MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multi-Objective Gain Optimizer for an Active Disturbance Rejection Controller

2019· article· en· W3003557230 on OpenAlex
Brayden DeBoon, Brayden Kent, Maciej Łącki, Scott Nokleby, Carlos Rossa

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive disturbance rejection controlControl theory (sociology)Disturbance (geology)SortingInverted pendulumComputer scienceGenetic algorithmController (irrigation)Control engineeringControl (management)EngineeringNonlinear systemAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC) has proven to be an efficient control method, however, the tuning of its parameters is a complicated endeavor. This paper explores the use of reference point based dominance in the traditional multi-objective non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) to perform the parameter tuning. The algorithm is applied to a simulation and physical implementation of an inverted pendulum system. The optimization method generated values that offered suitable performance among various fronts.

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 score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207