ADAPTIVE NEURAL NETWORK CONTROL BY ADAPTIVE INTERACTION

George Saikalis
Hitachi America, Ltd.
Research and Development Division
34500 Grand River Avenue
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335

Feng Lin
Wayne State University
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
5050 Anthony Wayne Drive
Detroit, Michigan 48202
Abstract

In this paper, we propose an approach to adaptive neural network control by

using a new adaptation algorithm. The algorithm is derived from the theory of
adaptive interaction. The principle behind the adaptation algorithm is a simple but
efficient methodology to perform gradient descent optimization in the parametric
space. Unlike the approach based on the back-propagation algorithm, this
approach will not require the plant to be converted to its neural network
equivalent, a major obstacle in early approaches. By applying this adaptive
algorithm, the same adaptation as the back-propagation algorithm is achieved
without the need of backward propagating the error throughout a feedback
network. This important property makes it possible to adapt the neural network
controller directly. Control of various systems, including non-minimum phase
systems, is simulated to demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithm.

Keywords:

Adaptive Interaction, Adaptive Control, Neural Network Control, and

Back-propagation

1.

Introduction

Since their rebirth in 1980s, neural networks have found applications in many
engineering fields, including control. For example, neural networks have been
used for system identification [1] [2] [3] and adaptive control [4] [5] [6] [7]. Neural
network controllers can control not only linear systems but also nonlinear
systems [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Neural network control designs are divided into
two major categories: (1) the direct design where the controller is a neural
network [14] [15] and (2) the indirect design where the controller is not itself a
neural network, but uses neural networks in its design and adaptation [16] [17].
Issues such as robustness [18] and stability [19] have also been discussed.
Many books on neural network control have been published, including [20] [21]
[22] [23].

There are two major factors that contribute to the popularity of neural networks.
The first factor is the ability of neural networks to approximate arbitrary nonlinear
functions [24] [25]. This is important because in many cases control objectives
can be more effectively achieved by using a nonlinear controller. The second
factor is the capability of neural networks to adapt [25] [26]. In fact, the way for
neural networks to adapt is very natural. It requires no model building or
parameter identification. Such a natural adaptivity is rather unique among manmade systems (but abundant in natural systems). It makes control design a much
easy job. For example, we all know how difficult it is to design a nonlinear
controller. However, if we can let a neural network controller to adapt itself, then
we can sit back and relax. (We know that this will make some people nervous, as
they will insist on the proof of stability.)

To adapt neural networks, many learning (or adaptation) algorithms have been
proposed, the two essential categories being the supervised learning and the
unsupervised learning [5] [25] [26]. Within each of these categories, there are
algorithms for feedback and feedforward neural networks. For the unsupervised

learning applied to feedback networks, there is the Hopfield and Kohonen

approach among many others. For the unsupervised learning applied to
feedforward networks, there are the learning matrix and counterpropagation. For
the supervised learning applied to feedback networks, there are the Boltzmann
machine, recurrent cascade correlation and learning vector quantization. For the
supervised learning applied to feedforward networks, there are back-propagation,
time delay neural networks and perceptrons. These examples of learning
algorithms are by no means exhaustive; there are many others available in the
literature.

However, there is one main obstacle in the way to adapt neural network
controllers. That is, some most efficient adaptation algorithms such as backpropagation algorithm cannot be applied directly to neural network controllers. To
use back-propagation algorithm, the system must consist of pure neurons. This
is because the back-propagation algorithm relies on a dedicated feedback
network to propagate the error back. No such network can be constructed if the
original system does not consist of pure neurons. However, the neural network
control system is hybrid because the plant to be controlled is usually not a
neural network. Therefore is it not possible to apply back-propagation algorithm
to adapt the controller directly.

To bypass this obstacle, people have tried to approximate the plant with a neural
network. But this may not always work because of the error in approximation. So,
what can we do? Fortunately, there is one adaptation algorithm proposed by
Brandt and Lin [27] that can do the same job as the back-propagation algorithm
but requires no feedback networks.

Using Brandt-Lin algorithm, the errors required for adaptation is inferred from
local information in such a way that the error back-propagation is done implicitly
rather than explicitly. As a result, Brandt-Lin algorithm can be implemented in a
simple

and

straightforward

manner

without

using

feedback

network.

Mathematically, however, it can be shown that Brandt-Lin algorithm is equivalent

to the back-propagation algorithm.

Furthermore, Brandt-Lin algorithm can be applied to arbitrary systems, including

hybrid systems as we are dealing with in neural network control systems. This is
because Brandt-Lin algorithm is derived from a theory of adaptive interaction that
is applicable to a large class of systems. For example, it has been applied to selftuning PID controllers [28] and parameter estimation [29].

Using Brandt-Lin algorithm, we can adapt a neural network controller directly

without approximating the plant by a neural network. This not only eliminates the
error in approximation, but also significantly reduces the complexity of design.

The rest of the paper will be organized as follows. In Section 2, we will introduce
the theory of adaptive interaction and review Brandt-Lin algorithm for adaptation
in neural networks. In Section 3, we will propose our adaptive neural network
controller and apply Brandt-Lin algorithm to derive the adaptation law for the
controller. Simulation results will be presented in Section 4.

2.

Theory and Background of Interactive Adaptation

The proposed adaptation algorithm is based on a recently developed theory of

adaptive interaction [27]. A general adaptation algorithm developed in the theory
of adaptive interaction is applied to adapt the system coefficients. Depending on
the application and configuration of the algorithm, the adjusted coefficients can
be neural network weights, PID gains or transfer function coefficients. To apply
the algorithm to a control system, the only information needed about the plant is
its Frchet derivative. Furthermore, it will be shown that the Frchet derivative
can be approximated by a certain constant. This will make the algorithm robust to
system uncertainties and changes and hence can be applicable to a large class
of systems.

The theory of interactive adaptation considers N subsystems called devices.

Each device (indexed by n := {1,2,,N}) has an integrable output signal yn
and an integrable input signal xn. The dynamics of each device is described as a
causal functional:
Fn

n n ,

where n and n are the input and output spaces respectively. Therefore, the
relation between input and output of the nth device is given by:
y n ( t ) = (Fn o x n )( t ) = Fn [ x n ( t )],

where denotes functional composition.

The interactions among devices are achieved by connections. Figure 1
shows a graphical illustration of devices and their connections. The set of all
connections is denoted by C.
PostC1

PreC1
C1

Device 1

Device 2

C3

C2

C4

Device 3
Device 4

Device 5

Figure 1: Devices and their connections

In this paper, the following notations are used to represent relations between
devices and connections:
prec is the device whose output is conveyed by connection c,
postc is the device whose input depends on the signal conveyed by c,
In = { c : prec = n } is the set of input interactions for the nth device, and
On = { c : postc = n } is the set of output interactions for the nth device.

We assume linear interaction among devices and external signal un(t), that is,
x n ( t) = un (t) +

cIn

y pre c ( t ),

where c are the connection weights.

With this linear interaction, the dynamics of the system is described by
y n ( t ) = Fn [u n ( t ) +

c In

y pre c ( t ) ],

nN

The goal of the adaptation algorithm is to adapt the connection weights c so the
performance index E(y1, .,yn, u1, .,un) as a function of the inputs and outputs
will be minimized. To present the algorithm, we must first introduce the Frchet
derivatives [30]. As described in [30], let T be a transformation defined on an
open domain D in a normed space X and having range in a normed space Y. If
for a fixed xD and each hX there exists T(x;h)Y which is linear and
continuous with respect to h such that
lim
|| T ( x + h) T ( x ) T ( x ; h) ||
=0
||h||0

|| h ||

then T is said to be Frchet differentiable at x and T(x;h) is said to be the

Frchet differential of T at x with increment h. In our case, T(x)=Fn(x)and T(x;h)=
Fn ( x ) o h , where Fn (x ) is the Frchet derivative.

The adaptation algorithm is given in the following theorem [27]. For the sake of
simplicity, the explicit reference to time is removed.
Theorem:
For the system with dynamics given by
y n = Fn [u n +

cIn

y pre c ],

nN

assume that the connection weights c are adapted according to

dE
s [ x post s ]
o F post
dy post s
E
c [ x post c ] o y pre c ,

) o F post
& c = ( s& s
dE

y
s O post c
post
c
s [ x post s ] o y post c
o F post
dy post s

cC

-------- (1)
where > 0 is the adaptation coefficient. If (1) has a unique solution for & c , cC
(that is, the Jacobian determinant must not be zero in the region of interest), then
the performance index E(y1, .,yn, u1, .,un) will decrease monotonically with
time and the following equation is always satisfied:
& c =

dE
,
d c

cC

It is important to note that if Fn and E are instantaneous functions, then the

functional composition can be replaced by multiplication. Equation (1) will then
be simplified to:
y
c .[ x post c ]. pre c
& c = Fpost
y post
c

E
. s & s Fpost
-------- (2)
c .[ x post c ].y pre c .
sO

y
post
c
post c

The above equations can be applied to a very general class of systems, including
neural networks, as shown below.

A neural network will be decomposed in multiple devices as described in Figure

1. Figure 2 shows a graphical representation for a simple neural network.

x1

r1

w1

p3

(.)

r3

w5

Log-Sig

w2

w3

x2

r2

w4

p4

(.)

r4

w6

Log-Sig

Figure 2: A simple neural network

p5

(.)

r5

Here we use the notation commonly used in neural networks as follows.

n is the label for a particular neuron;
s is the label for a particular synapse;
Dn is the set of dendritic (input) synapses of neuron, n;
An is the set of axonic (output) synapses of neuron, n;
pres is the presynaptic neuron corresponding to synapse, s;
posts is the postsynaptic neuron corresponding to synapse, s;
ws is the strength (weight) of synapse, s;
pn is the membrane potential of neuron, n;
rn is the firing rate of neuron, n;
is the direct feedback coefficient for all neurons;
fn is the direct feedback signal; and
is the sigmoidal function; ( x ) =

1
.
1 + e x

Mathematically, the neural network and adaptation algorithm are described as

follows.
pn =

sDn

s pre s

rn = (p n )

If we denote
n =

1 d
2 dt

s A n

2
s

-------- (3)

&s
w

s A n

then by applying the adaptation law in (2), the weight adaptation becomes:
& s = rpre ( post ( p post ) + fpost )
w
s
s
s
s

-------- (4)

Equations (3) and (4) describe Brandt-Lin algorithm for adaptation in neural
networks. As shown in [27], it is equivalent to back-propagation algorithm but
requires no feedback network to back-propagate the error.

3.

Adaptive Neural Network Controller

We now apply Brandt-Lin adaptation algorithm to neural network control. The

proposed closed loop configuration of a neural network control system is shown
in Figure 3.

Input Excitation
Signal

error

Neural Network
Controller

Proposed
Neural Network
Adaptation
Algorithm

Plant
Gp(s)

W1
W2
|
|
Wn

Figure 3: Neural network based control system

To be more specific, the neural network controller have two inputs e1 and e2. e1 is
the error between the set point and the plant output and e2 is a delayed signal
based on e1.
The reason for introducing e2 is as follows. Since the neural network controller is
itself a memory-less device, in order for control output to depend not only on the
current input (error in our case), but also on past inputs, some delayed signals
must be introduced. In this paper, we will consider only one simple delayed
signal. However, in principle, multiple delayed signals can be introduced (that is,
the neural network controller will have more than two inputs). Hence, the
configuration of the neural network controller is further described in Figure 4.

e1

Neural Network
Controller

Gp(s)

Delay

e2

Figure 4: Neural network controller

If we use the simple neural network with two hidden neurons as in Figure 2, then
the neural network controller is shown in Figure 5. More sophisticated neural
network can be used to improve the performance.

e1

r1

w1

p3

r3

w5
A

Log-Sig

w2

p5
+/- Sig

w3
e2

r2

w4

w6

p4
Log-Sig

Figure 5: Adaptive neural network controller configuration

In Figure 5, we propose two ways to configure he output stage of the controller:

1) tangent sigmoid at the output and 2) constant gain output.

The reason behind the tangent sigmoid (tan-sig) is the ability to provide a dual
polarity signal to the output. Based on simulation results, the simple constant
gain output will also work and often provide a better result.

Mathematically, the input-output relations of neurons are as follows:

10

r1 = e1

and

r2 = e2

p3 = w1r1 + w2r2

and

p4 = w3r1 + w4r2

r3 = (p3)

and

r4 = (p3)

p5 = w5r3 + w6r4
Let
E = e 12 = ( r y )2 = r2 2.y.r + y2
Then
E
= 2 .r + 2 .y = 2 .( r y ) = 2 .e 1 .
y

Apply Brandt-Lin algorithm of Equations (3) and (4), we have

w& 1 = r1 ( 3 ( p 3 ) + . 0 ) = e 1 . 3 . ( p 3 )
w& 2 = r 2 ( 3 ( p 3 ) + . 0 ) = e 2 . 3 . ( p 3 )
w& 3 = r1 ( 4 ( p 4 ) + . 0 ) = e 1 . 4 . ( p 4 )
w& 4 = r 2 ( 4 ( p 4 ) + . 0 ) = e 2 . 4 . ( p 4 )

where 3 = w 5 w& 5 and 4 = w 6 w& 6 .

The adaptation law for w5 and w6 is more complicated as it is linked to the plant
to be controlled. By Equation (2), since Opostc is empty, we have
w&

c .[ u ]. r 3 .( 2 .e 1 )
= .F post

If the Frchet derivative is approximated by a constant that will be absorbed in ,

then the above expression is approaximated by
w& 5 = .r 3 .e 1

Similarly,
w& 6 = .r 4 .e 1

The constant is considered as the adaptation rate or learning rate. It will be

varied to analyze the rate of adaptation of the neural network controller.

11

4.

Simulation results

4.1.

Matlab/Simulink model

To demonstrate the theory described previously, software simulation has been

performed. The MatLab/Simulink model is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Simulink model of the adaptive neural network controller

12

4.2.

Effects of initial weights

This section covers the investigation of the effect of the initial weights on the
convergence of the algorithm. The following elements are set during the
simulation.
88 . 76
s ( s + 21 . 526 )( s + 2 .474 )

Plant:

G( s ) =

Input Signal:

Amplitude: 10
Type: Sinewave
requency: 0.01 Hz

Output Stage:

Tangent Sigmoid

Learning Rate:

=10

The results of four simulations with different initial weights are shown in Figures
7-10 and summarized in Table 1. It is observed that te initial weights must have
opposite signs in the hidden units of the neuron connection link.
Table 1: Effects of the initial weights on adaptation
Figure Number

Initial Weights

Results (500s)

Figure 7

W1=-100, W2=100, W3=100

Adapted

W4=-100, W5=-100, W6=100

Figure 8

W1=-1, W2=1, W3=1

Adapted

W4=-1, W5=-1, W6=1

Figure 9

W1=1, W2=1, W3=1

Not Adapting

W4=1, W5=1, W6=1

Figure 10

W1=100, W2=100, W3=100

W4=100, W5=100, W6=100

13

Not Adapting

Figure 7

Figure 8

14

Figure 9

Figure 10

15

4.3.

Effects of learning rates

This section covers the effects of the learning rates on the adaptation. The
following elements are set during simulation.
88 .76
s(s + 21 .526 )(s + 2 .474 )

Plant:

G(s ) =

Input Signal:

Type: Sinewave
Amplitude: 5
Offset: 5
Frequency: 0.01 Hz

Output Stage:

Tangent Sigmoid

Initial Weights:

W1=-100, W2=100, W3=100

W4=-100, W5=-100, W6=100

The results of three simulations with different learning rates are shown in Figures
11-13 and summarized in Table 2. It is observed that the larger the learning rate,
the faster the algorithm will adapt. However, if the learning rate is too large, the
output may not be robust and may lead to the system breaking-up. Also, the
weights converge to local minima depending on the different learning rates.
Table 2: Effects of the learning rate on the adaptation algorithm
Figure Number

Learning Rate

Results (500s)

Figure 11

=100

Adapted

Figure 12

=10

Adapted

Figure 13

=1

Adapted

16

Figure 11

Figure 12

17

Figure 13
4.4.

Effects of input frequency with output gain versus tan-sigmoid

This section covers the effect of changing the output stage from a tan-sigmoid to
a constant gain. The following elements are set during simulation.
88.76
s(s + 21.526 )(s + 2.474 )

Plant:

G(s) =

Input Signal:

Type: Sinewave
Amplitude: 10

Learning Rate:

=10

Initial Weights:

W1=-100, W2=100, W3=100

W4=-100, W5=-100, W6=100

The results of four simulations with two different frequencies are shown in
Figures 14-17 and summarized in Table 3. It is observed that it is easier for the
controller to adapt if the input frequency is low. Also, a constant gain output
provide better adaptation at higher input frequencies.

18

Table 3: Effects of the input frequency and output stage on adaptation

Figure Number

Input Frequency

Output Stage

Results (500s)

Figure 14

0.01 Hz

Tan-sigmoid

Adapted

Figure 15

0.01 Hz

Gain=0.001

Adapted

Figure 16

0.1 Hz

Tan-sigmoid

Not Adapted

Figure 17

0.1 Hz

Gain=0.001

Adapted

Figure 14

Figure 15

19

Figure 16

Figure 17

20

4.5.

