ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Computationally Efficient Nonlinear Model Predictive Control Using the L
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fast Nonlinear Predictive Control Using Classical and Parallel Wiener Models: A Comparison for a Neutralization Reactor Process.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Forgery Cyber-Attack Supported by LSTM Neural Network: An Experimental Case Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Stabilization of the Cart-Inverted-Pendulum System Using State-Feedback Pole-Independent MPC Controllers.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Model Predictive Control (MPC) algorithms typically use the classical L2 cost function, which minimises squared differences of predicted control errors. Such an approach has good numerical properties, but the L1 norm that measures absolute values of the control errors gives better control quality. If a nonlinear model is used for prediction, the L1 norm leads to a difficult, nonlinear, possibly non-differentiable cost function. A computationally efficient alternative is discussed in this work. The solution used consists of two concepts: (a) a neural approximator is used in place of the non-differentiable absolute value function; (b) an advanced trajectory linearisation is performed on-line. As a result, an easy-to-solve quadratic optimisation task is obtained in place of the nonlinear one. Advantages of the presented solution are discussed for a simulated neutralisation benchmark. It is shown that the obtained trajectories are very similar, practically the same, as those possible in the reference scheme with nonlinear optimisation. Furthermore, the L1 norm even gives better performance than the classical L2 one in terms of the classical control performance indicator that measures squared control errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.