Special Section on Neural
Networks for Systems
and Control
Editor’s Note: The Guest Editor of this spe-
cial section of the Magazine is Prof. Behnam
Bavarian from the Electrical Engineering
Department at the University of California
at Imine. Professor Bavarian was Chair of
the Robotics Session at the First IEEE In-
ternational Conference on Neural Networks
held June 21-24, 1987, in San Diego, Cal-
ifornia, and four of the papers in this special
section are based on presentations at that ses-
sion.
A neural network is a system of intercon-
nected elements modeled after the human
brain. A network of “neuron-like’’ units op-
erates on data “all at once” rather than
“step-by-step” as in a conventional com-
puter. Increased interest in neural networks
Introduction to Neural Networks
for Intelligent Control
ABSTRACT: In this paper, neural network
architecture is presented as one approach to
the design and implementation of intelligent
control systems. Neural networks can be
considered as massively parallel distributed
processing systems with the potential for
ever-improving performance through dy-
namical learning. The nomenclature and
characteristics of neural networks are out-
lined, and two simple examples are pre-
sented to illustrate applications to control
systems.
An early version of this paper was presented at
the 1987 IEEE International Conference on Neural
Networks, San Diego, California, June 21-24,
1987. Behnam Bavarian is with the Electrical En-
gineering Department, University of California,
Imine, CA 92717.
A m i 1988
is due to advances in network training al-
gorithms and recent hardware advances that
have made possible extremely fast, relatively
inexpensive computers for implementing
these algorithms. The envisioned implemen-
tation of neural network algorithms is on
special-purpose analog or digital computers,
but much of the current development work
involves simulation of the algorithms on
conventional digital computers.
In general, work on neural networks can
be divided into the following areas: (1) find-
ing algorithms for determining the connec-
tions and weights of a neural network to solve
a problem, (2) mechanizing networks using
microelectronic or optical approaches, and
(3) investigating the operation and structure
Behnam Bavarian
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to serve as an
introduction to neural networks and to sug-
gest that neural network architecture can be
used for design and application of intelligent
control systems [ 11. The neural network ap-
proach is introduced by defining the problem
of control as the mapping of measured sig-
nals for “change” into calculated controls
for “action.” Neural networks represent
massively parallel distributed processing ca-
pability with the potential for ever-improv-
ing performance through dynamical learn-
ing. The development of fast architectures
makes implementation in real time feasible.
Furthermore, neural networks represent the
nonalgorithmic class of information process-
ing as opposed to current conventional al-
gorithmic signal processing.
0272-1 708/88/0400-0003 $01 .OO 0 1988 IEEE
of biological neural networks. Much of the
early algorithm work has been in computa-
tionally intensive areas of signal processing,
such as adaptive pattern recognition, real-
time speech recognition, and image interpre-
tation. In systems and control, there are also
areas that are computationally intensive, such
as real-time identification and control of large
flexible structures in aerospace or robotics.
The five papers in this special section present
an introduction to neural network approaches
and algorithms in systems and control. We
thank Professor Bavarian for selecting and
evaluating these papers, and we hope you
will enjoy reading about this rapidly growing
field.
Two simple examples are given to illus-
trate control and optimization with neural
network architecture. The first example de-
velops a two-layer discrete-time neural net-
work called a bidirectional associative mem-
ory, which can be used to increase the
reliability of a control system through fault
isolation. The second example uses a single-
layer continuous-time network to optimize
analog-to-digital conversion.
Motivation for Intelligent Control
One of the primary purposes of classical
feedback control is to increase robustness for
a control system, i.e., increase the degree to
which the system performs when there is un-
certainty. Classical linear control provides
robustness over a relatively small range of
uncertainty. Adaptive control techniques
3
have been developed for systems that must
perform over large ranges of uncertainties
due to large variations in parameter values,
environmental conditions, and signal inputs.
These adaptive techniques generally incor-
porate a second feedback loop, which is out-
side the first feedback loop. This second
feedback loop may have the capability to
track system parameters, environmental con-
ditions, and input characteristics; feedback
control then may vary parameters in com-
pensation elements of the inner loop to main-
tain acceptable performance characteristics.
