MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946836103 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00390

Robust Adaptive Recurrent Cerebellar Model Neural Network for Non-linear System Based on GPSO

2019· article· en· W2946836103 on OpenAlexaff
Jiansheng Guan, Shao-jiang Hong, Yong Zeng, Yuan Sun, Chih‐Min Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersXiamen University of TechnologyXiamen UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Fujian Province
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A robust adaptive recurrent cerebellar model articulation controller (RARC) neural network for non-linear systems using the genetic particle swarm optimization (GPSO) algorithm is presented in this study. The RARC is used as the principal tracking controller and the robust compensation controller is designed to recover the residual of the approximation error. In the RARC neural network, the steepest descent gradient method and the Lyapunov function are used for deriving the adaptive law parameter of the system. Besides, the learning rates play an important role in these adaptive laws and they have a great effect on the functions of control systems. In this paper, the combination of the genetic algorithm with the mutation particle swarm optimization algorithm is applied to seek for the optimal learning rates of the RARC adaptation laws. The numerical simulations about the inverted pendulum system as well as the robot manipulator system are given to confirm the effectiveness and practicability of the GPSO-RARC-based control system. Compared with other control schemes, the proposed control scheme is testified to be reliable and can obtain the optimal parameter about the learning rates and the minimum root mean square error for non-linear systems.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207