MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999442988 · doi:10.1002/aic.16922

A trust‐region framework for integration of design and control

2020· article· en· W2999442988 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsOperabilityTrust regionPiecewiseKey (lock)Metric (unit)Mathematical optimizationProcess (computing)Computer scienceControl (management)Series (stratigraphy)Scale (ratio)MathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A trust‐region approach is presented to address the simultaneous design and control of large‐scale systems under uncertainty. The key idea is to represent the system using power series expansions (PSEs) as piecewise models in an iterative manner while the validity of those expansions is certified in a trusted region. The mean of squared errors is used as a metric to quantify the accuracy of the PSE approximations. Identified search regions specify the boundaries of the decision variables for the PSE‐based optimization problems. The proposed algorithm shows a significant accomplishment in locating dynamically feasible and near‐optimal design and operating conditions. The proposed approach was tested in a wastewater treatment plant and the Tennessee Eastman process. The results indicate that the proposed methodology leads to more economically attractive and reliable designs while maintaining the dynamic operability of the system in the presence of disturbances and uncertainty.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.214 · 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