MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102250201

TOWARDS OPTIMAL MPC PERFORMANCE: INDUSTRIAL TOOLS FOR MULTIVARIATE CONTROL MONITORING AND DIAGNOSIS

2006· article· en· W2102250201 on OpenAlexaff
Biao Huang, Sien Lu, Fangwei Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToolboxUnivariateMultivariate statisticsComputer scienceModel predictive controlVariance (accounting)Process (computing)Machine learningControl (management)Bayesian probabilityData miningArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Univariate control performance assessment (PA) was developed in late 1980s and it has been widely applied in industry. Multivariate control performance assessment was developed in 1990s, but its application has been limited. While the algorithm of univariate PA is rather straightforward to write, the multivariate control performance assessment (MVPA) is much more difficult to program. In addition, conventional MVPA algorithms alone appear not to be sufficient or sometime even irrelevant for evaluating model predictive control (MPC) systems. With demands from industries, an industrial toolbox for MVPA including variance based performance monitoring, economic performance assessment, process modeling and other diagnosis algorithms has been developed. Synthesized application of this toolbox makes MVPA highly relevant in MPC monitoring. This paper gives an overview of the toolbox developed for industrial applications and elaborates the key algorithms including model-based algorithm for MVPA, newly developed data-driven model-free approach to MVPA, and MPC economic performance assessment. It is then pointed out there is a lack of systematic and synthetic performance diagnosis means in current literature. The difficulty of developing systematic diagnosis tools is addressed. The solution strategy using Bayesian graphic network is then proposed. The proposed performance diagnosis framework is illustrated through some illustrative graphic examples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207