MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283160467 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24508

A survey and comparative evaluation of actor‐critic methods in process control

2022· article· en· W4283160467 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Optimal controlArtificial neural networkControl engineeringProcess controlControl (management)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Actor‐critic (AC) methods have emerged as an important class of reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm that enables model‐free control by acting on a process and learning from the consequence. To that end, these methods utilize artificial neural networks, which are synergized for action evaluation and optimal action prediction. This feature is highly desirable for process control, especially when the knowledge about a process is limited or when it is susceptible to uncertainties. In this work, we summarize important concepts of AC methods and survey their process control applications. This treatment is followed by a comparative evaluation of the set‐point tracking and robustness of controllers based on five prominent AC methods, namely, DDPG, TD3, SAC, PPO, and TRPO, in five case studies of varying process nonlinearity. The training demands and control performances indicate the superiority of DDPG and TD3 methods, which rely on off‐policy, deterministic search for optimal action policies. Overall, the knowledge base and results of this work are expected to serve practitioners in their efforts toward further development of autonomous process control strategies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.267 · 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