MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2703603952 · doi:10.1109/tac.2017.2717898

A Comparative Study of Input–Output Stability Results

2017· article· en· W2703603952 on OpenAlexaff
Leila Bridgeman, James Richard Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStability (learning theory)Conic sectionControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematical economicsControl (management)Artificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At present, many similar but disparate input-output (I-O) stability criteria exist. Without means for comparison, it is unclear which result is best used in any given application. This paper proposes a means for comparison between I-O stability results involving norms and inner products of inputs and outputs. The extended conic sector theorem provides a framework for determining which results are least conservative and most broadly applicable. In so-doing, numerous existing stability results are unified and revealed as more powerful than previously thought.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207