Prescribing Closed-Loop Behavior Using Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we address the problem of control of nonlinear systems to deliver a prescribed closed-loop behavior. In particular, the framework allows for the practitioner to first specify the nature and specifics of the desired closed-loop behavior (e.g., first order with smallest time constant, second order with no more than a certain percentage overshoot, etc.). An optimization based formulation then computes the control action to deliver the best attainable closed loop behavior. To decouple the problems of determining the best attainable behavior and tracking it as closely as possible, the optimization problem is posed and solved in two tiers. In the first tier, the focus is on determining the best closed-loop behavior attainable, subject to stability and tracking constraints. In the second tier, the inputs are tweaked to possibly improve the tracking of the optimal output trajectories given by the first tier. The efficacy of the proposed method and the various specific formulations needed are illustrated through implementation on a linear system subject to output feedback, a nonlinear CSTR subject to uncertainty and rate of change of input constraints, and a reactor separator system. The simulation results demonstrate significantly improved adherence to the prescribed performance criteria over a predictive controller representative of existing approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it