MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044180188 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450810515

On‐line Tuning of Model Predictive Controllers Using Fuzzy Logic

2003· article· en· W2044180188 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicControl theory (sociology)DiagonalComputer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Binary numberConstant (computer programming)Fuzzy control systemSelf-tuningSimple (philosophy)Model predictive controlMeasure (data warehouse)Feature (linguistics)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsControl (management)Artificial intelligenceControl engineeringData miningEngineeringPID controllerTemperature control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper addresses the problem of tuning model predictive controllers for good performance. An automatic online tuning strategy is developed to adjust the prediction horizon, P , the diagonal elements of the input weight matrix, Λ, and the diagonal elements of the output weight matrix, Γ. The control horizon is left constant because its relative value with respect to P is more important. The tuning algorithm is based on the fuzzy logic concepts. Predefined fuzzy rules that formulate the general tuning guidelines available in the literature and the performance violation measure in the form of fuzzy sets determine the new tuning parameter values. Therefore, the tuning algorithm is cast as a simple and straightforward mechanism with modest computational requirements. This feature makes it more appealing for online implementation. The effectiveness of the proposed tuning method is tested through simulated implementation on a binary distillation column example and on a non linear CSTR example. The result of the simulations revealed the success of such a method.

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 score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.186 · 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