MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improved gain conditioning for linear model predictive control

2025· article· en· W4409002392 on OpenAlexafffund
Mouna Y. Harb, Stephen D. Sanborn, Andrew J. Thake, Kimberley B. McAuley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Process Control · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)Queen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaImperial Oil Limited
KeywordsConditioningControl theory (sociology)Model predictive controlControl (management)Computer scienceMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial practitioners who develop linear model predictive control (MPC) applications want to prevent undesirable controller behaviour caused by ill-conditioned gain matrices and model mismatch. In this work, we propose improvements to an existing orthogonalization-based method for gain conditioning. In this offline algorithm, manipulated variables (MVs) are ranked based on their influences on the controlled variables (CVs), so that problematic MVs with correlated effects can be identified. A constrained linear least-squares optimization problem is then solved to adjust columns in the gain matrix that correspond to problematic MVs. Our goal is to update this optimization problem to prevent the optimizer from switching the signs of some gains. The updated algorithm also permits control practitioners to hold key gains constant if their estimated values are trusted. Finally, we extend the methodology to condition gain submatrices, which arise when CVs are removed from the MPC problem. An industrial fluidized catalytic cracking case study is used to test the proposed method. The conditioned gains lead to improved controller performance and less aggressive movement of MVs when there is a plant-model mismatch. • Ill-conditioned gain matrices with plant mismatch may cause poor MPC performance. • Problematic manipulated variables with correlated effects are identified. • Constrained linear optimization is used for gain conditioning. • Scenarios where controlled variables are removed from MPC are addressed. • Industrial fluid catalytic cracking case study is used to validate the method.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Process ControlSame topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207