Reliable Decentralized Control of Fuzzy Discrete-Event Systems and a Test Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A framework for decentralized control of fuzzy discrete-event systems (FDESs) has been recently presented to guarantee the achievement of a given specification under the joint control of all local fuzzy supervisors. As a continuation, this paper addresses the reliable decentralized control of FDESs in face of possible failures of some local fuzzy supervisors. Roughly speaking, for an FDES equipped with n local fuzzy supervisors, a decentralized supervisor is called k-reliable (1 ≤ k ≤ n) provided that the control performance will not be degraded even when n - k local fuzzy supervisors fail. A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of k-reliable decentralized supervisors of FDESs is proposed by introducing the notions of M̃uc-controllability and k-reliable coobservability of fuzzy language. In particular, a polynomial-time algorithm to test the k-reliable coobservability is developed by a constructive methodology, which indicates that the existence of k-reliable decentralized supervisors of FDESs can be checked with a polynomial complexity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".