MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108046507 · doi:10.1109/tac.2006.878745

On Overshoot and Nonminimum Phase Zeros

2006· article· en· W2108046507 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 Automatic Control · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvershoot (microwave communication)Control theory (sociology)Settling timePole–zero plotMathematicsStep responseTransient responseMinimum phaseLoop (graph theory)Transfer functionInfinityPhase (matter)Computer scienceMathematical analysisPhysicsControl (management)EngineeringControl engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely known that real nonminimum phase zeros lead to step response undershoot, and that the size of the undershoot necessarily tends to infinity as the settling time tends to zero. In this note, we show that the presence of two or more real nonminimum phase zeros can lead to step response overshoot in addition to undershoot. A lower bound on the overshoot is derived, and it is shown that the overshoot, like the undershoot, necessarily tends to infinity as the settling time tends to zero. The results are derived for single-input-single-output linear time-invariant continuous-time systems, and apply to both open-loop control and general two degree-of-freedom closed-loop control

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.212 · 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