Hierarchical Decentralized Stochastic Control for Cyber-Physical Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a two-timescale hierarchical decentralized control architecture for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS). The system consists of a global controller (GC), and N local controllers (LCs). The GC operates at a slower timescale, imposing budget constraints on the actions of LCs, which function at a faster timescale. Applications can be found in energy grid planning, wildfire management, and other decentralized resource allocation problems. We propose and analyze two optimization frameworks for this setting: COpt and FOpt. In COpt, both GC and LCs together optimize infinite-horizon discounted rewards, while in FOpt the LCs optimize finite-horizon episodic rewards, and the GC optimizes infinite-horizon rewards. Although both frameworks share identical reward functions, their differing horizons can lead to different optimal policies. In particular, FOpt grants greater autonomy to LCs by allowing their policies to be determined only by local objectives, unlike COpt. To our knowledge, these frameworks have not been studied in the literature. We establish the formulations, prove the existence of optimal policies, and prove the convergence of their value iteration algorithms. We further show that COpt always achieves a higher value function than FOpt and derive explicit bounds on their difference. Finally, we establish a set of sufficient structural conditions under which the two frameworks become equivalent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".