MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Asymptotical rotating consensus algorithm with processing delay

2019· article· en· W2980328257 on OpenAlexaff
Fen Nie, Xiaojun Duan, Yicheng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaplacian matrixRotation (mathematics)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsAlgorithmLaplace operatorMathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Topology (electrical circuits)LogarithmGeometryMathematical analysisPhysicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we studied some consensus algorithms for the collective rotating motions of a team of agents, which has been widely studied in different disciplines ranging from physics, networks and engineering. Both discrete and continues consensus algorithm with processing delays are investigated. There are three motion patterns determined by the information exchange topology of systems and rotation angle of rotation matrices. The asymptotic consensus appears when 0 is an simple eigenvalue of Laplacian matrix and the rotation angle is less than the critical value, and the rotating consensus achieves when the rotation angle is equal to the critical value. At this point, all agents move on circular orbits and the relative radii of orbits are equal to the relative magnitudes of the components of a right eigenvector associated with 0 eigenvalue of the non-symmetric Laplacian matrix. Finally, all agents move along logarithmic spiral curves with a fixed center when the rotation angle is larger than the critical value.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207