MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388430254 · doi:10.1109/tsusc.2023.3330573

Parallel Trajectory Training of Recurrent Neural Network Controllers With Levenberg–Marquardt and Forward Accumulation Through Time in Closed-Loop Control Systems

2023· article· en· W4388430254 on OpenAlexaff
Xingang Fu, Jordan Sturtz, Eduardo Alonso, Rajab Challoo, Letu Qingge

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdaptive Dynamic Programming Control
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersDirectorate for Computer and Information Science and EngineeringNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLevenberg–Marquardt algorithmTrajectoryControl theory (sociology)Closed loopArtificial neural networkComputer scienceLoop (graph theory)Control engineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a novel parallel trajectory mechanism that combines Levenberg-Marquardt and Forward Accumulation Through Time algorithms to train a recurrent neural network controller in a closed-loop control system by distributing the calculation of trajectories across Central Processing Unit (CPU) cores/workers depending on the computing platforms, computing program languages, and software packages available. Without loss of generality, the recurrent neural network controller of a grid-connected converter for solar integration to a power system was selected as the benchmark test closed-loop control system. Two software packages were developed in Matlab and C++ to verify and demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed parallel training method. The training of the deep neural network controller was migrated from a single workstation to both cloud computing platforms and High-Performance Computing clusters. The training results show excellent speed-up performance, which significantly reduces the training time for a large number of trajectories with high sampling frequency, and further demonstrates the effectiveness and scalability of the proposed parallel mechanism.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable ComputingSame topicAdaptive Dynamic Programming ControlFrench-language works237,207