MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196938335 · doi:10.1137/21m1444588

An Algorithm for Local Transverse Feedback Linearization

2023· article· en· W3196938335 on OpenAlexafffund
Rollen S. D’Souza, Christopher Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Control and Optimization · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFeedback linearizationMathematicsSubmanifoldControl theory (sociology)LinearizationInvariant manifoldInvariant (physics)Manifold (fluid mechanics)LTI system theoryNonlinear systemAffine transformationTransverse planeSystem dynamicsCoordinate systemCenter manifoldLinear systemMathematical analysisControl (management)Computer scienceGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Given a multi-input, nonlinear, time-invariant, control-affine system and a controlled-invariant, closed, embedded submanifold [Formula: see text], the local transverse feedback linearization (TFL) problem seeks a coordinate and feedback transformation such that, in transformed coordinates, the dynamics governing the system’s transverse evolution with respect to [Formula: see text] are linear, time-invariant, and controllable. The transformed system is said to be in the TFL normal form. Checkable necessary and sufficient conditions for this problem to be solvable are known, but, unfortunately, the literature does not present a prescription that constructs the required transformation for multi-input systems. In this article we present an algorithm that produces a virtual output of suitable vector relative degree that, using input-output feedback linearization, puts the system into TFL normal form. The procedure is based on dual conditions for TFL and is fundamentally different from existing methods, such as the GS algorithm proposed by Gardner and Shadwick and the Blended Algorithm, because of the “desired” zero dynamics manifold [Formula: see text]. The proposed algorithm is the first to take into consideration the desired zero dynamics manifold.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Control and OptimizationSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207