A Practical Approach to the Phase and Amplitude Error Estimation for Pseudodynamic (PSD) Testing
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
In PSD testing, measured signals from the experiment are used in command generation on the fly, thus making this method prone to error propagation. One way to assess the accuracy of the real-time (or fast) PSD test results is to assess the accuracy of the tracking of command displacements imposed by the hydraulic actuators. This paper introduces indicators that can be used to uncouple and quantify actuator lag/lead (i.e., phase errors) and undershoot/overshoot (i.e., amplitude errors) errors that occur while imposing the command displacements dynamically in real-time. These closed-form indicators provide monitors that are not experiment-specific and are simple to use. They use uncomplicated mathematical functions, which makes them suitable candidates for online implementation with the potential for incorporation into the control law to improve the actuator control. The procedure and the associated theoretical background are explained for each step and then the properties of the indicators are examined through several predefined command and measured signals with known characteristics. In addition, the performance of the indicators is evaluated by comparing the results with those revealed by the previous indicators.
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 | 0.000 | 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