MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131314118 · doi:10.1109/3477.915351

Two-level tuning of fuzzy PID controllers

2001· article· en· W2131314118 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 Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Fuzzy logicPID controllerNonlinear systemFuzzy control systemComputer scienceHeuristicsControl engineeringMathematicsControl (management)EngineeringMathematical optimizationTemperature controlArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuzzy PID tuning requires two stages of tuning; low level tuning followed by high level tuning. At the higher level, a nonlinear tuning is performed to determine the nonlinear characteristics of the fuzzy output. At the lower level, a linear tuning is performed to determine the linear characteristics of the fuzzy output for achieving overall performance of fuzzy control. First, different fuzzy systems are defined and then simplified for two-point control. Non-linearity tuning diagrams are constructed for fuzzy systems in order to perform high level tuning. The linear tuning parameters are deduced from the conventional PID tuning knowledge. Using the tuning diagrams, high level tuning heuristics are developed. Finally, different applications are demonstrated to show the validity of the proposed tuning method.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.205 · 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