MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142135702 · doi:10.1109/icinfa.2011.5948955

Position domain PD control: Stability and comparison

2011· article· en· W2142135702 on OpenAlexafffund
P. R. Ouyang, T. Dam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPosition (finance)Control theory (sociology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Motion controlMotion (physics)Computer scienceTracking (education)Time domainStability (learning theory)Frequency domainArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer visionControl (management)RobotMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a position domain PD control for contour tracking is proposed to improve the contour tracking performance. To develop the position domain control, one motion is selected as a master (reference) motion and all other motions are viewed as slave motions. The reference motion is sampled equidistantly in the position domain and used as an independent variable. A dynamic model for the slave motions is developed in the position domain by transforming the original system dynamic equations from the time domain to the position domain. After that, a position domain PD control is proposed, and the stability analysis is conducted based on the Lyapunov function method. The developed position control is applied to linear motion tracking and circular motion tracking, and the comparison study is conducted. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the position PD control compared with traditional PD control and the crossed-coupled 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.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207