MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083583835 · doi:10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0754

Robust approach to repetitive controller design for uncertain feedback control systems

2013· article· en· W2083583835 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueIET Control Theory and Applications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooHanbat National University
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringRobust controlComputer scienceController (irrigation)Repetitive controlFeedback controlOutput feedbackFeedback controllerControl systemControl (management)EngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many applications, add‐on type repetitive controllers have been reported to have prominent capability of attenuating periodic disturbances and/or tracking periodic reference commands. However, the effective information such as performance weighting functions for the design of feedback controllers has not been considered sufficiently on the design of repetitive controllers. In this study, we deal with a problem of a robust repetitive controller design for an uncertain feedback control system using its explicit performance information. We first show that a robust stability condition of repetitive control systems has a similar form with the well‐known robust performance condition of general feedback control systems. The repetitive controller is designed using the performance weighting function for the design of the robust feedback controller. It is also shown that a steady‐state tracking error of the repetitive control system is described in a simple form without time‐delay term. This result yields that the repetitive control system has a much larger loop gain in the steady state than the feedback control system. Moreover, this paper provides sufficient conditions ensuring that the power of the steady‐state tracking error in the repetitive control system is less than or equal to that of the feedback control system. Based on the obtained results, we present repetitive controller design method using the design information of the feedback control system. Finally, application studies on the track‐following control system of optical disk drives are performed to show the validity of the proposed 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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.197 · 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