MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604709864 · doi:10.23919/ecc.2009.7074813

Fault identification and reconfigurable control for bimodal piecewise affine systems

2009· article· en· W1604709864 on OpenAlexaff
Nastaran Nayebpanah, Luís Rodrigues, Youmin Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStability and Control of Uncertain Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Observer (physics)Controller (irrigation)Fault detection and isolationLyapunov functionLinear matrix inequalityAffine transformationComputer scienceState observerIdentification (biology)PiecewiseControl engineeringMathematicsEngineeringNonlinear systemControl (management)Mathematical optimizationActuatorArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the design of a fault detection and reconfigurable control structure for bimodal piecewise affine (PWA) systems. The PWA bimodal system will be designed to verify input-to-state stability (ISS) in closed loop. The proposed methodology is divided into two parts. First, a Luenberger-based observer structure is proposed to solve the fault detection and identification (FDI) problem for bimodal PWA systems. The unknown value of the fault parameter is estimated by an observer equation, which is derived using a Lyapunov-based methodology. Then, the ISS property is proved for the observer. Second, a fault-tolerant state feedback controller is synthesized for the PWA model. The controller is designed to deal with partial loss of control authority identified by the observer. The ISS property is also proved for the controller. Finally, the ISS property for the interconnection of the controller and the observer-based fault identification mechanism is studied. The design procedure is formulated as a set of linear matrix inequalities (LMIs), which can be solved efficiently using available software packages.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStability and Control of Uncertain SystemsFrench-language works237,207