Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Model–plant mismatch can impair predictive control of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems as operating conditions and process dynamics change. This study develops a self-repairing model predictive control (MPC) framework integrating slow-feature analysis (SFA), short-duration input excitation, and optimized predictor-based subspace identification (PBSIDopt). Its contribution is the coordinated monitoring–excitation–identification–validation–updating procedure rather than a new SFA or identification algorithm. A candidate model is accepted only after an independent multistep-prediction test and model/controller checks; the predictor, controller, and residual monitor are then updated together. Four representative simulations examine abrupt mismatch, two rates of gradual mismatch, and a different parameter-change direction. Relative to fixed-model MPC, the SFA framework reduced whole-run mean absolute tracking error by 5.63–42.91% and final-interval error by 24.07–69.08%. Compared with an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) monitor embedded in the same repair framework, SFA yielded lower whole-run tracking errors in three of the four representative scenarios. These illustrative simulation results support the feasibility of the integrated framework; they do not establish universal monitoring superiority or long-term industrial safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: