Neural Closed-Loop Identification of Nonlinear Systems with Stability and Generalization Guarantees

Laura Meroi; Mahrokh G. Boroujeni; Leonardo Massai; Giancarlo Ferrari-Trecate

eess.SYOct 20, 2026

Neural Closed-Loop Identification of Nonlinear Systems with Stability and Generalization Guarantees

Authors: Laura Meroi, Mahrokh G. Boroujeni, Leonardo Massai, Giancarlo Ferrari-Trecate

Organizations: Institute of Mechanical Engineering, EPFL, Switzerland.

Abstract

Neural networks are expressive models of nonlinear dynamics, but identifying such systems from closed-loop data raises two difficulties: the feedback loop correlates inputs with measurement noise, biasing standard open-loop estimators, and the identified model must be stabilized by the data-collection controller, so that its closed-loop behavior matches the true plant's. We derive a complete parameterization of all nonlinear systems stabilized by a given controller, generalizing the classical dual-Youla parameterization to the nonlinear setting. Building on this characterization, we propose Internal Controller Identification (ICI), a computationally tractable framework for identifying potentially unstable systems while ensuring closed-loop stability by construction; in the linear case, our indirect method reduces to an open-loop identification problem, for which standard consistency results apply. The framework accommodates contextual information, letting a single certified model identify a family of systems, and supports a PAC-Bayesian training objective that, when data are scarce and prior knowledge is available, bounds the identified operator's expected prediction loss. Experiments show that ICI identifies open-loop unstable plants where uncertified baselines diverge, outperforms direct methods under weak excitation and feedback-correlated noise, generalizes zero-shot to environments unseen during training, and, with limited data, avoids the overfitting of empirical risk minimization while providing a non-vacuous generalization bound.

Figures & tables

Panel of Figure 1 — Figure 1: Block diagram of the closed-loop system formed by system $\mathbf{G}$ and controller $\mathbf{K}$ , with system input $\mathbf{u}$ , noisy output $\mathbf{y}$ , excitation signal $\mathbf{r}$ , and noise $\mathbf{v}$ .

Panel of Figure 2 — Figure 2: In the ICI framework, the model $\hat{\mathbf{G}}_{\text{ICI}}$ consists of the negative feedback interconnection of a copy of the controller $\mathbf{K}$ and a trainable operator $\hat{\mathbf{S}}\in\mathcal{L}_{p}^{SC}$ . The model input and output are denoted by $\hat{\mathbf{u}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ , respectively.

Panel of Figure 3 — Figure 3: Top: Closed-loop system connecting the true plant $\mathbf{G}$ (represented within the ICI framework by the operator $\mathbf{S}$ ) and the controller $\mathbf{K}$ (left), alongside its linearized approximation (right). Bottom: In the linear case, noise injection can be shifted to enable loop cancellation, yielding the exact simplified form on the right.

Section	System	Observation	ICI operator $\hat{\mathbf{S}}$	Baseline class	$N$	$T$	$\sigma_{r}$	$\sigma_{v}$	$N_{test}$	$T_{test}$
6.2	1	full state	deep SSM	ReLU RNN	$40$	$100$	$0.5$	$0.1$	$100$	$200$
6.3	2	positions	deep SSM	LSTM	$200$	$100$	$\{0.5,\dots,20\}$	$\{0,\dots,2\}$ , AR(1)	$100$	$100$
6.4	2	full state	deep SSM	deep SSM, no context	$60$	$50$	$20$	$0.1$	$100$ / $20$	$50$
6.5	2	positions	REN	—	$1$ – $64$	$50$	$20$	$0.5$	$100$	$50$

Table 1: Model classes and data of the four experiments.

N

T

are the number and length of the training trajectories,

\sigma_{r}

\sigma_{v}

the excitation and measurement-noise levels, and

N_{test}

T_{test}

the number and length of the test trajectories. Initial conditions are

\bar{x}\sim\mathcal{U}(-2,2)

(training) and

\bar{x}\sim\mathcal{U}(-4,4)

(redeployment test) in Section 6.2 , and

p_{0}\sim\mathcal{U}([-10,10]^{2})

with zero initial velocity elsewhere. The redeployment test of Section 6.2 is repeated at

\sigma_{v}\in\{0,\,0.3,\,0.6\}

for each of the

S=40

training runs per strategy.

Strategy	Identifiability of unstable G	Certified CL stability	Unstable CL runs
Indirect ICI	✓	✓	$0\%$
Direct ICI	—	✓	$0\%$
CLOE	✓	—	$2.5\%$
Direct OE	—	—	$25\%$

Table 2: Unstable scalar plant ( 29 ): identifiability of the unstable plant, certified closed-loop stability with the known controller, and fraction of the

S=40

independent training runs whose model the data-collection controller fails to stabilize (

\sigma_{v}=0.3

Figure 4: Unstable scalar plant. Open-loop trajectories (log scale,

8

steps) from

\bar{x}=0.1

of the models returned by

S=40

independent training runs (solid

=

median over runs, shaded

=

10

–

90

percentile band); the indirect strategies reproduce the diverging behavior, while both direct strategies return an inert surrogate.

	$\sigma_{v}{=}0.1$		$\sigma_{v}{=}0.5$		$\sigma_{v}{=}1$		$\sigma_{v}{=}2$
Strategy	OL	CL	OL	CL	OL	CL	OL	CL
Direct OE (LSTM)	$72.3\pm 13.3$	$83.0\pm 7.2$	$66.3\pm 17.2$	$80.7\pm 7.9$	$45.9\pm 22.5$	$72.4\pm 11.9$	$-36.2\pm 55.0$	$43.5\pm 30.7$
CLOE (LSTM)	$78.9\pm 10.6$	$87.0\pm 5.4$	$70.2\pm 16.5$	$82.8\pm 8.4$	$39.1\pm 34.1$	$77.1\pm 14.5$	$-86.1\pm 123.0$	$30.3\pm 54.8$
Direct ICI (SSM)	$82.9\pm 6.5$	$92.1\pm 3.1$	$79.0\pm 6.8$	$91.7\pm 3.0$	$62.0\pm 9.7$	$90.2\pm 3.0$	$-7.0\pm 33.6$	$87.8\pm 4.3$
Indirect ICI (SSM)	$86.7\pm 5.1$	$92.0\pm 4.4$	$84.3\pm 6.0$	$91.7\pm 3.7$	$74.0\pm 10.0$	$89.6\pm 3.9$	$60.9\pm 15.7$	$82.7\pm 6.1$
	$\sigma_{r}{=}1$		$\sigma_{r}{=}2$		$\sigma_{r}{=}5$		$\sigma_{r}{=}10$

Table 3: Point-mass robot under partial observation (Section 6.3 ): open-loop and closed-loop FIT [%], mean

\pm

std over the

100

test trajectories. Top: nominal excitation

\sigma_{r}{=}10

and AR(1) measurement noise (

\rho{=}0.9

) of increasing level

\sigma_{v}

. Bottom: noise-free training (

\sigma_{v}{=}0

) and increasing excitation level

\sigma_{r}

; at

\sigma_{r}{=}0.5

the LSTM baselines fall below

-400\%

open-loop FIT. Colored cells indicate the best result per column (ties are highlighted in both entries). Both sweeps are shown in Figure 6 ; the complete grids, including

\sigma_{r}\in\{0.5,20\}

, are in the repository.

Figure 5: Out-of-distribution excitation waveforms (square, multisine) at the training amplitude; training cell

\sigma_{r}=20

\sigma_{v}=1

, AR(1); channel

p_{y}

(the analogous

p_{x}

figure and all other training cells are in the repository). Indirect ICI transfers to the unseen shapes more accurately.

Figure 6: Point-mass robot: open-loop (top) / closed-loop (bottom) FIT, mean

\pm

std over

100

test trajectories. Left: noise-free training vs. excitation

\sigma_{r}

(observation (a)); right: AR(1) noise sweep at

\sigma_{r}=10

(observation (b)).

Figure 7: Distribution of the open-loop per-trajectory FIT for the two models (box

=

median and interquartile range, whiskers

=

Tukey,

\diamond=

mean; all seeds and test trajectories pooled). Columns vary the training regime (Case A, a single field / Case B, a family of fields) and rows the test set (seen fields, top / unseen fields, bottom); the

y

-axis is FIT in percent. The contextual model dominates the uncontextualized one in every panel, and under family training its seen- and unseen-field distributions nearly coincide.

Figure 8: Case B, open-loop response on a seen (left) and unseen (right) field:

p_{x}

(top),

v_{x}

(bottom); shaded

=

strong friction (

s_{e}>2.5

). The no-context prediction departs from the truth inside the patches, while the contextual model tracks it; the analogous

p_{y}

v_{y}

figures are in the public repository.

Figure 9: Case B: true open-loop test trajectories (black) and SSM-context rollouts (dashed) over the friction field $s_{e}(p)$ (darker $=$ stickier), on a seen (left) and unseen (right) field, under the causal predicted-position context. Dots mark the initial positions.

Figure 10: Certificate and overfitting diagnostics vs. sample size

N

. Left: the ( 27 ) bound for the transfer prior (blue) and the transfer-free data-split prior (light blue); the shaded band marks the vacuous region (

C=1

). Right: train (dark) vs. test (light) empirical risk ( 16 ) built on the untransformed loss ( 21 ) for the ERM (orange) and PAC-Bayes (blue) models, against noisy outputs (log scale). The left panel bounds the true risk in ( 15 ) for a draw from

\mathcal{Q}^{*}

; the right is an empirical diagnostic. The MSE noise floor is

\sigma_{v}^{2}=0.25

(dotted), and training below it indicates noise memorization.

Figure 11: Deployment FIT vs.

N

(mean over seeds): left, open loop; right, closed loop; against the noise-free plant. Key comparisons: 1) ERM methods (orange/gold) overfit to noise under data scarcity, degrading performance below the baseline prior. 2) The SVGD estimator (blue), anchored to the transfer prior , resists overfitting and preserves the prior’s quality at scarce

N

. ERM overtakes it only at larger sample sizes. 3) Relying solely on target data, the data-split prior approach (green) adapts well and maintains a valid certificate. 4) Using a wide prior (pink) yields high FIT but results in a vacuous certificate.

PAC-Bayesian Theory

See all 13 papers

Stability-Preserving Online Adaptation of Neural Closed-loop Maps
Mar 23, 2026Danilo Saccani, Luca Furieri, Giancarlo Ferrari-TrecateNeural Network Control Feedback Control
Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. · Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Implicit Neural Networks as Static Controllers: Certificates and Performance Separation
Jul 13, 2026Giuseppe C. Calafiore, Laurent El GhaouiImplicit Neural Representations Neural Network Control
Learning Neural Feedback Linearization for Data-driven Systems via Augmented Lagrangian
Sep 21, 2026Lakshmi Priya P. K., Andreas SchwungData-Driven Control Feedback Control
Department of Automation Technology and Learning Systems, South Westphalia University of Applied Sciences,Lübecker Ring 2, Soest, 59494, Germany

Mar 23, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

Stability-Preserving Online Adaptation of Neural Closed-loop Maps

Danilo Saccani, Luca Furieri, Giancarlo Ferrari-Trecate

Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. · Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Neural Network Control Feedback Control Neural Network Stability Adaptive Control

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

The growing complexity of modern control tasks calls for controllers that can react online as objectives and disturbances change, while preserving closed-loop stability. Recent approaches for improving the performance of nonlinear systems while preserving closed-loop stability rely on time-invariant recurrent neural-network controllers, but offer no principled way to update the controller during operation. Most importantly, switching from one stabilizing policy to another can itself destabilize the closed-loop. We address this problem by introducing a stability-preserving update mechanism for nonlinear, neural-network-based controllers. Each controller is modeled as a causal operator with bounded

\ell_p

-gain, and we derive gain-based conditions under which the controller may be updated online. These conditions yield two practical update schemes, time-scheduled and state-triggered, that guarantee the closed-loop remains

\ell_p

-stable after any number of updates. Our analysis further shows that stability is decoupled from controller optimality, allowing approximate or early-stopped controller synthesis. We demonstrate the approach on nonlinear systems with time-varying objectives and disturbances, and show consistent performance improvements over static and naive online baselines while guaranteeing stability.

Abstract

PAC-Bayesian Theory

Explore similar work

Stability-Preserving Online Adaptation of Neural Closed-loop Maps

Implicit Neural Networks as Static Controllers: Certificates and Performance Separation

Learning Neural Feedback Linearization for Data-driven Systems via Augmented Lagrangian