text
stringlengths 0
89.3k
|
|---|
Method
|
The first variant basic gradient ascent with Newtons first
|
divided difference method offers advantages such as reduced
|
memory usage suitability for estimations of convex utility
|
functions and faster convergence However it is easy to get
|
trapped in local minima and struggle with handling sensi
|
tivity to noise or fluctuations in the objective function The
|
estimation of the utility function significantly influences the
|
calculation of the gradient J as depicted below
|
Juaxy
|
ipuaxy
|
ip1
|
axy
|
ipaxy
|
ip1 ifaxy
|
ipaxy
|
ip1 10
|
Juaxy
|
ipuaxy
|
ip1 ifaxy
|
ipaxy
|
ip1 11
|
B Gradient Ascent with Newtons First Divided Difference
|
Method and Momentum
|
The second variant builds upon the previous approach by
|
incorporating momentum with expected benefits including
|
suitability for estimations of nonconvex utility functions with
|
less memory usage comfort of oscillations faster convergence
|
by smoothing the optimization trajectory and allowing rapid
|
adaptation to the gradient landscape However drawbacks in
|
clude the risk of overshooting optimal solutions and sensitivity
|
Fig 4 An illustration of kickoff procedure in SbPGs with
|
gradientbased learning
|
to hyperparameters In this variant Eq 8 remains applicable
|
but the gradient of the utility function Jis now denoted as
|
Jp
|
axy
|
ip1axy
|
ipα Jpγou 12
|
where Jpis calculated based on momentum
|
Jpβ Jp1 1β J 13
|
with βrepresenting the momentum factor weighting The
|
computation of Jremains consistent with Eq 10 and 11
|
C Gradient Ascent with Newtons First Divided Difference
|
Method of Polynomial Interpolation
|
The third variant incorporates polynomial interpolation
|
which results in a more precise approximation of the objec
|
tive functions landscape and facilitates smoother and more
|
efficient exploration of the optimization space However this
|
enhancement introduces increased computational complexity
|
and memory requirements along with potential challenges
|
in selecting appropriate polynomial degrees or coefficients
|
In this variant we do not utilize momentum which allows
|
us to use Eq 8 The objective function is estimated using
|
interpolating polynomial forms which derives the following
|
equation to compute the gradient of the utility function J
|
Juaxy
|
i0 axy
|
i1 axy
|
ip
|
uaxy
|
i1 axy
|
i1 axy
|
ipuaxy
|
i0 axy
|
i1 axy
|
ip1
|
axy
|
ipaxy
|
i0
|
14
|
where uaxy
|
i0 axy
|
i1 axy
|
iprepresents the recursive gener
|
ation of the divided differences with the bracket notation
|
introduced to differentiate these differences This notation
|
starts from uaxy
|
i0 uaxy
|
i0
|
D KickOff with Random Exploration
|
Similar to gradientbased optimization in neural networks
|
often initialized with random weights which has been proven
|
effective 38 we propose introducing a kickoff start for
|
the proposed gradientbased learning in SbPGs as pictured
|
in Fig 4 The concept involves beginning with a period of
|
random exploration similar to best response learning before
|
transitioning to the proposed gradient ascent method This
|
kickoff mechanism causes Eq 9 invalid
|
V R ESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
|
In this section we introduce the laboratory testbed used for
|
evaluating the proposed methods Then we present the results
|
of benchmark tests conducted on the testbed Finally we
|
provide the results and discussions of the proposed methodsA Bulk Good Laboratory Plant
|
The Bulk Good Laboratory Plant BGLP 15 39 rep
|
resents a modular distributed production system characterized
|
by its intelligence flexibility and plugandplay functional
|
ity 6 The basic setup comprises four main modules which
|
are loading storing weighing and filling stations They are
|
arranged sequentially and equipped with different actuators
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.