MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2374079098 · doi:10.1504/ijspacese.2015.072346

An extension of linear-quadratic regulator trend to determine near optimal performance of nonlinear systems using evolutionary algorithms

2015· article· en· W2374079098 on OpenAlexaff
Amirhossein Ahadi, Afshin Rahimi, Reza Khoshrooz Azad, Sogol Bandehali

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Space Science and Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear-quadratic regulatorControl theory (sociology)Particle swarm optimizationOptimal controlPID controllerController (irrigation)Nonlinear systemMathematical optimizationControl systemComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringControl engineeringControl (management)Temperature control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimal control theory is focused on operating dynamic systems at minimum cost where cost would be defined as a function of time, the control effort, or a combination of both. Linear-quadratic regulator (LQR), as one of the well-known methods in this field, deals with obtaining an optimum control input for linear systems. In this study, we have proposed a novel method to employ the linear-quadratic regulator solution of a linearised system towards determining near-optimal performance for the corresponding nonlinear system. The LQR solution is used in this method to determine either the starting point or boundaries of the search domain. Next, an optimisation technique such as particle swarm optimisation (PSO), genetic algorithm (GA) or ant colony optimisation (ACO) can be used to find the near-optimal parameters for the employed controller unit. It should be noted that the controller unit can operate based on any modern control concept such as sliding mode control (SMC) or primitive partial-integral-derivative (PID) control commonly used in industrial applications for the ease-of-use and reliability it provides. Performance of the proposed technique is evaluated for the attitude control of a flexible micro-satellite. Numerical simulations are employed in conjunction with experimental results from a hardware-in-the-loop (HITL) test-bed. Results show superior performance of the proposed methodology compared to existing literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Space Science and EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207