Effect of different plants

To further validate the adaptation algorithm, the neural network based adaptive
controller is applied to different plants.
Plants:

Input Signal:

G 2( s ) =

1000
( s + 10 )( s + 5)

G 3( s ) =

5000
s ( s + 5)( s + 100 )

G 4( s ) =

5000
( s + 1)( s + 5 )( s + 100 )

Type: Sinewave
Amplitude: 10

Output Gain:

0.001

Initial Weights:

W1=-100, W2=100, W3=100

W4=-100, W5=-100, W6=100

We change the learning rate and input frequency for these plants and see how
high the frequency can be increased. The results of five simulations are shown in
Figures 18-22 and summarized in Table 4. It is observed that the input frequency
can be increased to 10 Hz for G2(s). With third order plants G3(s) and G4(s), a
maximum of 1 Hz input signal is possible. Note that G3(s) is open loop unstable.
Table 4: Effects of input frequency and learning rate on G2(s)
Figure Number

Plant

Input Frequency

Learning Rate

Results (500s)

Figure 18

G2(s)

0.01 Hz

=10

Adapted

Figure 19

G2(s)

0.01 Hz

=100

Adapted

Figure 20

G2(s)

10 Hz

=100

Adapted

Figure 21

G3(s)

1 Hz

=10

Adapted

Figure 22

G4(s)

1 Hz

=10

Adapted

21

Figure 18

Figure 19

22

Figure 20

Figure 21

23

Figure 22
4.6.

Application to non-minimum phase systems

A non-minimum phase system has either a pole or a zero in the right-half of the
s-plane. Since it is well known that it is difficult to apply adaptive control to nonminimum phase systems, we decide to test the following non-minimum phase
system.
500
( s 1)( s + 5 )

Plants:

G 6(s) =

Input Signal:

Type: Sinewave
Amplitude: 10

Learning Rate:

=10

The results of four simulations with different frequencies, output stage and initial
weights are shown in Figures 23-26 and summarized in Table 5. It is observed
that the weight adaptation does occur. The adaptation convergence depends on
two factors: (1) Frequency of the input signal and (2) the magnitude of the initial
weights. The constant gain (= 0.001) is required when dealing with large initial

24

weights and higher frequency. It was found that the tangent sigmoid is suited
when the initial weights are small and the input frequency is low.

Table 6: Effects of the input frequency, output stage and initial weights on G6(s).
Figure

Input

Output Initial Weights

Number

Frequency

Stage

Figure 23

0.01

Gain=

W1=-100, W2=100, W3=100

0.001

W4=-100, W5=-100, W6=100

Gain=

W1=-100, W2=100, W3=100

0.001

W4=-100, W5=-100, W6=100

tan-sig

W1=-1, W2=1, W3=1

Figure 24

Figure 25

0.01

Results (500s)

Adapted

Adapted

Adapted

W4=-1, W5=-1, W6=1

Figure 26

Gain=

W1=-1, W2=1, W3=1

0.001

W4=-1, W5=-1, W6=1

Figure 23

25

Adapted

Figure 24

Figure 25

26

Figure 26
5.

Conclusion

The application of theory of adaptive interaction to adaptive neural network

control results in a new direct adaptation algorithm that works very well.
Simulation results show the following characteristics of the algorithm.
-

Learning works well with a variety of second and third order plants.

Controlled plants can be open loop stable or unstable.

Maximum input frequency depends on the plant order.

For higher input frequencies and large initial weights the output stage
with a constant gain works better.

The initial weights must be non-zero and have alternating polarity.

Faster learning rates are required for higher input frequencies.

Adaptation is applicable to both minimum phase and non-minimum

phase plants

This new approach does not require the transformation of the continuous time
domain plant into its neural network equivalent. Another benefit for applying the

27

proposed algorithm is that it does not require a separate feedback network to

back propagate the error. The adaptation algorithm is mathematically isomorphic
to the back-propagation algorithm.

6.

References

[1]

K. S. Narendra and K. Parthasarathy, Identification and Control of Dynamical Systems

using Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 1, pp 1-27, 1990.

[2]

J. G. Kuschewski, S. Hui and S. H. Zak, Application of Feedforward Neural Networks to

Dynamical System Identification and Control, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, Vol. 1, pp 37-49, 1993.

[3]

A. U. Levin and K. S. Narendra, Control of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Using Neural

Networks Part II: Observability, Identification, and Control, IEEE Transactions on
Neural Networks, Vol. 7, pp 30-42, 1996.

[4]

F. C. Chen and H. K. Khalil, Adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems Using Neural

Networks, IEEE proceedings on the 29th Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 44,
TA-12-1-8:40, 1990.

[5]

K. S. Narendra and K. Parthasarathy, Gradient Methods for Optimization of Dynamical

Systems Containing Neural Networks, IEEE Transaction on Neural Network, Vol. 2, pp
252-262, 1991.

