MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765784008 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.453

H∞ Performance of Mechanical and Power Networks

2017· article· en· W2765784008 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Pirani, Ehsan Hashemi, Barış Fi̇dan, John W. Simpson-Porco

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl and Stability of Dynamical Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Norm (philosophy)Topology (electrical circuits)Network topologyControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMechanical systemNetwork structureComplex networkMathematicsDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the robustness of two well-known applications of second-order consensus dynamics, namely mechanical and power networks. For uniform subsystem parameters, we derive expressions for the H∞ norms of mechanical and power networks, from external disturbances to body displacements and to generator phase angles, respectively. The closed-form expressions are in terms of the physical parameters (damping coefficients and inertias) of the dynamics and in terms of the spectrum of the grounded Laplacian matrix associated with the network. We then analyze the dependence of the H∞ norm of each network on both the network structure and the physical parameters. For a fixed network topology, we find that each system norm can be minimized by choosing the damping coefficient within a specified range. Theoretical contributions are verified via two illustrative examples for mechanical and power networks, in which we show that the network structure, number of the reference nodes and their location in the network can have considerable effects on the system H∞ norm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicControl and Stability of Dynamical SystemsFrench-language works237,207