MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888926321 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2018.8447604

Artificial Neural Network Modelling of Rossler's and Chua's Chaotic Systems

2018· article· en· W2888926321 on OpenAlexaff
Jobin Pulayamparambil Sunny, Jesse Schmitz, Lei Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicChaos control and synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkChaoticNonlinear autoregressive exogenous modelAttractorFeedforward neural networkBackpropagationNonlinear systemFeed forwardControl theory (sociology)Radial basis function networkArtificial intelligenceRadial basis functionControl engineeringMathematicsEngineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the detailed analysis of various Artificial Neural Network (ANN) modelling techniques for chaotic systems. Specifically, Rossler's system and Chua's system are selected for this study for their practical applications, and the outputs of these two systems are used for the ANN training. The Nonlinear Auto-Regressive(NAR) modelling is used for chaotic time series prediction. The Nonlinear Auto-Regressive with Exogenous Inputs (NARX) modelling is used for generating chaotic time series outputs with varying system parameters as exogenous inputs. The research results show that ANN performs well in modelling chaotic systems. Rossler's attractor is modelled using Radial Basis Function Network(RBFN) and a comparative study between FeedForward Neural Network(FFNN) and RBFN is done. The result shows that RBFN uses more neurons to achieve similar training performance compared to FFNN. The 3-layer ANN architecture with hidden neurons varying from 1 to 16 is designed and trained using MATLAB NN toolbox. In a fixed-point FPGA implementation perspective, a study on the performance of ANN modelling of chaotic systems is very relevant.

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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.215
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 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChaos control and synchronizationFrench-language works237,207