Figure 1 shows a general block diagram of
such a scheme.
The objective of the design of an intelli-
gent control system is similar to that for the
adaptive control system. However, there is
a difference. For an intelligent control sys-
tem, the range of uncertainty may be sub-
stantially greater than can be tolerated by
algorithms for adaptive systems. The object
with intelligent control is to design a system
with acceptable performance characteristics
over a very wide range of uncertainty. For
example, the range of uncertainty for avail-
able data may be different than expected be-
cause it may be necessary to deal with un-
quantified data, highly complex data
structures, or extremely large amounts of
data.
Traditional control systems, which operate
with large uncertainty, typically depend on
human intervention to function properly.
However, human intervention is unaccept-
able in many real-time applications and au-
tomatic techniques for handling uncertainty
must be developed. In a typical control ap-
plication such as robotics, a number of prob-
lems must be faced that are also generic to
design of controllers for large dynamic sys-
tems. Some examples of these problems are
presented here:
Sensor data overload, which may arise
from data redundancy or from specialized
data rarely needed by the system;
Sensor data fusion and mapping into the
proper control feedback law;
Systems not robust enough to handle large
parameter excursions;
I membership function assigned to the ele-
Fig. I . Adaptive control systems.
4 IEE€ Control Systems Mogozine
Systems unable to handle heuristic infor-
mation;
Systems that cannot be used for high-speed
real-time control because they require
time-consuming artificial intelligence cal-
culations;
Systems where sensor choice and place-
ment are still unsolved.
These examples provide motivation for the
concept of “intelligent control” and illus-
trate the need for real-time “intelligent”
components. Three approaches that have the
potential for intelligent control are:
(1) expert systems as adaptive elements in a
control system;
(2) “fuzzy” calculations as decision-pro-
ducing elements in a control system; and
(3) neural networks as compensation ele-
ments in control systems.
The expert system approach and fuzzy ap-
proach will be examined briefly before con-
tinuing on to neural networks. Expert sys-
tems, or rule-based systems, embody a rule-
based solving paradigm built around if-then
rules. such as
IF A IS TRUE AND IF B IS TRUE
THEN TAKE ACTION X AND TAKE
ACTION Y
When the procedure works forward from a
sequence of “if” conditions to a sequence
of “then” actions, it is called forward
chaining. Forward chaining requires an ap-
propriate data base and an appropriate set of
rules. While the approach may be applicable
to the decision-making needs of a control
system, it is generally too slow for high-
speed systems and it has limited learning ca-
pability. Backward chaining starts with a de-
sired sequence of “then” actions and works
backward to determine whether the appro-
priate “if” conditions are met. It may be
more appropriate for control system appli-
cations because a feedback loop is generated
when an error detection and correction ca-
pability is added to a backward chaining sys-
tem.
The second approach to intelligent control
systems treats situations where some of the
defining relationships can be described by
so-called fuzzy sets and fuzzy relational
equations. In standard set theory, a set is
defined as elements whose membership or
nonmembership is verified by very specific
rules. The membership decision is zero or
unity, so it is binary. In fuzzy set theory, the
ments is continuous and lies between zero
and unity. If the membership function takes
on only the extreme values of zero and unity,
then fuzzy sets reduce to standard set theory.
In many cases, when information can best
be characterized by fuzzy set theory, this
concept is valuable.
In standard set theory, quantifiers such as
“for all” and “for at least one” are used
extensively in relating elements of different
sets. In fuzzy set theory, quantifiers such as
“for many” and “for a few” are used to
relate elements of different sets. Fuzzy set
theory, then, is useful in those situations in
which data and relationships cannot be writ-
ten in crisp mathematical terms. For exam-
ple, an aircraft pilot who states that “the
rudder is not working correctly” is providing
significant fuzzy information that should be
integrated into the decision-making process
of the outer control loop even though it can-
not be characterized by standard mathemat-
ical models. An innovative work by Bart
Kosko [2] on fuzzy estimation theory inves-
tigates fuzzy set theory as an alternative to
probability theory in estimation theory.
The third approach to intelligent control
systems uses neural networks. With neural
networks, the problem of control can be con-
sidered as a pattern recognition problem,
where the patterns to be recognized are
“change” signals that map into “action”
signals for specified system performance.
