text
stringlengths 0
89.3k
|
---|
as described in Fig 5 Each station features a silo and hopper
|
with maximum capacities of 1742L and 91L respectively
|
where the actuators facilitate the transfer of materials between
|
buffers Additionally a PLCbased Siemens ET200SP control
|
system is integrated into each station which facilitates com
|
munication via Profinet Furthermore a group of sensors is
|
installed to monitor the current level of each buffer which are
|
later used as states in SbPGs The BGLP includes a feature
|
that utilizes the You Only Look Once YOLO v8 model to
|
detect foreign objects in the system and activate an ejection
|
system when they are identified 40
|
In SbPGs each actuator is considered as one player The
|
utility function Uiformulated in 6 15 22 is designed to
|
combine the multiple objectives of the system which remains
|
in this study The utility function Uiis formulated as follows
|
Ui1
|
1 αlLip1i N1
|
1 αlLn
|
i1iN1
|
1αdVD1
|
1 αpPi
|
15
|
in which Piis the power consumption of actuator i1iN
|
denotes the identity function where iNshows the last
|
player in the sequence VDrepresents the fulfilled production
|
demand and αlαd and αpdenote weighting parameters for
|
each objective Constraints Li
|
sandLi
|
pare computed to prevent
|
overflow and bottleneck based on the upper and lower limits
|
of the corresponding buffers level To be noted the utility
|
function Uiis integral to the system see Fig 1 Therefore the
|
gradientbased learning player cannot access its utility function
|
and must resort to estimation methods outlined in Sec IV
|
In our experiments we implement a continuous production
|
process with a production demand set at 0110Ls Each
|
method undergoes a maximum of 20 training episodes and
|
1 testing episode with each episode lasting 10000 seconds
|
Each player computes a new action every 10 seconds Addi
|
tionally we discretize the state space into 40 Furthermore all
|
parameters related to the algorithms and learning approaches
|
pass automated tuning using Hyperopt 41 Then the simula
|
tion model of the BGLP is publicly accessible through both the
|
MLPro 42 and MLProMPPS 43 frameworks In this study
|
we conduct policy training within the simulation model due to
|
considerations of safety cost and time constraints However
|
the policy trained in the simulation can be deployed in the real
|
system within our laboratory
|
B Benchmark SbPGs with Best Response Learning
|
We apply the SbPGs approach with best response learn
|
ing 15 as our benchmark for comparison with the proposed
|
gradientbased learning method Through experimentation we
|
achieve the best results when training the players over 20TABLE I Results and comparisons between best response and
|
gradientbased learning in the BGLP
|
Method
|
EkoTraining
|
Time sOverflow
|
LsPower
|
kWsDemand
|
LsPotential
|
Benchmark Best Response Learning
|
200000 00000 04759 00000 129052
|
Gradientbased Learning
|
1 θk 0 200000 00000 04374 00000 124245
|
1 θk 3 120000 00000 04317 00000 124275
|
2 θk 0 200000 00000 04415 00000 130255
|
2 θk 4 120000 00000 04477 00000 124286
|
3 θk 0 180000 00000 04495 00000 124422
|
3 θk 1 110000 00000 04442 00000 123847
|
episodes In the testing episode we observe complete avoid
|
ance of overflow with an average power consumption of
|
0475885 kWs accomplishment of the production demand
|
of 0110Ls and an average potential value of 12905199
|
These outcomes suggest that the resulting policies derived
|
from SbPGs with best response learning are nearly optimal
|
However the training duration remains lengthy and the explo
|
ration behaviour remains uncontrollable
|
C Results on Gradientbased Learning in SbPGs
|
In this subsection we present the results of the gradient
|
based learning in SbPGs for all three variants considering
|
both with and without kickoff for each variant The number
|
of kickoff episodes is denoted as θk Table I summarizes
|
the testing results of all variants and provides comparisons
|
between the best response and gradientbased learning in the
|
BGLP
|
In the first variant without kickoff hyperparameter tuning
|
determined that the optimal parameter combination includes
|
αset to 10 and the OU noise ranging approximately within
|
03 Conversely with kickoff αremains at 10 OU noise
|
is deactivated and θkis set to 3 The testing results indicate a
|
reduction in power consumption by approximately 9 for both
|
approaches compared to the benchmark which achieves com
|
plete overflow avoidance and fulfilling production demand
|
Additionally kickoff episodes contribute to a 40 reduction
|
in training time compared to the benchmark
|
In the second variant both with and without kickoff
|
episodes involve deactivation of the OU noise with αset to
|
05 and βto 04 In the variant with kickoff θkis defined as
|
4 Test results demonstrate a similar trend to the first variant
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.