Research on the design of intelligent control strategy for linear primary inverted pendulum based on deep reinforcement learning algorithm with SolidLab’s microcontroller programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep reinforcement learning, as an advanced machine learning method, is capable of automatically learning optimal decision-making strategies in complex environments. The core objective of this paper is to apply deep reinforcement learning algorithms to SolidLab’s microcontroller programming in order to realize the intelligent control of the linear one-stage inverted pendulum system. The study takes the linear one-stage inverted pendulum produced by A Technology Company as the control object, and adopts the model-free control structure of the deep reinforcement learning algorithm to build the controller and conduct virtual simulation experiments. Comparing the experimental effects of LQR and DQN algorithms, the LQR algorithm is better than the DQN algorithm in stabilizing pendulum control of inverted pendulum. Accordingly, a balance controller based on the offline Q learning algorithm is further designed to realize the inverted pendulum stabilization in kind. After optimizing the design strategy, the inverted pendulum system can be rapidly stabilized within 0.9s when it is perturbed by a small angle of about 12°. It shows that the method in this paper can realize the intelligent control of the inverted pendulum system at the linear level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".