Deterministic vs. stochastic performance assessment of iterative learning control for batch processes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance assessment of linear time‐invariant batch processes when iterative learning control (ILC) is implemented has been discussed. Previous literatures show that conventional performance assessment cannot be directly applied to batch processes due to the nature of batch operations. Chen and Kong have suggested a new method to assess the control performance of batch processes using optimal ILC as the benchmark. In their work, ILC controllers are assumed to affect either stochastic or deterministic performance but without considering their interaction. This work elaborates the controllers effects on both stochastic and deterministic control performance of batch processes. It is shown that the optimal solution based on the minimum variance control law has a trade‐off between deterministic and stochastic performance, which can be shown by a trade‐off curve. Furthermore, a method is proposed to estimate this curve from routine operating data, against which the performance of ILC controllers can be assessed. Simulation studies are conducted to verify the proposed method. © 2012 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 59: 457–464, 2013
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it