MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113492334 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2006.377614

Computing Viable Sets and Reachable Sets to Design Feedback Linearizing Control Laws Under Saturation

2006· article· en· W2113492334 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStability and Control of Uncertain Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReachabilityControl theory (sociology)Feedback linearizationParameterized complexityNonlinear systemBounded functionLinearizationInvariant (physics)Nonlinear controlLawComputationComputer scienceMathematicsControl (management)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider feedback linearizable systems subject to bounded control input and nonlinear state constraints. In a single computation, we synthesize 1) parameterized nonlinear controllers based on feedback linearization, and 2) the set of states over which this controller is valid. This is accomplished through a reachability calculation, in which the state is extended to incorporate input parameters. While we use a Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, a viability approach is also feasible. The result provides a mathematical guarantee that for all states within the computed set, there exists a control law that simultaneously satisfy two separate goals: envelope protection (no violation of state constraints), and stabilization despite saturation. We apply this technique to two real-world systems: the longitudinal dynamics of a civil jet aircraft, and a two-aircraft, planar collision avoidance scenario. The result, in both cases, is a feasible range of input parameters for the nonlinear control law, and a corresponding controlled invariant set

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 score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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