MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993408116 · doi:10.1115/imece2004-61239

On Control of a Two-Link Non-Fixed-Base Inverted Pendulum With Guaranteed Uniqueness

2004· article· en· W1993408116 on OpenAlexaff
Hairong Zeng, Qiong Wu, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniquenessMathematicsLyapunov functionInverted pendulumLipschitz continuityControl theory (sociology)Nonlinear systemOrdinary differential equationFixed pointDiscontinuity (linguistics)Stability theoryController (irrigation)Equilibrium pointDifferential equationFunction (biology)Mathematical analysisComputer scienceControl (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A nonlinear controller with guaranteed uniqueness of Filippov’s solution is presented for controlling a two-link non-fixed-base inverted pendulum. The control system is described by differential equations with discontinuous right-hand sides, which violates the requirements of the conventional solution theories to ordinary differential equations, i.e., the vector fields must be at least Lipschitz continuous. It has been shown that Lyapunov’s second method can be used for such non-smooth systems directly under the condition of existence and uniqueness of Filippov’s solution. For this non-smooth control system with three discontinuity surfaces, the uniqueness of the solution is studied using Filippov’s solution concept. The system itself is a nonlinear, non-autonomous dynamic system without an isolated equilibrium point, which violates the assumption of Lyapunov’s stability theory. To analyze the stability of the control system, a Lyapunov-like function is constructed, which satisfies all the requirements for a Lyapunov function. Such a function can serve as an upper bound of the region in which the pendulum can be stabilized. Simulation results are presented to validate the proposed approach.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical SystemsFrench-language works237,207