A distributed and cooperative supervisory estimation of multi-agent systems - Part II: Verification and case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A framework for supervisory cooperative estimation in multi-agent linear time-invariant (LTI) systems is presented in the companion work (Part I). We introduced a set of sub-observers such that each estimates some states with a given set of input, output, and state information. A discerete-event system (DES) supervisory control framework is used for cooperation among the sub-observers. The supervisor selects a set of sub-observers to successfully estimate all states of the multi-agent system. In addition, in presence of a fault in the system, the supervisor reconfigures the set of selected sub-observers to minimize the fault impact on the estimation performance. Our general framework can be applied to any multi-agent system including industrial processes. In the companion paper (Part I), our proposed framework for the supervisory estimation is developed based on the notion of subobservers and DES supervisory control. In this paper (Part II), a DES-based combinatorial optimization method for selection of an optimal set of sub-observers is presented, the feasibility of the overall integrated sub-observers is validated, and the application of our proposed method in a practical industrial process is demonstrated through numerical simulations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".