MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286283121 · doi:10.1002/aic.17777

Optimal control and the Pontryagin's principle in chemical engineering: History, theory, and challenges

2022· article· en· W4286283121 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIChE Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsPontryagin's minimum principleMaximum principleOptimal controlMathematical optimizationMathematicsControl (management)Hamiltonian (control theory)Computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the mid‐1950s, Pontryagin et al. published a principle that became a fundamental concept in optimal control (OC) theory. The principle provides theoretical and practical methods to find the solution of OC problems, in particular, open‐loop control problems. In chemical engineering, the principle has played an important role as a decision making framework for more than 60 years. This study gathers the main contributions on the application of the Pontryagin's principle to the dynamic optimization of chemical processes. A concise overview of the optimality conditions for a wide class of constrained OC problems is provided. Numerical methods to solve the necessary conditions and strategies to address inequality constraints are summarized. The information and illustrative case study presented in this work can be used as a guide to implement the principle in different settings. Opportunities for further application of the principle in relevant chemical engineering problems are also discussed.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · 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