MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200276300 · doi:10.1080/00207179.2021.2015626

Fault-tolerant supervisory control with permanent faults

2021· article· en· W4200276300 on OpenAlexaff
Aos Mulahuwaish, Ryan J. Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Control · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPetri Nets in System Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisory controlControl (management)Control theory (sociology)Fault (geology)Fault toleranceComputer scienceReliability engineeringControl engineeringEngineeringGeologyArtificial intelligenceSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In our earlier work, we introduced a discrete-event system-based fault-tolerance approach designed to handle intermittent faults. This approach is different from the typical fault-tolerant methodology as the approach does not rely on detecting faults and switching to a new supervisor; it requires a supervisor to be designed that works correctly under normal and fault conditions. This is a passive approach that relies upon inherent redundancy in the system being controlled. This is also a foundation method that should allow a wide variety of existing fault approaches to be modelled but still allow controllability and nonblocking properties to be verified. Permanent faults could be modelled in this framework, but the current method was onerous. In this paper, we introduce a new modelling approach for permanent faults that is easy to use, as well as a set of new permanent fault-tolerant definitions. They are designed to capture several types of permanent fault scenarios (generic situations such as at most one fault occurs) and to ensure that our system remains controllable and nonblocking in each scenario. New definitions and scenarios were required as the previous ones were incompatible with the new permanent fault modelling approach. Finally, we present algorithms to verify these properties, followed by complexity analyses and correctness proofs of the algorithms. An example is then provided to illustrate our approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ControlSame topicPetri Nets in System ModelingFrench-language works237,207