Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1510.04097

Identification of target system operations. 1. Determination of the time of the actual completion of the target operation

Igor Lutsenko
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

It was found in the paper that the time frames of the studied system operation depend on the research objective. In cases when it comes to problems, related to the physical movement of the input and output products, limits of the study are defined by the time of the beginning of the movement of the first input product of the operation and ends with the time of issue of the last output product of the operation by the system. Time of completion of the physical movement of products is defined in the paper as the time of the physical completion of the operation. Since the purpose of any operation is to increase the value of the output products in relation to the value of input products of the operation, in cases when there is a problem of investigating the target operation, the time of completion of the target operation is determined not by the physics of the process, but its cybernetics. Since for the time of the operation, conversion processes link input products in time, the added value of output products is intended to compensate in time the costs of temporary binding of input products that initially have their value. The time, when the added value of output products of the target operation compensates the value of tight input products for the time of the operation, is defined in the paper as the time of the actual completion of the target operation. A system of notations to describe the system processes of target operations was proposed. The expressions for the numerical and analytical determination of the time of actual completion of the target operation were obtained. A link to the resource, with examples of calculations of the time of the actual completion of the operation with the use of numerical methods and analytic expressions, obtained in the paper was given.

Explore related subjects

math.OC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Igor Lutsenko. 2015-10-14. Identification of target system operations. 1. Determination of the time of the actual completion of the target operation. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2014.28040

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Dynamic Programming-Compatible Uncertainty Sets in Robust Markov Decision Processes

In this paper, we investigate the compatibility of robust Markov Decision Processes (RMDPs) with dynamic programming under various assumptions on the uncertainty set, i.e., we investigate when one can solve an RMDP by solving a fixed point equation. We show that in all generality, s-rectangular and sa-rectangular uncertainty sets are the only models of uncertainty that are compatible with dynamic programming. Our analysis shows that existing non-rectangular models, including r-rectangularity, are only weakly compatible with dynamic programming, as they require the assumption that rewards do not depend on the next state. In this case, our results imply that one can always construct a rectangular uncertainty set that is equivalent, for both policy evaluation and optimization, to the dynamic programming-compatible non-rectangular model. This highlights a key limitation: dynamic-programming-compatible non-rectangular uncertainty sets, although practically relevant for uncertainty quantification, do not provide a genuinely distinct assessment of policy performance. Interestingly, our proof techniques rely on identifying a novel simultaneous solvability property, which we show is central to several important properties of RMDPs, including the existence of stationary optimal policies and dynamic programming-based formulations. The simultaneous solvability property enables a unified approach to studying all existing models of uncertainty, rectangular and non-rectangular alike.

math.OC↗
arXiv2026

A simple and practical adaptive trust-region method

We present an adaptive trust-region method for unconstrained optimization that allows inexact solutions to the trust-region subproblems. Our method is a simple variant of the classical trust-region method of Ssorensen. The method achieves the best possible convergence bound up to an additive logarithmic term for finding an $ε$-approximate stationary point, i.e., $O( Δ_f L^{1/2} ε^{-3/2}) + \tilde{O}(1)$ iterations, where $L$ is the Lipschitz constant of the Hessian, $Δ_f$ is the optimality gap, and $ε$ is the termination tolerance for the gradient norm. This improves over existing trust-region methods whose worst-case bound is at least a factor of $L$ worse. We compare our performance with state-of-the-art trust-region (TRU) and cubic regularization (ARC) methods from the GALAHAD library on the CUTEst benchmark problems with at least 100 variables. We also compare with the recently developed Universal trust-region (UTR) method, using the same subproblem solver. In terms of shifted geometric mean of wall-clock times our method's is between $1.2\times$ and $2\times$ faster. We report similar improvements for number of function evaluations, factorizations, gradient evaluations and Hessian evaluations. Compared to the conference version of this paper, our revised method includes several practical enhancements. These modifications dramatically improved performance, including almost an order of magnitude reduction in the shifted geometric mean of wall-clock times. We also show that it suffices for the function to be continuously twice-differentiable to guarantee that either the minimum gradient norm converges to zero or the objective value tends towards negative infinity, even when the iterates diverge.

math.OC↗
arXiv2026

Rough Stochastic Pontryagin Maximum Principle and an Indirect Shooting Method

We derive first-order Pontryagin optimality conditions for stochastic optimal control with deterministic controls for systems modeled by rough differential equations (RDE) driven by Gaussian rough paths. This Pontryagin Maximum Principle (PMP) applies to systems following stochastic differential equations (SDE) driven by Brownian motion, yet it does not rely on forward-backward SDEs and involves the same Hamiltonian as the deterministic PMP. The proof consists of first deriving various integrable error bounds for solutions to nonlinear and linear RDEs by leveraging recent results on Gaussian rough paths. The PMP then follows using standard techniques based on needle-like variations. As an application, we propose the first indirect shooting method for nonlinear stochastic optimal control and show that it converges 10x faster than a direct method on a stabilization task.

math.OC↗