MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1748731374 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.08.170

Moving-Horizon Predictive Input Design for Closed-Loop Identification

2015· article· en· W1748731374 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Yousefi, Lee D. Rippon, Michael G. Forbes, R. Bhushan Gopaluni, Philip D. Loewen, Guy A. Dumont, Johan U. Backström

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIdentification (biology)Control theory (sociology)TRACE (psycholinguistics)SIGNAL (programming language)Model predictive controlQuadratic equationMathematical optimizationFunction (biology)Loop (graph theory)HorizonFisher informationSample (material)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new approach to input design for closed-loop identification. The idea is to maximize the trace of the Fisher information matrix associated with the plant model, while enforcing explicit constraints on both inputs and outputs. The result is the richest possible excitation signal for which the operation of a running closed-loop system remains within acceptable bounds. The function to be maximized is a convex quadratic. A Moving Horizon Predictive (MHP) framework is used to solve the input design problem at each sample time. The method can be combined with a fixed model variable regressor technique to estimate time delays. The suggested technique is implemented and used to identify machine-directional processes in an industrial paper machine.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicControl Systems and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207