MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Model-Free Leader-Follower Approach with Multi-Level Reference Command Generators

2024· article· en· W4400727283 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Abouheaf, Wail Gueaieb, Mohammad Mayyas, Muteb Aljasem

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCommand and controlControl theory (sociology)Control (management)Artificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces an innovative approach to addressing leader-follower control challenges through iterative learning techniques. In this scheme, both the leader and the follower are guided by independent reference generators, simultaneously influencing both entities. The follower is directed by a combination of trajectories, incorporating both the leader's output and its own command generator. The interaction between leader and follower dynamics is captured through a performance index that integrates model-following errors from both entities, thereby shaping the leader's control strategy. Conversely, the follower's performance measure focuses exclusively on its local model-following errors to formulate its control strategy. This method aims to overcome limitations observed in conventional iterative learning control methods, particularly by offering causal strategies based on model-following error dynamics and by explicitly accommodating reference command signals. Notably, this development is achieved within a model-free, data-driven framework, eliminating the need for prior knowledge about the leader-follower system dynamics. Furthermore, the proposed strategies demonstrate flexibility regarding the order of model-following error dynamics. This solution is validated using a heterogeneous system of vehicles characterized by state and control signal delays.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.139 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207