MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986022716 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23676

Interval state and sensor fault estimation based on unknown input observer and interval hull computation

2019· article· en· W2986022716 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Meng Zhou, Zhengcai Cao, Jing Wang, Chang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDecoupling (probability)Control theory (sociology)ComputationObserver (physics)Interval (graph theory)Interval estimationFault (geology)Fault detection and isolationHullComputer scienceInterval arithmeticState (computer science)AlgorithmMathematicsEngineeringControl engineeringArtificial intelligenceStatisticsConfidence intervalControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the problem of interval estimation of state and sensor fault simultaneously based on the unknown input decoupling technique and interval hull computation approach. To facilitate sensor fault estimation conveniently, it is first regarded as an auxiliary state, and the faulty system is transformed into an augmented descriptor system. Next, an unknown input observer is designed based on the P‐radius method for this augmented descriptor system to decouple some of the unknown system disturbance. Then, the bounds of the augmented state set effected by the undecoupled system uncertainties are calculated via an interval hull approximation technique. Finally, the effectiveness and practicality of this work are illustrated by a numerical example and a quadruple‐tank process system. This work demonstrates that by decoupling some unknown disturbances from the estimation error system, the zonotope's size, corresponding to state and sensor fault estimation, can be further reduced.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207