MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394678881 · doi:10.1007/s10957-024-02419-0

Infeasible and Critically Feasible Optimal Control

2024· article· en· W4394678881 on OpenAlex
Regina S. Burachik, C. Yalçın Kaya, Walaa M. Moursi

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Optimization Theory and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of South Australia
KeywordsMathematicsTheory of computationMathematical optimizationOptimal controlAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider optimal control problems involving two constraint sets: one comprised of linear ordinary differential equations with the initial and terminal states specified and the other defined by the control variables constrained by simple bounds. When the intersection of these two sets is empty, typically because the bounds on the control variables are too tight, the problem becomes infeasible. In this paper, we prove that, under a controllability assumption, the “best approximation” optimal control minimizing the distance (and thus finding the “gap”) between the two sets is of bang–bang type, with the “gap function” playing the role of a switching function. The critically feasible control solution (the case when one has the smallest control bound for which the problem is feasible) is also shown to be of bang–bang type. We present the full analytical solution for the critically feasible problem involving the (simple but rich enough) double integrator. We illustrate the overall results numerically on various challenging example problems.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.225 · 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