MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559902406 · doi:10.1109/tcst.2016.2632533

Iteration Tuning of Disturbance Observer-Based Control System Satisfying Robustness Index for FOPTD Processes

2016· article· en· W2559902406 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceRobust controlControl systemMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A conventional disturbance observer (DOB)-based control system is a model-based control system. In this paper, a data-driven design method is proposed for the DOB-based control system using iteration feedback tuning (IFT) based on the first-order-plus-time-delay models. It is well known that the conventional data-based design methods cannot provide an explicit tradeoff between robustness and performance. Here, our goal is to develop a method to design the data-driven DOB-based control system satisfying a given robustness index. To this end, first, the tuning rules of the controller and the Q-filter in terms of the nominal process model are analytically determined for a given robustness index. Second, an optimization problem, solved by IFT algorithm, is established to find the optimal parameters of the nominal model. The merits of the proposed method are that: 1) the number of parameters needing to be tuned is reduced, since only the parameters of the nominal model are optimized and 2) the system satisfies the explicit robustness index if the parameters are optimal. Moreover, the selection of the robustness index, the output performance of the system, and the performance of the iteration algorithm are addressed. Two simulation examples and an experiment are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness and merits of the proposed method.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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