MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033640106 · doi:10.1109/tnn.2011.2173804

Application of IFT and SPSA to Servo System Control

2011· article· en· W2033640106 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimultaneous perturbation stochastic approximationLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlControl theory (sociology)ServomechanismComputer scienceIntegratorLinear-quadratic regulatorMathematical optimizationControl engineeringOptimal controlStochastic processMathematicsEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceBandwidth (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper treats the application of two data-based model-free gradient-based stochastic optimization techniques, i.e., iterative feedback tuning (IFT) and simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation (SPSA), to servo system control. The representative case of controlled processes modeled by second-order systems with an integral component is discussed. New IFT and SPSA algorithms are suggested to tune the parameters of the state feedback controllers with an integrator in the linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) problem formulation. An implementation case study concerning the LQG-based design of an angular position controller for a direct current servo system laboratory equipment is included to highlight the pros and cons of IFT and SPSA from an application's point of view. The comparison of IFT and SPSA algorithms is focused on an insight into their implementation.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.169 · 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