MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135624149 · doi:10.1109/taes.2021.3065089

Explicit Nonlinear MPC for Fault Tolerance Using Interacting Multiple Models

2021· article· en· W3135624149 on OpenAlexafffund
Elyse Hill, S. Andrew Gadsden, Mohammad Biglarbegian

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)WeightingNonlinear systemFault toleranceController (irrigation)ActuatorModel predictive controlTracking errorControl engineeringMode (computer interface)Computer scienceMonte Carlo methodEngineeringSpacecraftControl (management)MathematicsReliability engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a novel algorithm for adaptive explicit nonlinear model predictive control (eNMPC) with applications to fault tolerance. In order to account for plant-model mismatch, under which fault tolerance applies, the controller's explicit solution is designed with multiple dynamic models representing various operating modes as opposed to a single system model. Each model is weighted by a parameter variable to be evaluated online as mode probabilities produced by an interacting multiple model (IMM). Weighting each potential system model allows the controller to use a dynamic model that best matches the current operating mode, thus mitigating the degrading performance brought on by plant-model mismatch. The developed strategy is validated on attitude maneuvers for a nonlinear spacecraft system in the presence of disturbances and two actuator faults, which are indicative of the system mode. Average root mean squared values on the tracking error and control effort over Monte Carlo simulations are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed techniques. Results indicate eNMPC benefits from access to weighted system models and manages similar levels of tracking error to standard spacecraft controllers at the same or minimal control effort.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic SystemsSame topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207