MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977880070 · doi:10.1109/tcyb.2019.2940987

Synchronization in Kuramoto Oscillator Networks With Sampled-Data Updating Law

2019· article· en· W2977880070 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Cybernetics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNonlinear Dynamics and Pattern Formation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSynchronization (alternating current)Asynchronous communicationComputer scienceLinearizationCoupling (piping)Control theory (sociology)Stability (learning theory)Lyapunov stabilitySynchronization networksLyapunov functionNonlinear systemControl (management)PhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we are concerned with the synchronization problem of Kuramoto oscillators under the sampled-data updating law. This article is motivated by the needs of synchronization of Kuramoto oscillators in the presence of periodic and asynchronous coupling updates. Based on the periodical sampled-data method, a sufficient condition ensuring synchronization under periodic updates is derived. In order to relax the requirement of having all data updated simultaneously, an event-triggered law is designed to implement asynchronous coupling updates. Our synchronization analysis does not rely on any linearization technique around equilibrium points. Instead, we employ the Lyapunov stability theory and nonsmooth analysis technique to deduce the synchronization conditions and estimate the region of attraction. The effectiveness of the proposed sampled-data coupling is illustrated by numerical 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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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