MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405022145 · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2024.3511407

Underapproximating Safe Domains of Attraction for Discrete-Time Systems Using Implicit Representations of Backward Reachable Sets

2024· article· en· W4405022145 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Serry, Jun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Control Systems Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDiscrete time and continuous timeAttractionComputer scienceMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzing and certifying the stability and attractivity of nonlinear systems is a topic of ongoing research interest that has been extensively investigated by control theorists and engineers for many years. However, accurately estimating domains of attraction for nonlinear systems remains a challenging task, where existing estimation methods tend to be conservative or limited to low-dimensional systems. In this letter, we propose an iterative approach to accurately underapproximate safe (state-constrained) domains of attraction for general discrete-time autonomous nonlinear systems. Our approach relies on implicit representations of safe backward reachable sets of initial safe regions of attraction, where such initial regions can be easily constructed using, e.g., quadratic Lyapunov functions. The iterations of our approach are monotonic (in the sense of set inclusion), converging to the safe domain of attraction. Each iteration results in a safe region of attraction, represented as a sublevel set, that underapproximates the safe domain of attraction. The sublevel set representations of the resulting regions of attraction can be efficiently utilized in verifying the inclusion of given points of interest in the safe domain of attraction. We illustrate our approach through two numerical examples, involving two- and four-dimensional nonlinear systems.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Control Systems LettersSame topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207