A comparison of model‐based and data‐driven controller tuning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY In many industrial applications, finding a model from physical laws that is both simple and reliable for control design is a hard and time‐consuming undertaking. When a set of input/output measurements is available, one can derive the controller directly from data, without relying on the knowledge of the physics. In the scientific literature, two main approaches have been proposed for control system design from data. In the ‘model‐based’ approach, a model of the system is first derived from data and then a controller is computed‐based on the model. In the ‘data‐driven’ approach, the controller is directly computed from data. In this work, the previous approaches are compared from a novel perspective. The main finding of the paper is that, although from the standard perspective of parameter variance analysis the model‐based approach is always statistically more efficient, the data‐driven controller might outperform the model‐based solution for what concerns the final control cost. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it