MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155828528 · doi:10.1002/rnc.3224

The minimum gain lemma

2014· article· en· W2155828528 on OpenAlex
Leila Bridgeman, James Richard Forbes

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStability and Control of Uncertain Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLemma (botany)Small-gain theoremAutomatic gain controlHigh-gain antennaControl theory (sociology)MathematicsStability (learning theory)Open-loop gainGain schedulingComputer scienceControl (management)EngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the newly developed notion of minimum gain and the corresponding Large Gain Theorem. The Large Gain Theorem is an input–output stability result particularly well suited to unstable plants connected in feedback with stable or unstable controllers. This paper aims to facilitate the practical application of these results. An altered definition of minimum gain broadens the applicability of the Large Gain Theorem, and the novel Minimum Gain Lemma provides LMI conditions that imply and are often equivalent to a minimum gain for LTI systems. Numerical examples are provided to clarify the differences between the existing and proposed definitions of minimum gain, highlight the utility of the newly established Minimum Gain Lemma, and demonstrate how the paper's contributions may be employed in practice. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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