IAES International Journal of Robotics and Automation (IJRA)

Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2023, pp. 365~372

ISSN: 2722-2586, DOI: 10.11591/ijra.v12i4.pp365-372  365

Construction of automated optimal control systems with

elements of artificial intelligence

Khu Ven Tsen1, Zhanat Umarova1, Pernekul Kozhabekova1, Nabat Suieuova2

1
Department of Information Systems and Modeling, M. Auezov South Kazakhstan University, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Transport, Engineering Faculty, Yessenov University, Aktau, Kazakhstan

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This article examines the widespread introduction of artificial intelligence
technologies, means of their implementation and support as a determining
Received Jan 10, 2022 factor in the development of scientific and technological progress. On this
Revised Oct 3, 2022 basis, various advanced objects of various functional purposes are created,
Accepted Jun 4, 2023 which are characterized as “smart”. Their distinguishing feature is the
ability to implement a “reasonable” way of functioning, taking into
account the prevailing circumstances. This ability is expressed in the fact
Keywords: that in the object automatically, i.e., without human participation, or with
Artificial intelligence minimal human participation, the most rational or optimal modes of
Control system functioning are supported, the definition of which involves the
performance of operations containing signs of rational activity. This
Decentralized control
“smart” behavior of technical objects is mainly determined by the
Intelligent control “intelligent” functioning of the control systems built into them. In
Optimal control particular, intelligent automated systems for optimal control. In
Situational decomposition accordance with this, the development of new approaches and methods
Technological systems that expand the possibilities of building such control systems should be
considered as an urgent and priority task.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Zhanat Umarova
Department of Information Systems and Modeling, M. Auezov South Kazakhstan University
Tauke Khan Avenue, 5, Shymkent, Kazakhstan
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
The presented method aims to address the challenges associated with constructing automated
optimal control systems that incorporate elements of artificial intelligence, specifically targeting the
management of highly complex technical objects such as complex technological systems (CTS). CTS
control objects encompass extensive industrial facilities, including completed production units, production
complexes, associations, and intricate technological processes with multiple elements, numerous
operational parameters, periodic multifunctionality, variable structures, and other forms of increased
complexity [1], [2].
The control problems encountered in CTS exhibit a high level of complexity due to the need
to consider a vast array of parameters that exhibit intricate and diverse interrelationships. Consequently,
the conventional approaches and methods used in creating automated control systems for CTS often
face significant challenges, rendering them impractical or excessively resource-intensive, leading to
substantial economic costs. Thus, there is an imperative to develop specialized approaches and management
techniques that can alleviate or mitigate these difficulties [3].

Journal homepage: http://ijra.iaescore.com

366  ISSN: 2722-2586

2. THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

The mathematical basis of the proposed approach is the situational decomposition method [4], the idea
of which is as follows. The task of CTS management in a general form can be formulated in the form of (1).

𝐹(𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑦, 𝑡) → 𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝒖(𝒕) ∈ 𝑼, 𝒚(𝒕) ∈ 𝒀 (1)

𝑢(𝑡)

If we assume that in this problem the change in perturbations x(t) has the character of a piecemeal-constant
function, then in the period T, maintaining a constant value of x(t)=const, it will be equivalent to a problem
of the form:

𝑔(𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑦) = 0
𝐹(𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑦) → 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑈 = {𝑢: } (2)
𝑢∈𝑈
ℎ(𝑥, 𝑢, 𝑦) ≥ 0

where F is a given scalar function, identified with the criterion of optimality of the technological regime; х, u,
y-vectors of disturbing influences, controls and outputs; U is the set of admissible states; g-a given
vector-valued function corresponding to the mathematical model of the CTS; h is a vector-valued function
that sets restrictions on technological parameters in accordance with technological regulations. The indicated
assumption about the piecewise constant nature of x(t) is quite legitimate, since the main disturbing
influences in the CTS arise when the quality indicators of raw materials change, or when the loads on the
equipment change, which are set unchanged for a sufficiently long period. Thus, during the operation of the
CTS, problem (1) can be reduced to consistently solved static problems (2).
In ordinary practice, the control system operates with a vector of control parameters u, the
component composition and structure of which remain unchanged. Changes are possible only in the values of
the elements of this vector. On the whole, the structure of the control problem remains unchanged (2). Thus,
the development of control decisions is always based on the solution of essentially the same problem [4]–[6].
Simultaneously, an alternative approach can be adopted, involving the alteration of the initial control problem
(2) during control decision-making regarding variable composition, objective function, mathematical models
employed, and considered constraints. This modification aims to streamline the problem by minimizing the
number of variables and transforming the objective function and constraint conditions accordingly. Despite
these changes, the modified problem remains equivalent to the original. Importantly, this modification may
lead to a structural transformation of the CTS control problem (2) during decision-making moments.
The outcome of this transformation should enable effective resolution of the modified problem
using conventional methods, within a control system that does not impose stringent requirements on
computing device performance. This allows for a form of problem decomposition (2), as it is reduced to a set
of simplified problems solved independently. This decomposition, implemented in a temporal manner rather
than spatially, should not be misconstrued as directly incorporating the time factor in the problem. Instead, it
merely reflects the subsequent modification of the control problem [7], [8].
During the process of control decision-making, the proposed method focuses on analyzing and
taking into account the various scenarios that can occur within the CTS. In this context, the term “situation”
refers to a general quality of the existing state as well as the degree to which the CTS can be controlled at any
particular instant. It is possible to define it by a range of state coordinate values, the elements that have
undergone incremental changes, the magnitude and sign of these changes, the degree of correspondence
between calculated and actual CTS state parameters, and the level of compliance with current restrictions. By
conducting an analysis of the current circumstances, one can more easily determine the relevant variables for
the CTS control problem, as well as the structure of the objective function, the model, and the constraint
conditions. As a consequence of this, variables that are deemed to be insignificant are eliminated, and the
objective function, mathematical model, and constraints are appropriately modified and simplified. This
ultimately leads to a general reduction in the complexity of the control problem. In contrast to traditional
decomposition methods [9]–[11], the proposed method does not impose any specific requirements on the
structure of the control problem, the objective function, or the conditions that are taken into account, which is
one of the most significant advantages of the method. Therefore, this method can be used to solve virtually
any optimal control problem; the most important requirement, however, is the capability to recognize and
distinguish between the various developing circumstances that exist within the control object.

