Quasi-Periodic Gaussian Process Predictive Iterative Learning Control
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Repetitive motion tasks are common in robotics, but performance can degrade over time due to environmental changes and robot wear and tear. Iterative learning control (ILC) improves performance by using information from previous iterations to compensate for expected errors in future iterations. This work incorporates the use of Quasi-Periodic Gaussian Processes (QPGPs) into a predictive ILC framework to model and forecast disturbances and drift across iterations. Using a recent structural equation formulation of QPGPs, the proposed approach enables efficient inference with complexity $\mathcal{O}(p^3)$ instead of $\mathcal{O}(i^2p^3)$, where $p$ denotes the number of points within an iteration and $i$ represents the total number of iterations, specially for larger $i$. This formulation also enables parameter estimation without loss of information, making continual GP learning computationally feasible within the control loop. By predicting next-iteration error profiles rather than relying only on past errors, the controller achieves faster convergence and maintains this under time-varying disturbances. We benchmark the method against both standard ILC and conventional Gaussian Process (GP)-based predictive ILC on three tasks, autonomous vehicle trajectory tracking, a three-link robotic manipulator, and a real-world Stretch robot experiment. Across all cases, the proposed approach converges faster and remains robust under injected and natural disturbances while reducing computational cost. This highlights its practicality across a range of repetitive dynamical systems.
Results and benchmarks
Repetitive motion tasks are common in robotics, but performance can degrade over time due to environmental changes and robot wear and tear.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX