MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917426533 · doi:10.1137/17m1127016

A Note on the Separation of Optimal Quantization and Control Policies in Networked Control

2019· article· en· W2917426533 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Control and Optimization · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStability and Control of Uncertain Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlOptimal controlMathematicsQuadratic equationConfusionQuantization (signal processing)GaussianControl theory (sociology)Control (management)Linear-quadratic regulatorFormalism (music)Stochastic controlSeparation principleMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For controlled $\mathbb{R}^n$-valued linear systems driven by Gaussian noise under quadratic cost criteria, we revisit the problem of the structure of optimal quantization and control policies. In a recent paper [IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 59 (2014), pp. 1612--1617] by the author, for fully observed and partially observed systems, the global optimality of predictive encoders was established under quadratic cost criteria. Furthermore, optimal control policies were shown to be linear in the conditional estimate of the state, and a form of separation of estimation and control was established. The present note does not introduce any new results or new conditions but clarifies that the results have been mischaracterized in the recent paper [M. Rabi, C. Ramesh, and K. H. Johansson, SIAM J. Control Optim., 54 (2016), pp. 662--689]. Since perhaps the arguments in [IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 59 (2014), pp. 1612--1617] were concise and this led to the confusion, its key result is presented here with a more detailed proof.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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