MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011094784 · doi:10.1021/ie070270r

Interior Point Solution of Multilevel Quadratic Programming Problems in Constrained Model Predictive Control Applications

2007· article· en· W2011094784 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

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarush–Kuhn–Tucker conditionsQuadratic programmingModel predictive controlMathematical optimizationOptimization problemInterior point methodComputer scienceLinear complementarity problemQuadratically constrained quadratic programLinear programmingQuadratic equationConstrained optimizationNonlinear programmingMathematicsControl (management)Nonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the use of an interior point strategy to solve multilevel optimization problems that arise from the inclusion of the closed-loop response of constrained, linear model predictive control (MPC) within a primary quadratic or linear programming problem. We motivate the formulation through its application to optimizing control problems, although the strategy is applicable to several problem types. The problem is cast as a dynamic optimization problem in which an optimal steady-state operating point is sought, subject to constraints on the closed-loop response of the system under constrained predictive control. Because a quadratic programming (QP) problem must be solved at every sampling period, the resulting problem is multilevel in nature. The formulation approach used in this paper is to include the Karush−Kuhn−Tucker (KKT) conditions that correspond to the MPC quadratic programming subproblems as constraints within a single-level optimization problem. The resulting complementarity constrained optimization problem is shown to be reliably and efficiently solved using an interior point approach. The method is applied to two case studies, and its performance is compared to an alternative mixed-integer programming solution 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.258 · 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