MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955319481 · doi:10.1002/aic.16689

Toward self‐driving processes: A deep reinforcement learning approach to control

2019· article· en· W2955319481 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven Spielberg, Aditya Tulsyan, Nathan P. Lawrence, Philip D. Loewen, R. Bhushan Gopaluni

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningSelf drivingReinforcementSelf-controlControl (management)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPsychologySocial psychologyTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Advanced model‐based controllers are well established in process industries. However, such controllers require regular maintenance to maintain acceptable performance. It is a common practice to monitor controller performance continuously and to initiate a remedial model re‐identification procedure in the event of performance degradation. Such procedures are typically complicated and resource intensive, and they often cause costly interruptions to normal operations. In this article, we exploit recent developments in reinforcement learning and deep learning to develop a novel adaptive, model‐free controller for general discrete‐time processes. The deep reinforcement learning (DRL) controller we propose is a data‐based controller that learns the control policy in real time by merely interacting with the process. The effectiveness and benefits of the DRL controller are demonstrated through many simulations.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations144
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIChE JournalSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207