MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960909554 · doi:10.1109/acc.2003.1242469

Fast computation of the quadratic programming subproblem in model predictive control

2004· article· en· W1960909554 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel predictive controlQuadratic programmingMathematical optimizationInterior point methodComputationComputer scienceMinificationQuadratic equationLinear programmingActive set methodSet (abstract data type)Optimal controlControl theory (sociology)Optimization problemControl (management)MathematicsAlgorithmNonlinear programmingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main drawbacks of model predictive control (MPC) is that large MPC horizon times can cause requirements of excessive computational time to solve the quadratic programming (QP) minimization which occurs in the calculation of the controller at each sampling interval. This motivates the study of finding faster ways for computing the QP problem associated with MPC. In this paper, a new non-feasible active set method is proposed for solving the QP optimization problem that occurs in MPC, which can be some 10/spl times/ faster than conventional existing active set methods, and to a primal-dual interior point method, using six representative linearized industrial control system examples.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207