MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311133206 · doi:10.18280/jesa.550513

Optimal Control Approach for Robot System Using LQG Technique

2022· article· en· W4311133206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ibrahim Khalaf Mohammed, Mohanad N. Noaman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl and Dynamics of Mobile Robots
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlControl theory (sociology)Linear-quadratic regulatorOptimal projection equationsKalman filterController (irrigation)Optimal controlOvershoot (microwave communication)Control engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two-wheeled self-balancing robot system bases on the physical problem of an inverted pendulum. Stabilization of this type of mobile robot requires applying an active control approach. This paper proposes an efficient Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) optimal control for the two-wheeled robot system. The LQG (a combination of a Kalman Filter (KF) and Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR)) controller is designed to stabilize the robot while reducing the effect of the process and measurement noises on its performance. The LQG controller parameters (elements of state and control weighting matrices of the LQR and KF) are optimally tuned using the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) optimization method. The robot stabilization scheme is simulated utilizing MATLAB software to validate the proposed PSO-LQG controller system. The effectiveness of the proposed controller is validated based on the control criteria parameters, which are rise time, settling time, maximum overshoot, and steady-state error. The results prove that the proposed PSO-LQG controller can give very good movement performance in terms of both transient and steady-state responses.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicControl and Dynamics of Mobile RobotsFrench-language works237,207