The intelligent controller should recognize
and isolate patterns of change in real time
and “learn” from experience to recognize
change more quickly, even with incomplete
data. The properties of pattern recognition
and mapping with ever-improving self-or-
ganization and decision making are some of
the potential advantages when using artificial
neural networks for design and implemen-
tation of intelligent controllers.
Applications for Neural Networks
Neural networks research was popular in
the early 1960s due mainly to the contribu-
tions of Rosenblatt [3] and Widrow and Hoff
[4]. Among the many contributors to the
field, Grossberg 151, [6], Kohonen [ 7 ] , and
Fukushima [SI have maintained research ef-
forts since the sixties with continued contri-
butions. More recently, increased interest has
developed as people became aware of the
feasibility of rapid and inexpensive imple-
mentation through very large scale integrated
technology and optical devices. Among those
who helped the new resurgence of activities
are Hopfield and Tank [9], [lo], Rumelhart
and McClelland and their parallel distributed
processing group [ 1 11, Hecht-Nielsen [ 121
and his pioneering work in neurocomputers,
and Kosko [13]. The following discussion is
taken from these original contributions in this
rapidly growing field of research; it is not
meant to be exhaustive.
Research in artificial neural networks can
be approached from several disciplines.
There has been continuing work in neuro-
biology, psychobiology, and studies of the
brain and memory to establish the ground
rules (models) of how the central nervous
system actually works. At the same time,
computer scientists and researchers in the
cognitive sciences have been pursuing iden-
tification of intelligence and massively par-
allel distributed information processing done
by biological systems. The engineering com-
munity, which is becoming more involved
in large-scale system design, is seeking al-
ternative technology in information process-
ing (other than existing conventional com-
puters). Neural network architectures
represent a promising technology because of
their attractive properties.
Control engineers can consider neural net-
works as a large-dimensional nonlinear dy-
namic system, which is defined by a set of
first-order nonlinear differential equations.
The equations can also be difference equa-
tions and can be represented in the form of
connected elementary processing units as a
graph. Following the definitions in the lit-
erature [12], the units in the network are
called processing elements. The directed
links connecting the processing elements are
called interconnects. Figure 2 shows an ex-
ample of a processing element with a hard
limiter nonlinearity. Each processing ele-
ment has many inputs with a single output.
The output fans out to serve as input to other
processing elements. In the case of Fig. 2,
the weighted sum of the n inputs is formed
and then passed through the nonlinearity to
get the output. In general, the weight vector
or matrix varies through a given learning
rule. More general system equations can be
written as shown in Eq. (l), where i equals
1 through n and represents n processing ele-
ments in the network; a,, b,, and d, are non-
linear functions; and x, is the state of the ith
element (which fans out as input to the other
processing elements).
yutput
y(k + 1) = f[WT(k)X(k)]
Fig. 2 . Example of processing element
characteristics with a hard limiter.
April 1988
w,,= W,] + aw,,,
x,, X I ) (2)
Equation (2) is the update equation or, as
defined in literature, the learning rule by
which the weighting coefficients w,, are
adapted through the nonlinear function G.
The function dk(xk)is usually a monotoni-
cally increasing nonlinear function.
In addition to the activation rule [Eq. ( l ) ]
and the learning rule [Eq. (2)], it is neces-
sary to specify the network topology. Figure
3 shows a two-layer neural network, which
represents a bidirectional associative mem-
ory (BAM) topology. Later, this network will
be examined more closely in the first illus-
trative example.
How does this large dynamical system
carry out information processing? One an-
swer is obtained by considering a Liapunov
or energy function for the system. The non-
linear dynamical system has very many equi-
librium points, which define energy wells on
the energy surface in the n-dimensional hy-
perspace. Given an arbitrary input pattern as
initial states of the system, the system is ca-
pable of approaching one of those equilib-
rium points subject to the global stability of
the system. To illustrate this, Fig. 4 shows
an example of a crude landscape of the en-
ergy of the system E(X)as a function of the
scalar X with local minima at P1, P2, and
P3. Action vectors (information attributes)
can be assigned to the local minima P1, €2,
and P3. Then, if the system is initialized at
X(O), the system state will slide down the
friction-bearing energy well to P1. How-
ever, if X(0) were closer to F’2 or P3, the
system state would converge to the corre-
sponding minimum. This interpretation re-
sembles a nearest-neighbor classifier. As a
controller, it maps “change” signals into the
proper “action” signals that are the best
match for the situation.
