MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078245243 · doi:10.1002/acs.913

Model reference adaptive iterative learning control for linear systems

2006· article· en· W2078245243 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

VenueInternational Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIterative learning controlAdaptive controlControl theory (sociology)Parametric statisticsPointwiseMathematicsConvergence (economics)Interval (graph theory)Linear systemTracking errorReference modelComputer scienceMathematical optimizationControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we propose a model reference adaptive control (MRAC) strategy for continuous‐time single‐input single‐output (SISO) linear time‐invariant (LTI) systems with unknown parameters, performing repetitive tasks. This is achieved through the introduction of a discrete‐type parametric adaptation law in the ‘iteration domain’, which is directly obtained from the continuous‐time parametric adaptation law used in standard MRAC schemes. In fact, at the first iteration, we apply a standard MRAC to the system under consideration, while for the subsequent iterations, the parameters are appropriately updated along the iteration‐axis, in order to enhance the tracking performance from iteration to iteration. This approach is referred to as the model reference adaptive iterative learning control (MRAILC). In the case of systems with relative degree one, we obtain a pointwise convergence of the tracking error to zero, over the whole finite time interval, when the number of iterations tends to infinity. In the general case, i.e. systems with arbitrary relative degree, we show that the tracking error converges to a prescribed small domain around zero, over the whole finite time interval, when the number of iterations tends to infinity. It is worth noting that this approach allows: (1) to extend existing MRAC schemes, in a straightforward manner, to repetitive systems; (2) to avoid the use of the output time derivatives, which are generally required in traditional iterative learning control (ILC) strategies dealing with systems with high relative degree; (3) to handle systems with multiple tracking objectives (i.e. the desired trajectory can be iteration‐varying). Finally, simulation results are carried out to support the theoretical development. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · 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