Data‐driven plant‐model mismatch quantification in closed‐loop system based on output predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The assessment and diagnosis of controller performance for model‐based closed‐loop control systems has received considerable attention in recent years. A recognized factor dilapidating the controller performance is mismatching the true dynamical model of the plant and the mathematic model employed in the controller. In order to reduce the heavy effort to re‐identify the entire model, a large amount of recent works have been focusing on locating the mismatch. To further improve the mathematic model as well as controller performance, in this article, we provide a novel prediction‐based plant‐model mismatch quantification approach, which belongs to the class of moment match methodology. In particular, two cases of output prediction are considered: one‐step ahead prediction and multistep ahead prediction. Compared with existing efforts along the same line of mismatch quantification, when using the one‐step ahead prediction, our method shows an advantage of light computational complexity. On the other hand, when utilizing multistep predictions, it shows better convergence and robustness than the former, especially in the case of structural mismatches, and the long‐term prediction capability of the model is employed. With both predictions and consideration of the existence of unknown noise models in practice, we show that the plant‐model mismatch and unknown parameters of noise models can be quantified as the solution of a minimization issue that penalizes the discrepancy between the sample of plant outputs and the predictions calculated by considering the plant‐model mismatch and noise model parameters. Several examples are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".