Model-Free Optimized Tracking Control Heuristic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many tracking control solutions proposed in the literature rely on various forms of tracking error signals at the expense of possibly overlooking other dynamic criteria, such as optimizing the control effort, overshoot, and settling time, for example. In this article, a model-free control architectural framework is presented to track reference signals while optimizing other criteria as per the designer's preference. The control architecture is model-free in the sense that the plant's dynamics do not have to be known in advance. To this end, we propose and compare four tracking control algorithms which synergistically integrate a few machine learning tools to compromise between tracking a reference signal and optimizing a user-defined dynamic cost function. This is accomplished via two orchestrated control loops, one for tracking and one for optimization. Two control algorithms are designed and compared for the tracking loop. The first is based on reinforcement learning while the second is based on nonlinear threshold accepting technique. The optimization control loop is implemented using an artificial neural network. Each controller is trained offline before being integrated in the aggregate control system. Simulation results of three scenarios with various complexities demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed control schemes in forcing the tracking error to converge while minimizing a pre-defined system-wide objective function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".