MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751362086 · doi:10.11159/cdsr17.114

Are Fractional PIDµ Controllers Good for All Processes?

2017· article· en· W2751362086 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference of Control, Dynamic systems, and Robotics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPiControl theory (sociology)Computer sciencePID controllerMathematicsControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceGeometryTemperature control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fractional PI D controllers are considered as a promising alternative of PID controllers for future industrial applications. In comparison to classical PI and PID controllers, improved performance of fractional controllers for a number of applications has been reported. However, it is still unclear for which type of systems the more computationally-demanding fractional controllers would be significantly better as a replacement for integer PI and PID controllers. In this investigation, fractional controllers and classical PI and PID controllers have been tested for different benchmark systems to determine which classes of systems would benefit the most of using a more complex control algorithm. Results show that, despite the added degrees of freedom, it is not always beneficial to use such a computationally expensive controller and, only for some types of systems, fractional controllers will enhance controller performances.

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)0.001
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 score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.234 · 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