MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409576530 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-123

Applied Research on Generative Artificial Intelligence for Modern Control Systems

2025· article· en· W4409576530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaoping Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Data Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceControl (management)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generative artificial intelligence, as a new technology paradigm, has received more and more attention for its powerful generative ability and wide application prospects. Especially in automated control systems, the application of technology based on generative artificial intelligence is gradually becoming a hot spot of research. In this paper, the generative AI automation control system is divided into four levels: input layer, processing layer, instruction generation and control execution layer, and combined with dual encoders, the attention model of multilingual to semantic expression is constructed. Two-dimensional variables are selected to construct a fuzzy PID control system to realize automation control for generative AI system. Comparing the control effects of fuzzy control PID and classical PID, the average errors of the two systems are 1= , 2= respectively. The maximum overshoot and rise time are 9% and 0.08 s, 5% and 0.04 s. The fuzzy PID control effect is more accurate, and at the same time improves the dynamic performance of the system. Analyze the implementation effect on the innovative service application of generative artificial intelligence. Comparing the overall recognition effect of the control system B proposed in this paper, and the two systems with reference to A, their overall recognition effect indexes are 0.94755 and 0.87211, respectively, and the fuzzy PID control system plays an auxiliary enhancement role in the contextual feature recognition of translation services in the intelligent library.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicAdvanced Data Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207