MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045932873 · doi:10.1109/cca.2014.6981379

Prediction error identification of Hammerstein models in the presence of ARIMA disturbances

2014· article· en· W2045932873 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim A. Aljamaan, David T. Westwick, Michael Foley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageSystem identificationMonte Carlo methodNoise (video)Computer scienceMaxima and minimaIdentification (biology)Parametric statisticsFilter (signal processing)MinificationAlgorithmMathematical optimizationControl theory (sociology)MathematicsTime seriesStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMeasure (data warehouse)Machine learningData miningControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an algorithm is developed for the identification of a Hammerstein system in the presence of non-stationary measurement noise in the form of an Auto Regressive Integral Moving Average (ARIMA) model. Many systems used in the chemical process control industry can be modelled with the Hammerstein structure, a block oriented model consisting of a memoryless non-linearity followed by a linear filter. However, these systems are often subject to random step disturbances which violate the stationarity assumptions required by most system identification algorithms. Stationarity can be restored by differencing the measured output. As a result, parametric identification methods are applied to approximate the elements of the modified plant, and noise models, as well as the non-linearity simultaneously using prediction error minimization based approaches. Instrumental Variable methods are employed to generate good initial estimates of these systems, and so to decrease the chances of the optimization getting caught in suboptimal local minima. Estimates of the original system components are then recovered from the identified model. Monte-Carlo simulation and high-order correlation-based validation tests are used to demonstrate the performance of the algorithm.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicControl Systems and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207