<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Antifragile Control Systems: The case of an oscillator-based network model of urban road traffic dynamics · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.10460/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.10460/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Antifragile Control Systems: The case of an oscillator-based network model of urban road traffic dynamics — mentioned by Animats</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41237603</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2210.10460:41237603</guid><pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:43:40 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I don&amp;#x27;t think robust control actually describes deriving an improvement from perturbing an input. Not really. But using a step input to get info to tune a control system is well known. Eurotherm&amp;#x27;s auto-tuning system for temperature control was one of the first commercial products to self-tune PID loops that way. It started by setting the control value to 0 and listening to the sensors for a while to get data on sensor noise. Then it set the control value to some large value and watched the sensed value ramp up, being careful not to overshoot the goal. This provided enough data to tune the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2210.10460/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>eess.SY</category></item></channel></rss>
