Actuator Placement Under Structural Controllability Using Forward and Reverse Greedy Algorithms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actuator placement is an active field of research, which has received significant attention for its applications in complex dynamical networks. In this article, we study the problem of finding a set of actuator placements minimizing the metric that measures the average energy consumed for state transfer by the controller, while satisfying a structural controllability requirement and a cardinality constraint on the number of actuators allowed. As no computationally efficient methods are known to solve such combinatorial set function optimization problems, two greedy algorithms, forward and reverse, are proposed to obtain approximate solutions. We first show that the constraint sets these algorithms explore can be characterized by matroids. We then obtain performance guarantees for the forward and reverse greedy algorithms applied to the general class of matroid optimization problems by exploiting properties of the objective function such as the submodularity ratio and the curvature. Finally, we propose feasibility check methods for both algorithms based on maximum flow problems on certain auxiliary graphs originating from the network graph. Our results are verified with case studies over large networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it