MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407126885 · doi:10.1109/tac.2025.3538798

Data-Driven Learning and Control With Event-Triggered Measurements

2025· article· en· W4407126885 on OpenAlexafffund
Dawei Shi, Tongwen Chen, Ling Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceControl (management)Event (particle physics)Control theory (sociology)Artificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Event-triggered control has attracted considerable attention for its effectiveness in resource-restricted applications. To make event-triggered control as an end-to-end solution, a key issue is how to effectively learn unknown system dynamics from event-triggered measurements and consequently, develop a learning-based event-triggered controller. Existing works learn system dynamics based on periodic time-triggered measurements, and it is yet to know how to learn a controller with performance guarantee based on event-triggered measurements. To address this issue, we consider the problem of learning an event-triggered state feedback controller for an unknown linear system based on event-triggered state measurements in this work. In particular, we first analyze the event-triggered measurements within a set-membership framework. We prove that the estimation error belongs to a bounded ellipsoid determined by the historical measurements and the event-triggering condition. Subsequently, we demonstrate that all admissible systems compatible with the collected data samples can be explicitly represented in the form of quadratic matrix inequalities using the state estimates. With the acquired set of admissible systems, a co-design problem for the data-driven controller and event-triggering condition is solved using the linear matrix inequality technique, with guaranteed closed-loop stability and <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\mathcal {L}_{2}$</tex-math></inline-formula>-gain performance. Finally, numerical examples and comparisons are provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed event-triggered learning and control approach.

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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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