Dynamic real‐time optimization with closed‐loop prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Process plants are operating in an increasingly global and dynamic environment, motivating the development of dynamic real‐time optimization (DRTO) systems to account for transient behavior in the determination of economically optimal operating policies. This article considers optimization of closed‐loop response dynamics at the DRTO level in a two‐layer architecture, with constrained model predictive control (MPC) applied at the regulatory control level. A simultaneous solution approach is applied to the multilevel DRTO optimization problem, in which the convex MPC optimization subproblems are replaced by their necessary and sufficient Karush–Kuhn–Tucker optimality conditions, resulting in a single‐level mathematical program with complementarity constraints. The performance of the closed‐loop DRTO strategy is compared to that of the open‐loop prediction counterpart through a multi‐part case study that considers linear dynamic systems with different characteristics. The performance of the proposed strategy is further demonstrated through application to a nonlinear polymerization reactor grade transition problem. © 2017 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J , 63: 3896–3911, 2017
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) | 0.002 | 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".