MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091712402 · doi:10.1109/systol.2010.5675981

A data-driven fault tolerant model predictive control with fault identification

2010· article· en· W2091712402 on OpenAlexaff
Hojjat A. Izadi, Brandon W. Gordon, Youmin Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl reconfigurationFault (geology)Model predictive controlFault toleranceIdentification (biology)Process (computing)Fault modelStuck-at faultComputer scienceControl engineeringFault indicatorController (irrigation)Fault detection and isolationProcess controlFault coverageEngineeringControl theory (sociology)Control (management)Reliability engineeringEmbedded systemActuatorArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the existing active control methodologies need a post-fault/failure model of the faulty process for online retuning the controller parameters, or reconfiguration. However, post-fault model identification process takes the precious post-fault time which delays the recovery procedure. A new data-driven fault tolerant model predictive control (MPC) is developed which does not need the post-fault model. In fact, the model identification and control (re)calculation are combined together and are performed simultaneously to efficiently use the critical post-fault/failure time. The proposed fault tolerant architecture is capable of the online fault identification and adapting effectively to the post-fault/failure model. Several simulations of hover control of an unmanned quad-rotor helicopter are performed to illustrate the usefulness of the proposed approach.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207