers based on an
auto-regressive representation of a linear system. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 19(2):355{362, 1996.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

483

191] M.Q. Phan and R. Longman. Learning system identication. In

Proceedings of the 20th Annual Pittsburgh Conference on Modeling
and Simulation, Pittsburgh, PA, May 1989.
192] M.Q. Phan and H. Rabitz. Learning control of quantum-mechanical
systems by identication of eective input-output maps. Chemical
Physics, 217(2):389{400, 1997.
193] J.B. Plant. Some Iterative Solutions in Optimal Control. M.I.T.
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968.
194] A. N. Poo, K. B. Lim, and Y. X. Ma. Application of discrete learning
control to a robotic manipulator. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 12(1):55{64, March 1996.
195] E. Rogers and D.H. Owens. Lyapunov stability theory and performance bounds for a class of 2D linear systems. Multidimensional
Systems and Signal Processing, 7:179{194, 1996.
196] Cheol Lae Roh, Moon No Lee, and Myung Jin Chung. ILC for nonminimum phase systems. International Journal of Systems Science,
27(4):419{424, April 1996.
197] Nai run Yu and Bai wu Wan. Iterative learning control for the dynamics in steady state optimization of industrial processes. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July
1997.
198] Y. S. Ryu, R. W. Longman, E. J. Solcz, and J. de Jong. Experiments
in the use of repetitive control in belt drive systems. In Proceedings
of the Thirty-second Annual Allerton Conference on Communication,
Control and Computing, pages 324{334, Coordinated Sciences Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1994.
199] S. Saab. Discrete-time learning control algorithm for a class of nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the 1995 American Control Conference, Seattle, WA, June 1995.
200] S. Saab, W. Vogt, and M. Mickle. Learning control algorithms for
tracking slowly varying trajectories. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics { Part B: Cybernetics, 27(4):657{670, 1997.
201] Samer S. Saab. On the P-type learning control. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 39(11), November 1994.
202] Samer S. Saab. A discrete-time learning control algorithm for a class
of linear time-variant systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 40(6), June 1995.

484

K. L. Moore

203] Nader Sadegh. Synthesis of a stable discrete-time repetitive controller

for MIMO systems. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and
Control, 117:92{98, March 1995.
204] Nader Sadegh and Kennon Guglielmo. A new repetitive controller
for mechnaical manipulators. Journal of Robotic Systems, 8:507{529,
August 1991.
205] Nader Sadegh, Roberto Horowitz, and Wei-Wen Kao. A unied approach to the design of adaptive and repetitive controllers for robotic
manipulators. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 112:618{629, December 1990.
206] G. Sardidis. Self-Organizing Control of Stochastic Systems. Marcel
Dekker, New York, New York, 1977.
207] Zvi Shiller and Hai Chang. Trajectory preshaping for high-speed
articulated systems. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and
Control, 117:304{310, September 1995.
208] L. G. Sison and E. K. P. Chong. No-reset iterative learning control.
In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
volume 3, pages 3062{3063, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
209] C. Smith and M. Tomizuka. Shock rejection for repetitive control
using a disturbance observer. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
210] T. Sogo and N. Adachi. Convergence rates and robustness of iterative
learning control. In Proceedings of 35th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, volume 3, pages 3050{3055, Kobe, Japan, December
1996.
211] K. Srinivasan and F. R. Shaw. Analysis and design of repetitive control systems using the regeneration spectrum. Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement, and Control, 113:216{222, June 1991.
212] D. A. Streit, C. M. Krousgrill, and A. K. Bajaj. A preliminary investigation of the dynamic stability of exible manipulators performing
repetitive tasks. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and
Control, 108:206{214, September 1986.
213] D. A. Streit, C. M. Krousgrill, and A. K. Bajaj. Nonlinear response
of exible robotic manipulators performing repetitive tasks. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 111:470{480,
September 1989.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

485

214] Y. Suganuma and M. Ito. Learning control and knowledge representation. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages 354{359, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, January
1987.
215] T. Sugie and T. Ono. An iterative learning control law for dynamical
systems. Automatica, 27:729{732, 1991.
216] Dong Sun and Xiaolun Shi Yunhui Liu. Adaptive learning control
for cooperation of two robots manipulating a rigid object with model
uncertainties. Robotica, 14(4):365{373, July-August 1996.
217] M Sun, Y. Chen, and H. Dou. Robust higher order repetitive learning
control algorithm for tracking control of delayed systems. In Proceedings of the 1992 Conference on Decision and Control, Tucson, AZ,
December 1992.
218] M. Sun, B. Huang, X. Zhang, and Y. Chen. Robust convergence of
D-type learning controller. In Proceedings of the 2nd Chinese World
Congress on Intelligent Control and Intelligent Automation, Xi'an,
China, 1997.
219] Mingxuan Sun, Baojian Huang, Xuezhi Zhang, Yangquan Chen, and
Jian-Xin Xu. Selective learning with a forgetting factor for trajectory
tracking of uncertain nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
220] R. Sutton. Learning to predict by the methods of temporal dierences. Machine Learning, 3:9{44, 1988.
221] S.Wang. Inversion of nonlinear dynamical systems. Technical Report, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
California, Davis, California, 1988.
222] M. Togai and O. Yamano. Analysis and design of an optimal learning
control scheme for industrial robots: A discrete system approach. In
Proceedings of 24th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 1399{
1404, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, December 1985.
223] Masayoshi Tomizuka, Tsu Chin Tsao, and Kok Kia Chew. Analysis
and synthesis of discrete-time repetitive controllers. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 111:353{358, September
1989.
224] S. K. Tso, Y. H. Fung, and N. L. Lin. Tracking improvement for robot
manipulator control using neural-network learning. In Proceedings of
the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.

