Dynamics of balance with act-and-wait control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, we studied the act-and-wait control mechanism on the stabilization of the inverted pendulum in both piecewise constant feedback and continuously varying feedback models. We also extend the act-and-wait control mechanism with a more general model: the act-and-wait control with frequently varying feedback, which includes piecewise constant feedback and continuously varying feedback as two of its extreme cases. The frequently varying feedback model is valuable in approximating the continuously varying feedback system when the delay is large. The modeling error is discussed in the comparison of piecewise constant feedback and continuously varying feedback. The robustness of the three models are studied in the context of the parametric stability regions as well as for the interaction of delay and noise. We discovered that although act-and-wait control can stabilize the pendulum system even with large delay, the robustness is impaired by large delays. As a result, the piecewise constant feedback system is more sensitive to parametric noise than the frequently and continuously varying feedback models. The interplay of act-and-wait control and external noise leads the system to a periodically varying density for its state.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".