MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076875425 · doi:10.1115/imece2004-59824

On Uniqueness of Filippov’s Solutions for Non-Smooth Systems Having Multiple Discontinuity Surfaces With Applications to Control Engineering

2004· article· en· W2076875425 on OpenAlexaff
Qiong Wu, Hairong Zeng, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscontinuity (linguistics)UniquenessTangentMathematicsDifferential inclusionSurface (topology)Mathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of the uniqueness of Filippov’s solutions to non-smooth control systems is important before the solutions can be sought. Such an analysis is extremely challenging when the discontinuity surface is the intersecting discontinuity surfaces. The key step is to study the intersections of the convex sets from Filippov’s inclusions and the sets containing vectors tangent to the discontinuity surfaces. Due to the fact that all the elements of these sets are functions of the states and time and their numerical values can not be obtained before the uniqueness of the solution is analyzed, the determination of such intersections, symbolically, is extremely difficult. In this paper, we propose to firstly transform the control system to a new state space where the discontinuity surfaces can be written in special forms. Secondly, we expand the sets associated with Filippov’s inclusion such that the determinations of the intersections become feasible. Two examples of practical non-smooth control systems are presented to demonstrate the efficacy of the 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.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical SystemsFrench-language works237,207