MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401633924 · doi:10.1109/tac.2024.3444868

Risk-Aware Stability of Linear Systems

2024· article· en· W4401633924 on OpenAlexafffund
Margaret P. Chapman, Dionysios S. Kalogerias

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAnne Tanenbaum Centre for Jewish Studies, University of TorontoCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Western Michigan University
KeywordsStability (learning theory)Linear systemComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)MathematicsControl (management)Artificial intelligenceMathematical analysisMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we develop a generalized stability framework for stochastic discrete-time linear systems that enriches the ways in which the distribution of the state energy can be characterized. We use tools from finance and operations research called risk functionals (i.e., risk measures) to facilitate diverse distributional characterizations. In contrast, classical stochastic stability notions characterize the state energy on average or in probability, which can obscure the variability of stochastic system behavior. After drawing connections between various risk-aware stability concepts for nonlinear systems, we specialize to linear systems and derive sufficient conditions for the satisfaction of some risk-aware stability properties. These results pertain to real-valued coherent risk functionals and a mean-conditional-variance functional. The results reveal novel noise-to-state stability properties, which assess disturbances in ways that reflect the chosen measure of risk.

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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207