MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519819389 · doi:10.1115/1.4034729

Reduction of Hamiltonian Mechanical Systems With Affine Constraints: A Geometric Unification

2016· article· en· W2519819389 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl and Dynamics of Mobile Robots
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCotangent bundlePhase spaceHamiltonian systemSubmanifoldMathematicsNonholonomic systemDynamical systems theoryHamiltonian (control theory)Affine transformationInvariant manifoldClassical mechanicsMathematical analysisPhysicsGeometryComputer scienceMathematical optimizationTrigonometric functions

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a geometrical approach to the dynamical reduction of a class of constrained mechanical systems. The mechanical systems considered are with affine nonholonomic constraints plus a symmetry group. The dynamical equations are formulated in a Hamiltonian formalism using the Hamilton–d'Alembert equation, and constraint forces determine an affine distribution on the configuration manifold. The proposed reduction approach consists of three main steps: (1) restricting to the constrained submanifold of the phase space, (2) quotienting the constrained submanifold, and (3) identifying the quotient manifold with a cotangent bundle. Finally, as a case study, the dynamical reduction of a two-wheeled rover on a rotating disk is detailed. The symmetry group for this example is the relative configuration manifold of the rover with respect to the inertial space. The proposed approach in this paper unifies the existing reduction procedures for symmetric Hamiltonian systems with conserved momentum, and for Chaplygin systems, which are normally treated separately in the literature. Another characteristic of this approach is that although it tracks the structure of the equations in each reduction step, it does not insist on preserving the properties of the system. For example, the resulting dynamical equations may no longer correspond to a Hamiltonian system. As a result, the invariance condition of the Hamiltonian under a group action that lies at the heart of almost every reduction procedure is relaxed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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