On the Use of Nonlinear Model Predictive Control without Parameter Adaptation for Batch Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimization techniques are typically used to improve economic performance of batch processes, while meeting product and environmental specifications and safety constraints. Offline methods suffer from the parameters of the model being inaccurate, while re-identification of the parameters may not be possible due to the absence of persistency of excitation. Thus, a practical solution is the Nonlinear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) without parameter adaptation, where the measured states serve as new initial conditions for the re-optimization problem with a diminishing horizon. In such schemes, it is clear that the optimum cannot be reached due to plant-model mismatch. However, this paper goes one step further in showing that such re-optimization could in certain cases, especially with an economic cost, lead to results worse than the offline optimal input. On the other hand, in absence of process noise, for small parametric variations, if the cost function corresponds to tracking a feasible trajectory, re-optimization always improves performance. This shows inherent robustness associated with the tracking cost. A batch reactor example presents and analyzes the different cases. Re-optimizing led to worse results in some cases with an economical cost function, while no such problem occurred while working with a tracking cost.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".