New <scp>PID</scp> parameter tuning based on improved dung beetle optimization algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, a proportional‐integral‐derivative (PID) controller parameter optimization method based on the improved dung beetle optimization (IDBO) algorithm is proposed, which improves the balance between the global exploration and local exploitation capabilities of the dung beetle optimization (DBO) and significantly enhances the convergence speed and optimization accuracy. Initially, the dung beetle population is initialized using piecewise linear chaotic map (PWLCM) chaotic mapping in order to increase its variety and the DBO algorithm's capacity for global exploration. Furthermore, adaptive weighting in the DBO algorithm is now balanced between the capabilities of local exploitation and global exploration with the addition of adaptive weights. After that, in order to improve the DBO algorithm's capacity for local exploitation, a triangle wandering strategy is included during the dung beetle reproductive phase. Finally, using both Lévy flying wandering and greedy strategy (GS) together make it easier to take advantage of opportunities in both local and global areas. The outcomes of the traditional benchmark function test demonstrate a significant improvement in both convergence speed and optimization accuracy when the particle swarm optimization (PSO), DBO, grey wolf optimization (GWO), and sparrow search algorithm (SSA) algorithms are compared. The performance index function incorporates an overshooting penalty term to prevent the overshooting phenomenon in the control system. Simulation experiments are carried out for the DC motor control system, and the time domain performance, frequency domain performance, and robustness performance of the closed‐loop control system with ZN‐PID, Lambda‐PID, PSO‐PID, and IDBO‐PID rectified PID controller parameters are comparatively analyzed, which verifies the validity and practicability of the IDBO algorithm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".