MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767149636 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1991

Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Particle Swarms for Safe Adaptive Controller Tuning

2017· article· en· W2767149636 on OpenAlexaff
Rikky R. P. R. Duivenvoorden, Felix Berkenkamp, Nicolas Carion, Andreas Krause, Angela P. Schoellig

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian optimizationParticle swarm optimizationController (irrigation)Computer scienceDiscretizationProcess (computing)HeuristicControl theory (sociology)Adaptive controlFine-tuningMathematical optimizationBayesian probabilityField (mathematics)Control engineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tuning controller parameters is a recurring and time-consuming problem in control. This is especially true in the field of adaptive control, where good performance is typically only achieved after significant tuning. Recently, it has been shown that constrained Bayesian optimization is a promising approach to automate the tuning process without risking system failures during the optimization process. However, this approach is computationally too expensive for tuning more than a couple of parameters. In this paper, we provide a heuristic in order to efficiently perform constrained Bayesian optimization in high-dimensional parameter spaces by using an adaptive discretization based on particle swarms. We apply the method to the tuning problem of an L 1 adaptive controller on a quadrotor vehicle and show that we can reliably and automatically tune parameters in experiments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207