MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989117619 · doi:10.1002/rnc.578

Linear time computation of feasible regions for robust compensators

2001· article· en· W1989117619 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. Sami Fadali, L.E. LaForge

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniverza v MariboruMcGill University
KeywordsMinkowski additionQuantitative feedback theoryTransfer functionComputationConvolution (computer science)Interval (graph theory)QuotientInefficiencyMathematicsSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Minkowski spaceControl theory (sociology)Robust controlAlgorithmMathematical optimizationControl systemControl (management)Pure mathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We introduce an application of computational geometry, including figures of merit standard in the analysis of algorithms, to the design of robust control systems. With respect to system transfer function magnitude, we show how to compute feasible regions for compensators whose plant transfer function is the ratio of uncertain interval polynomials. Our solution sweeps the Minkowski quotient set of the corresponding Kharitonov rectangles. Enumerating the winding numbers of Minkowski sum convolution curves, we obtain optimal, linear time algorithms that eliminate three factors from the execution inefficiency of traditional gridding approaches. We illustrate with examples pertinent to quantitative feedback theory (QFT). Copyright © 2001 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.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Robust and Nonlinear ControlSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207