How fast does this system do information
processing? The system converges to the an-
swer with the best and fastest time complex-
Yl Y2
Fig. 3. Topology of a two-layer network
for a BAM.
x, P1 P2 F
Scalar state, x
Fig. 4. Simplified energy landscape with
three minima.
ity of order 1 . Furthermore, the convergence
time is not a function of the number of pat-
terns stored as equilibrium points. In the
conventional artificial intelligence search ap-
proach, as the number of patterns increase,
search becomes more difficult. In general,
the energy landscape is a function of WU, the
elements of the weight matrix. In the adap-
tive learning networks, the more often a
given information is recalled, the deeper the
basin of attraction will get, and vice versa.
Hence, the system has the ability to reinforce
what it has learned and also to forget the
things that are seldom recalled.
Global stability must now be proved for
systems defined by Eqs. (1) and (2). Since
the system parameters change in an unpre-
dictable way due to self-organization (learn-
ing), this is the question of absolute stability
of global pattern formation. This question is
addressed in the original work of Cohen and
Grossberg [141, and the main result is stated
here. In their paper, they use the general
nonlinear differential equation, and less gen-
eral forms are included by proper selection
of parameters.
For the system defined by a set of differ-
ential equations ( l ) , a global Liapunov func-
tion is given by Eq. (3), as shown by the
derivative in Eq. (4).
cW
+ 21,k=I
d ( x ) dk(xk) (3)
Ik
t(x) = i:
- 1 = I a,(.&)d : ( x , ) b , ( x , )
- i:
k= I w,kdk(xk)]2 (4)
Their paper then derives conditions on the
5
functions and establishes convergence of tra- as Eq. (7) (where superscript T indicates A W T = (1 5 5 1)
jectories. Among the most notable condi- transpose), it follows readily that, for any
+(I 1 1 l)=L
tions required are symmetry in the weight update defined by Eq. (5) or (6), the change
matrix [Wv] and the requirement for d i ( x i ) in energy A E is not positive, and, hence, the L W = (4 -4 4 -4 4)
to be differentiable and monotonic nonde- system is stable for every W , i.e., every ma-
trix is bidirectionally stable [15]. -+(I 0 I O l)=A
creasing.
There are still many questions that remain Hence, (A, L ) , ( B , M), and (C, N) are fixed
unanswered. What is the capacity of a neural E = -yWX’ (7)
points for the BAM defined by Eqs. (5) and
network? That is, how many patterns can be The Hebbian outer-product rule can be (6) and the W matrix defined in Eq. (8).
stored in a network with n processing ele- used to encode the q association (Xi, inx) Furthermore, with vector ( A 6) (a slight +
ments? What should be done with the spu- a BAM by changing the binary representa- variation to the A feature vector) introduced
rious equilibrium points? These questions tion of the vectors to bipolar representation, to the BAM, there is convergence to the
are, in general, still open questions in re- i.e., changing 0’s to -1’s. Let ( A i , B,) be closest failure label L. For example,
search. In what follows, two specific ex- the desired bipolar representation, then the
amples of neural networks are presented to resulting weighting matrix W is given by 6=(0 1 0 0 0)
help clarify concepts. These are simple ex- A+6=(1 1 1 0 1)
amples with more elaborate techniques given W = BTA, + B:A2 + . . . + B i A , (8)
in the references. The problem of sensor or actuator failure
(A + 6 ) WT = ( 2 2 2 2)
isolation is of interest in improving the con- +(I 1 1 I)=L
Fault Isolation Mapping Example trol system reliability. Here a BAM is used
as an associative mapping from system fail- More on the error-correcting properties and
A bidirectional associative memory is used the capacity of the BAM is discussed in [ 151.
to illustrate fault isolation and control. The ure feature space to system failure label
space. Define three classes of failure by the It should be noted that learning in the BAM
BAM is a two-layer feedback network of in- is fixed, hence it lacks robustness in the sense
terconnected processing elements that recalls following feature vectors and the corre-
sponding label vectors: that a one-bit shift in one of the patterns may
stored associations ( X I , Y,) for i = I , result in convergence to a wrong association.
