MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108384499 · doi:10.3390/pr3030541

Multi-Period Dynamic Optimization for Large-Scale Differential-Algebraic Process Models under Uncertainty

2015· article· en· W2108384499 on OpenAlexafffund
Ian D. Washington, Christopher L.E. Swartz

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsSolverDiscretizationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)ComputationLinear programmingInterval (graph theory)Parametric statisticsAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A technique for optimizing large-scale differential-algebraic process models under uncertainty using a parallel embedded model approach is developed in this article. A combined multi-period multiple-shooting discretization scheme is proposed, which creates a significant number of independent numerical integration tasks for each shooting interval over all scenario/period realizations. Each independent integration task is able to be solved in parallel as part of the function evaluations within a gradient-based non-linear programming solver. The focus of this paper is on demonstrating potential computation performance improvement when the embedded differential-algebraic equation model solution of the multi-period discretization is implemented in parallel. We assess our parallel dynamic optimization approach on two case studies; the first is a benchmark literature problem, while the second is a large-scale air separation problem that considers a robust set-point transition under parametric uncertainty. Results indicate that focusing on the speed-up of the embedded model evaluation can significantly decrease the overall computation time; however, as the multi-period formulation grows with increased realizations, the computational burden quickly shifts to the internal computation performed within the non-linear programming algorithm. This highlights the need for further decomposition, structure exploitation and parallelization within the non-linear programming algorithm and is the subject for further investigation.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207