MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403501446 · doi:10.1002/asjc.3504

Tuning the controller gains using sensitivity analysis

2024· article· en· W4403501446 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Control · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersShenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Program
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)Control theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)Computer scienceControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceElectronic engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper tries to solve the general problem of controller gain tuning. To that end, sensitivity analysis has been utilized. The study provides vital results to extend the usage of sensitivity analysis for the class of finite‐time stable dynamics. The controller gain tuning procedure is elaborated by considering the examples of state feedback control and predefined time control. An insight into the selection of the gains or system parameters for these class of systems is presented with the help of sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity of the solution for these class of systems with the variation in the gains or system parameters is studied. Having know‐how about the adjustment of these system gains or parameters will be beneficial from the point of view of practical applications. Thus, the proposed approach finds utility in controller gain tuning, which is an important aspect of control design.

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)0.001
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 score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.539

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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