Development of a <scp>MIMO</scp> fuzzy inference system— <scp>PI</scp> controller for a closed‐circuit grinding ball mill circuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article aims to study the implementation of classical proportional‐integrative (PI) controllers and their coupling with the fuzzy inference systems (FISs) in the act of closed‐circuit grinding (CCG) ball mill system. The system was formed for a multiple‐input multiple‐output (MIMO) system, with two inputs, the feed rate ( W F ) and speed classifier rotor ( V R ), and two outputs, a sieve fraction 45 μm (P 45 ) and the amount of material by a weight inside the drum (hold up [HU]). The model was simulated based on experimental processes and control strategies. The fuzzy‐PI controllers were developed on the software, and the data from this process were used to build the database and the necessary knowledge to construct the FIS controllers (with fuzzy rules base 3 × 3 and 5 × 5). Their implementation decreases the error criteria integral of time multiplied by the absolute error (ITAE) and integral of the absolute magnitude of the error (IAE) by 35% and 65%, respectively. Although, applying fuzzy‐PI systems with a smaller rule‐based outcome gives the benefits of implementing the fuzzy logic (FL) but with a smaller oscillatory performance and a minor negative effect on HU control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".