MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986145718

Optimal trajectory calculation using neural networks

2023· dissertation· en· W6986145718 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdeArtificial neural networkOptimal controlHamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equationDiscretizationLeverage (statistics)Nonlinear systemTrajectoryMATLAB
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal control methods for linear systems have reached a substantial level of maturity, both in terms of conceptual understanding and scalable computational implementation. For non-linear systems, an open-loop feedback control may be calculated using Pontryagin's Maximum Principle. Alternatively, the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation may be used to calculate the optimal control in a state-feedback form. However, it is an established fact that this equation becomes progressively harder to solve as the number of state variables increases. In this thesis, we discuss a Neural Network (NN)-based method [1] to approximate the solution to the HJB equation arising from high-dimensional ODE systems. We leverage the equivalency between the HJB equation and Pontryagin's Principle to generate the training and test datasets and define a physics-based loss function. The NN is then trained using a supervised optimization approach. We also examine an existing toolkit [2] to approximate the optimal control based on a power series expansion of the system around an equilibrium point in an infinite time horizon setting. We examine the possibility of incorporating this toolkit in the NN training procedure at different stages. The proposed methods are applied to three problems: optimal control of a 6 degree-of-freedom rigid body and the stabilization of ODE systems arising from the discretization of a Burgers'-like non-linear PDE and the damped wave equation.
\n
\nReferences:
\n[1] Tenavi Nakamura-Zimmerer, Qi Gong, and Wei Kang. Adaptive deep learning for high-dimensional Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations. SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing, 43(2):A1221–A1247, 2021.
\n[2] Arthur J. Krener. Nonlinear systems toolbox v.1.0, 1997. MATLAB based toolbox available by request from ajkrener@ucdavis.edu

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207