MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005847953 · doi:10.1109/acc.2001.945578

An approach to computing bounds on H/sub /spl infin// performance under hard constraints

2001· article· en· W2005847953 on OpenAlexaff
D.E. Davison

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStability and Control of Uncertain Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPointwiseSensitivity (control systems)Norm (philosophy)Transfer functionLimit (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsOptimization problemControl theory (sociology)Bandwidth (computing)Function (biology)Optimal controlComputer scienceControl (management)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of standard control problems can be formulated as optimization problems where the goal is to minimize the H/sub /spl infin//-norm of some transfer function while subject to constraints on, for example, system bandwidth or peak sensitivity or output variance. Such constraints usually limit the achievable H/sub /spl infin// performance, but, since the constraints are typically included in the H/sub /spl infin// optimization problem only indirectly through the selection of weights, it is generally not known to what degree the constraints limit the performance. This paper shows how lower bounds on the achievable H/sub /spl infin// norm can be computed for problems where the objective function and constraints can all be written in terms of the sensitivity function. Both pointwise-in-frequency constraints (such as the requirement that the peak sensitivity be limited) and integral constraints (such as the requirement that the output variance be limited when subject to a stochastic disturbance) are dealt with. All constraints are explicitly included in the problem formulation; the solution approach involves optimal curve shaping and is, at least for the single-input single-output case, computationally straightforward.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStability and Control of Uncertain SystemsFrench-language works237,207