2 , . . . , q. Thus, input of the n-dimensional The BAM is an example of a mapping net-
vector X , should give output of the m-di- Feature Vectors Label Vectors work. The single-layer network of Hopfield
mensional vector Y,, and vice versa. Figure is an example of an optimizing network.
3 shows the topology of the BAM. The net- A=(10101) L =(1111)
work is connected by a fixed-weight matrix B=(10100) M = ( O l 1 0 )
C = ( 0 1 0 1 1 ) N =(1001) Hopfield Network Optimizing
W of dimension m X n. The network dy-
namics for the ith processing element in layer Example
Y is given by Eq. (5). To encode the association using the preced-
The Hopfield network [IO] is a single large
ing Hebbian law, these vectors are converted
autoassociative neural network where the
y,(k + I) = I if y:(k + I) > O to bipolar forms.
outputs of the processing elements are fed
= y(k) if y:(k + 1) = 0
back to all the elements via a crossbar mesh
Feature Vectors with resistive weights connecting them to the
=O if y:(k + I) <O A’ = (1 - 1 1 -1 1)
input. Figure 5 shows a schematic diagram
B’ = of the network. The excitation dynamics are
(1 - 1 1 - 1 -1)
(5) defined by the differential equation in (9),
C’ = ( - 1 1 -1 1 1)
n where the nonlinearity f is a sigmoid curve
Y:@) = c WllS
]=I
Label Vectors
given by Eq. (10).

The network dynamics for the ith processing L’ = (I 1 1 1) x, = f

[,:I
c wl,xl + I,] (9)
element in layer X is given by Eq. (6). M’ = ( - 1 1 1 -1)
N’ = (1 - 1 -1 1) f ( x ) = 1/[1 + exp (-41 (10)
x,(k + I) = I if x:(k + I) >O
The weights are obtained by defining a quad-
= x,(k) if x:(k + I) = O The sum of outer products of these vectors
gives the resulting weighting matrix W.
= O if x:(k + 1) <O
w = L J A ~+ M ~ T B +~ N ~ T c ~ /
(6)
rn
w12
x:w = Y,?,
]=I

=
The update can be done synchronously
when all the processing element updates oc-
cur at a clock cycle, or asynchronously when
only some subset is updated each time. De- Using the BAM equations (5) and (6), the
fining an energy function E for this network following example shows associative recall. Fig. 5. Hopfield crossbar network.

6 I€€€ Control Systems Magazine

ratic energy function and selecting the
weights to minimize the energy. For exam-
ple, in the problem of the analog-to-digital
conversion, where an analog input I is pre-
sented, and it is desired to find the best bi-
nary output, the energy can be defined as in
Eq. (11).
n Furthermore, preliminary results presented
+ j =cO 2 9 X ; ( l - x;)]
When energy E is minimized, the second
term in Eq. (11) is zero, while the first term
biases the system to the closest state, in the
least-squares sense, to the analog input I .
Comparing this to the high-gain general en-
ergy function of the network
gives the weights and the input bias currents
cj.
w..11 = -2Ci+J) t
c
I
= ( - 2 0 - 1 ) + 2’1)
Note that this network defines an analog-
to-digital conversion which is clockless.
Hopfield and Tank have further solved the
traveling salesman problem; an NP complete
optimization problem with the crossbar net-
works [lo].
Conclusions
We have looked at the general problems
of intelligent controller design and con-
cluded that an alternative approach, rather
than classical artificial intelligence, should
be pursued for real-time applications. The
neural network architecture has great poten-
tial and promise. The control problem can
be considered as a broad mapping of
“changes” to “actions” and as pattern rec-
ognition with complexity. The neural net-
work has the capability to do such mappings
in order 1 search time, independent of the
number of mappings, with the property of
self-organization and ever-improving leam-
ing ability.
