MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104157184 · doi:10.1109/91.963756

A systematic study of fuzzy PID controllers-function-based evaluation approach

2001· article· en· W2104157184 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPID controllerControl theory (sociology)Fuzzy logicNonlinear systemFuzzy control systemMathematicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationControl engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineeringTemperature controlControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A function-based evaluation approach is proposed for a systematic study of fuzzy proportional-integral-derivative (PID)-like controllers. This approach is applied for deriving process-independent design guidelines from addressing two issues: simplicity and nonlinearity. To examine the simplicity of fuzzy PID controllers, we conclude that direct-action controllers exhibit simpler design properties than gain-scheduling controllers. Then, we evaluate the inference structures of direct-action controllers in five criteria: control-action composition, input coupling, gain dependency, gain-role change, and rule/parameter growth. Three types of fuzzy PID controllers, using one-, two- and three-input inference structures, are analyzed. The results, according to the criteria, demonstrate some shortcomings in Mamdani's two-input controllers. For keeping the simplicity feature like a linear PID controller, a one-input fuzzy PID controller with "one-to-three" mapping inference engine is recommended. We discuss three evaluation approaches in a nonlinear approximation study: function-estimation-based, generalization-capability-based and nonlinearity-variation-based approximations. The study focuses on the last approach. A nonlinearity evaluation is then performed for several one-input fuzzy PID controllers based on two measures: nonlinearity variation index and linearity approximation index. Using these quantitative indices, one can make a reasonable selection of fuzzy reasoning mechanisms and membership functions without requiring any process information. From the study we observed that the Zadeh-Mamdani's "max-min-gravity" scheme produces the highest score in terms of nonlinearity variations, which is superior to other schemes, such as Mizumoto's "product-sum-gravity" and "Takagi-Sugeno-Kang" schemes.

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)0.003
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 score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.228 · 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