MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402822960 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3467922

Comparative Analysis of PID and Robust IMC Control in Cascaded Processes With Time-Delay

2024· article· en· W4402822960 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)PID controllerComputer scienceProcess controlRobust controlControl (management)Robustness (evolution)Control systemControl engineeringProcess (computing)Temperature controlEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Control of time-delay processes can be achieved by using industrial PID or implementing Internal Model based Controllers (IMC). During the last century, several methods have been proposed in the literature for tuning such controllers based on models obtained by open-loop tests. The model approximation is typically a first-order plus time-delay (FOPTD) or a delayed integration process (DIP). This paper presents a comparative analysis of popular methods used in PID, robust IMC control and Sliding Mode Control (SMC). The study includes, for each method, the analysis of the impact of model mismatch on performance, their ability to reject input and output disturbances, and their complexity. The paper provides results of numerical simulations and experiments in a cascade control loop of a pump-valve-tank system where the system is presented as two cascaded FOPTD models representing, respectively, the actuator and the tank.

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.

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 score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · 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