486

K. L. Moore

225] S. K. Tso and Y. X. Ma. Cartesian-based learning control for robots

in discrete-time formulation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics, 22, September 1992.
226] Y.A. Tsypkin. Adaptation and Learning in Automatic Systems. Academic Press, New York, New York, 1971.
227] Y.A. Tsypkin. Foundations of the Theory of Learning Systems. Academic Press, New York, New York, 1973.
228] E. D. Tung, G. Anwar, and M. Tomizuka. Low velocity friction compensation and feedforward solution based on repetitive control. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 115:279{284,
June 1993.
229] M. Uchiyama. Formation of high speed motion pattern of mechanical
arm by trial. Transactions of the Society of Instrumentation and
Control Engineers, 19(5):706{712, May 1978.
230] Y. Uno, Y. Kawanishi, M. Kanda, and R. Suzuki. Iterative control
for a multi-joint arm and learning of an inverse-dynamics model.
Systems and Computers in Japan, 24(14):38{47, December 1993.
231] K. P. Venugopal, A. S. Pandya, and R. Sudhakar. A recurrent neural network controller and learning algorithm for the on-line learning control of autonomous underwater vehicles. Neural Networks,
7(5):833{846, 1994.
232] K. P. Venugopal, R. Sudhakar, and A. S. Pandya. On-line learning
control of autonomous underwater vehicles using feedforward neural
networks. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 17:308{319, October 1992.
233] M. Vidyasagar. A Theory of Learning and Generalization. SpringerVerlag, New York, New York, 1997.
234] M.A. Waddoups and K.L. Moore. Neural networks for iterative learning control. In Proceedings of 1992 American Control Conference,
Chicago, Illinois, June 1992.
235] S. Wang. Computed reference error adjustment technique (CREATE) for the control of robot manipulators. In Proceedings of 22nd
Annual Allerton Conference, pages 874{876, October 1984.
236] S. Wang and I. Horowitz. CREATE { a new adaptive technique. In
Proceedings of 19th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and
Systems, March 1985.

Chapter 9. Iterative Learning Control

487

237] Y. Wang and R. W. Longman. Use of non-causal digital signal processing in learning and repetitive control. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, 90:649{668, 1996.
238] Chen Wen and Liu Deman. Learning control for a class of nonlinear systems with exogenous disturbances. International Journal of
Systems Science, 27(12):1453{1459, December 1996.
239] J.-X. Xu. Direct learning of control input proles with dierent time
scales. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
240] J.-X. Xu and Z. Qu. Robust learning control for a class of non-linear
systems. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
241] Jian-Xin Xu, Y. Dote, Xiaowei Wang, and Coming Shun. On the
instability of iterative learning control due to sampling delay. In
Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE IECON 31st International Conference
on Industrial Electronics, Control, and Instrumentation, volume 1,
pages 150{155, Orlando, FL, November 1995.
242] Jian-Xin Xu, Lee Tong Heng, and H. Nair. A revised iterative learning control strategy for robotic manipulators. In Proceedings 1993
Asia-Pacic Workshop on Advances in Motion Control, pages 88{93,
Singapore, July 1993.
243] Jian-Xin Xu and Yanbin Song. Direct learning control of high-order
systems for trajectories with dierent time scales. In Proceedings of
the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
244] Jian-Xin Xu and Yanbin Song. Direct learning control scheme with
an application to a robotic manipulator. In Proceedings of the 2nd
Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
245] Jian-Xin Xu, Xiao-Wei Wang, and Tong Heng Lee. Analysis of
continuous iterative learning control systems using current cycle
feedback. In Proceedings of 1995 American Control Conference ACC'95, volume 6, pages 4221{4225, Seattle, WA, June 1995.
246] Jian-Xin Xu and Tao Zhu. Direct learning control of trajectory tracking with dierent time and magnitude scales for a class of nonlinear
uncertain systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
247] W. Xu, C. Shao, and T Chai. Learning control for a class of constrained mechanical systems with uncertain disturbances. In Proceedings of the 1997 American Control Conference, Albuquerque, NM,
June 1997.

488

K. L. Moore

248] M. Yamakita and K. Furuta. Iterative generation of virtual reference

for a manipulator. Robotica, 9:71{80, 1991.
249] Tae yong Kuc, Kwanghee Nam, and Jin S. Lee. An iterative learning
control of robot manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
Automation, 7:835{842, December 1991.
250] K. Y. Yu, C. H. Choi, and T. J. Jang. An iterative learning control for the precision improvement of a CNC machining center. In
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Signal Processing
Applications and Technology, volume 2, pages 1055{1060, Dallas, TX,
October 1994.
251] B. S. Zhang and J. R. Leigh. Predictive time-sequence iterative learning control with application to a fermentation process. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Control and Applications,
volume 2, pages xviii, viii, 982, Vancouver, BC, Canada, September
1993.
252] Jian-Hua Zhang and Li-Min Jia. Coordination level in hierarchical
intelligent control systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Control
Conference, Seoul, Korea, July 1997.
253] Zhaowei Zhong. An application of H-innity control and iterative
learning control to a scanner driving system. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, volume 2, pages 981{988, Singapore, July 1995.
254] A. Zilouchian. An iterative learning control technique for a dual
arm robotic system. In Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 4, pages 1528{1533,
San Diego, CA, May 1994.