An upper bound on the error of alignment-based Transfer Learning between two linear, time-invariant, scalar systems
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
Methods from machine learning have successfully been used to improve the performance of control systems in cases when accurate models of the system or the environment are not available. These methods require the use of data generated from physical trials. Transfer Learning (TL) allows for this data to come from a different, similar system. This paper studies a simplified TL scenario with the goal of understanding in which cases a simple, alignment-based transfer of data is possible and beneficial. Two linear, time-invariant (LTI), single-input, single-output systems are tasked to follow the same reference signal. A scalar, LTI transformation is applied to the output from a source system to align with the output from a target system. An upper bound on the 2-norm of the transformation error is derived for a large set of reference signals and is minimized with respect to the transformation scalar. Analysis shows that the minimized error bound is reduced for systems with poles that lie close to each other (that is, for systems with similar response times). This criterion is relaxed for systems with poles that have a larger negative real part (that is, for stable systems with fast response), meaning that poles can be further apart for the same minimized error bound. Additionally, numerical results show that using the reference signal as input to the transformation reduces the minimized bound further.
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