Neurocomputing technology is here and
advancing rapidly. There are neurocomputer
boards available for your personnal com-
puter capable of emulating over 100,OOO
processing elements and one million inter-
connects. Currently, a simple neural net-
work controller is being investigated for vi-
sion-guided robots, position and force con-
trol in coordinated manipulators, and muscle-
like cable-driven robot links in our lab [161.
(11) at the First International Conference on
Neural Networks in the Applications and
Robotics Session appeared very promising.
One of the more interesting results was that
with feedback/feedforward compensation
implemented by a neural network, as leam-
ing was pursued, the compensation tends to
move to the feedforward path with little
feedback compensation. The references pro-
vided here will allow the reader to probe
further into many aspects of neural networks
not covered in this introductory paper.
References
[I] A. R. Stubberud, “Intelligent Control,”
presented at the Frontiers of Intelligent Sys-
tems Symposium, University of California,
Irvine, Nov. 1986.
[23 B. A. Kosko, “Foundation of Fuzzy Esti-
mation Theory,” Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of California, Irvine, 1987.
[3] R. Rosenblatt, Principles of Neurodynam-
ics, New York: Spartan Books, 1959.
[4] B. Widrow and M. E. Hoff, “Adaptive
Switching Circuits,” IRE WESCON Conv.
Record, part 4, pp. 96-104, Aug. 1960.
[5] S. Grossberg, “Nonlinear Difference-Dif-
ferential Equations in Prediction and Learn-
ing Theory,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 58,
pp. 1329-1334, 1967.
[6] S. Grossberg, Studies of Mind and Brain,
Boston: Reidel, 1982.
[7] T. Kohonen, Associative Memory, Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1977.
[8] K. Fukushima, “Cognitron: A Self-Orga-
nizing Multilayered Neural Network,” Eiol.
Cyber., vol. 20, pp. 121-136, 1975.
[9] J. J. Hopfield, “Neural Networks and Phys-
ical Systems with Emergent Collective
Computational Abilities,” Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci., vol. 79, pp. 2554-2558, Apr. 1982.
[IO] J. J. Hopfield and D. W. Tank, “Neural
Computation of Decisions in Optimization
Problems,” Biol. Cyber., vol. 52, no. 3,
pp. 1-25, July 1985.
[Ill D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland,
Parallel Distributed Processing: Explora-
tions in the Microstructure of Cognition,
vols. I and 11, MIT Press, 1986.
[I21 R. Hecht-Nielsen, “Performance Limits of
Optical, Electro-Optical and Electronic Ar-
tificial Neural System Processors,” Proc.
SPIE, vol. 634, pp. 277-306, 1986.
[13] B. A. Kosko, “Adaptive Bidirectional As-
sociative Memories,” Appl. Opt., vol. 26,
no. 23, pp. 49474960, Dec. 87.
[I41 M. A. Cohen and S. Grossberg, “Absolute
Stability of Global Pattern Formation and
Parallel Memory Storage by Competitive
Neural Networks,” IEEE Trans. Syst.,
Man, Cyber., vol. 13, no. 5 , pp. 815-826,
1983.
[I51 B. Kosko, “Adaptive Bidirectional Asso-
ciative Memories,” Appl. Opt., Nov. 1987.
[16] B. Bavarian, “A Two-Loop Feedback Mus-
cle Model,” Proc. 9th IEEE Annual ConJ
EMES, 1987.
Behnam Bavarian r
e
ceived the B.S. degrre
in electrical enginernng
from Abadan Institute of
Technology in 1978 and
the M.S. and Ph.D. de-
grees in electrical rngi-
neering fmm Ohio State
University, Columbus,
Ohio, in 1981 and 1984,
respectively. He joined
the Department of Elec-
trical Engineering, Uni-
versity of California, Irvine, California, in 1984,
where he is currently an Assistant Professor. He
spent one year at Brown University, Providence,
Rhode Island, in 1978-1979. He is currently an
Associate Editor for the IEEE Control Systems
Magazine. He chaired the Robotics Session of the
First IEEE International Conference of Neural
Networks. His research interests are in intelligent
control systems with application to robotics, and
neuromuscular control of human motion. He is the
Director of the Robotics Research Lab at the Uni-
versity of California, Irvine.