MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018375358 · doi:10.1109/iecon.2012.6388707

High order robust Terminal Iterative Learning Control design using Genetic Algorithm

2012· article· en· W2018375358 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)AlgorithmThermoformingIterative learning controlComputer scienceTerminal (telecommunication)Robust controlTemperature controlControl theory (sociology)Control systemGenetic algorithmArtificial intelligenceControl (management)EngineeringControl engineeringMachine learningMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the thermoforming industry, the heater temperature set points can be automatically tuned with Terminal Iterative Learning Control (TILC). This cycle-to-cycle control is used to adjust the heater temperature set points so that the temperature profile at the surface of the plastic sheet converges to the desired one. The structure of the proposed high order TILC is based on the Internal Model Control (IMC). The robustness of a closed-loop system with this TILC algorithm is measured using the H <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">∞</sub> Mixed Sensitivity approach. A Genetic Algorithm (GA) is used to find a high order TILC controller parameters giving the most robust closed-loop system. Simulation results are included to show the effectiveness of those designed robust TILC algorithms.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207