MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394744682 · doi:10.1109/tac.2024.3388255

A Low-Power Multi-High-Gain Observer Design for a Class of Nonlinear Systems

2024· article· en· W4394744682 on OpenAlexafffund
Seyed Mohammad Moein Mousavi, Martin Guay

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Nonlinear systemClass (philosophy)Observer (physics)High-gain antennaMathematicsControl engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringControl (management)PhysicsElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a low-power multi high-gain observer (low-power MHGO) is proposed where multiple low-power observers of order <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$2n-2$</tex-math></inline-formula> are used to improve the transient response of HGOs, as well as reducing their sensitivity to high frequency measurement noise. The MHGO methodology is applied to low power observers to aggregate the advantages of the traditional HGO, low-power HGO and MHGO. It is shown that there exists a combination of the unknown parameters for which the weighted estimated states obtained from the observer are equal to the system's states. The unknown optimal parameters are estimated using a recursive least squares approach. It is shown that the low-power MHGO reduces the peaking using a design parameter. In addition, it is shown that the observer yields the same bounds on estimation errors as a low-power HGO, in terms of the asymptotic gain between estimate error and noise frequency. A simulation example demonstrates that the proposed observer exhibits peaking reduction with reduced noise sensitivity.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207