[6]

T. Yamada and T. Yabuta, Neural Network Controller Using Autotuning Method for
Nonlinear Functions, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 3, pp 595-601, 1992.

[7]

F. C. Chen and H. K. Khalil, Adaptive Control of a Class of Nonlinear Discrete-Time

Systems Using Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 40, pp
791-801, 1995.

[8]

M. A. Brdys and G. L. Kulawski, Dynamic Neural for Induction Motor, IEEE

Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 10, pp 340-355, 1999.

[9]

K. S. Narendra and S. Mukhopadhyay, Adaptive Control Using Neural Networks and

Approximate Models, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 8, pp 475-485, 1997.

[10]

Y. M. Park, M. S. Choi and K. Y. Lee, An Optimal Tracking Neuro-Controller for

Nonlinear Dynamic Systems, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 7, pp 10991110, 1996.

[11]

I. Rivals and L. Personnaz, Non-linear Internal Model Control Using Neural Networks,
Application to Processes with Delay and Design Issues, IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks, Vol. 11, pp 80-90, 2000.

[12]

G. V. Puskorius and L. A. Feldkamp, Neurocontrol of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems with

Kalman Filter Trained Recurrent Networks, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol.
5, pp 279-297, 1994.

28

[13]

J. T. Spooner and K. M. Passino, Decentralized Adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems

Using Radial Basis Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 44,
pp 2050-2057, 1999.

[14]

D. Shukla, D. M. Dawson and F. W. Paul, Multiple Neural-Network Based Adaptive

Controller Using Orthonomal Activation Function Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions
on Neural Networks, Vol. 10, pp 1494-1501, 1999.

[15]

J. Noriega and H. Wang, A Direct Adaptive Neural Network Control for Unknown
Nonlinear Systems and Its Application, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 9,
pp 27-33, 1998.

[16]

S. I. Mistry, S. L. Chang and S. S. Nair, Indirect Control of a Class of Nonlinear Dynamic

Systems, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 7, pp 1015-1023, 1996.

[17]

K. Warwick, C. Kambhampati, P. Parks and J. Mason, Dynamic Systems in Neural

Networks, Neural Network Engineering in Dynamic Control Systems, Springer, pp 27-41,
1995.

[18]

S. Mukhopadhyay, K. S. Narendra, Disturbance Rejection in Nonlinear Systems Using

Neural Networks, IEEE Transaction in Neural Networks, Vol. 4, pp 63-72, 1993.

[19]

M. M. Polycarpou, Stable Adaptive Neural Control Scheme for Nonlinear Systems,

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 41, pp 447-451, 1996.

[20]

J.J.E. Slotine and L. Weiping, Applied Nonlinear Control, Prentice Hall, 1989.

[21]

D. A. White and D. A. Sofge, Handbook of Intelligent Control: Neural, Fuzzy and

Adaptive, VanNostrand Reinhold, 1992.

[22]

C. J. Harris, C. G. Moore and M. Brown, Intelligent Control: Aspects of Fuzzy Logic and
Neural Nets, World Scientific, Chap. 1.7 and 8, 1993.

[23]

H. Demuth, M. Beale, Neural Network Toolbox for MatLab, The Mathworks, Version 3,
1998.

[24]

J. B. D. Cabrera and K. S. Narendra, Issues in the Application of Neural Networks for

Tracking Based on Inverse Control, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 44, pp
2007-2027, 1999.

[25]

D. S. Chen and R. C. Jain, A Robust Back Propagation Learning Algorithm for Function
Approximation, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 5, pp 467-479, 1994.

[26]

Pierre Baldi, Gradient Descent Learning Algorithm Overview: A General Dynamical

Systems Perspective, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 6, 1pp 182-195,
1995.

[27]

R. D. Brandt, F. Lin, Adaptive Interaction and Its Application to Neural Networks,

Elsevier, Information Science 121, pp 201-215 1999.

[28]

F. Lin, R. D. Brandt, G. Saikalis, Self-Tuning of PID Controllers by Adaptive Interaction,

IEEE control society, 2000 American Control Conference, Chicago, 2000.

[29]

F. Lin, R. D. Brandt, G. Saikalis, Parameter Estimation using Adaptive Interaction,

preprint, 1998.

29

[30]

D. G. Luenberger, Optimization by Vector Space Methods, John Wiley and Sons,

Chapter 7.3 Frchet Derivatives, 1963.

30