3. METHOD
Let’s delve into the essence of the proposed approach, known as the situational decomposition
method or situation decomposition. Drawing an analogy to dynamic programming [12], this method also

IAES Int J Rob & Autom, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2023: 365-372
IAES Int J Rob & Autom ISSN: 2722-2586  367

entails transforming a dynamic control problem into a series of sequentially solved specific static problems.
However, unlike classical decomposition methods, these specific problems do not pertain to the control of
individual subsystems within the CTS. Moreover, they do not manifest as elements of a recurrent equation, as
seen in dynamic programming. Instead, these partial problems represent an equivalent modification of the
overall static control problem and arise from its simplification by eliminating insignificant variables. As a
result, the number of variables considered decreases, and the objective function and constraint conditions are
simplified accordingly [13], [14].
Consequently, the original static control problem (3) is transformed into a collection of simpler
partial subtasks, each corresponding to a specific situation within the CTS. A key challenge emerges in
recognizing these situations within the control object to address the corresponding specific problems
effectively. The issue of scenario recognition can be considered as a coordination challenge, whereas each
individual difficulty can be viewed as a problem of localized control.
The challenge of situation recognition can, in general, be stated as follows:

𝑜 𝑜 𝑜 𝑅
(𝑥 , 𝑢, 𝑦): → 𝑖, 𝐷𝑖 (3)
𝑜 𝑜 𝑜
where 𝑥 , 𝑢, 𝑦 -values that are particular to the input variables x, controls u, and outputs y of the CTS, in that
order; i-situation number; 𝐷𝑖-the set of variables of the control problem (2), taken into account in the i-th
situation, 𝐷𝑖⊂𝐷=𝑋∪𝑈∪𝑌; X, U, Y-sets of variables x, u, y, respectively; R is the operator for mapping a
𝑜 𝑜 𝑜
vector (𝑥 , 𝑢, 𝑦) into a pair i, 𝐷𝑖 . The significance of this issue lies in the fact that the vector of the current
values of the variables x, u, and y at the time when the control decision is being made, by means of the
operator R, is mapped into the situation with the number i and the set of variables 𝐷𝑖 of problem (2), which
are relevant to the circumstance that has the number i. The values of the functions f, g, and h are not taken
into consideration because the values of their arguments x, u, and y are the only thing that can determine
those function values. When the i-th scenario is taken into consideration, a specific control problem for the
CTS can be expressed as the form.

𝐹𝑖(𝑥𝑖,𝑢𝑖,𝑦𝑖)→max𝑢𝑖∈𝑈𝑖⊂𝑈
𝑔𝑖 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑢𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖 ) = 0
𝑈𝑖 = {𝑢𝑖 : } ∪𝑈𝑖=𝑈, 𝑖=1,2,...,𝑁, (4)
ℎ𝑖 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑢𝑖 𝑦𝑖 ) ≥ 0

where i is the number of the circumstance that is occurring right now; N is the total number of situations that
could occur; yi, xi, and ui are modified vectors of the CTS’s inputs, controls, and outputs, respectively;
modified objective function is denoted by “Fi”. Because of the different functions, Ui represents an updated
version of the possible solutions to the issue. gi, hi; the collection of possible solutions to the general problem
is denoted by the letter U. The solutions to problems three and four are assumed to involve a two-level
structure. As a consequence of this, the CTS control system that is used to implement it gains a structure with
two levels [15]–[17].
Here, CTSi, i=1, 2,...,N, represents modified CTSs corresponding to the i-th situations, where CB
denotes the coordinating body, and CS is a control system tasked with solving the modified control problem
for the CTS. Within this control system, CB evaluates the current situation i within the CTS by identifying it
from the set of considered situations {1,2,...,N}. It then constructs the structure of the modified problem (4)
based on the original problem (2) by excluding variables of minor significance. The component-wise
composition of the vectors xi, ui, yi in problem (4) may differ and represent, in each unique case 𝐷𝑖 , a subset
of the complete set of variables D. The modified vectors xi, ui, yi, formed in this manner, encompass only the
most effective components relevant to the specific situation being considered.
The aforementioned control principle can be understood as being comparable to adaptive control
[18], which similarly involves a change to the control problem. On the other hand, adaptive control restricts
the scope of the alteration to the mathematical representation of the control object, and it only puts it into
action when there is a reduction in the model’s accuracy. The structure of the model and the management
duties, in their whole, continue to be the same; the only thing that changes are the parameters of the model,
which are modified by adjusting the coefficients of the variables. The situational decomposition method, on
the other hand, differs by identifying the situation within the control object instead of focusing on the
mathematical model of the control object. Subsequently, the original control problem is replaced with a
modified problem tailored to the specific situation. In this case, the structure of the modified control problem
(4) can vary across its components. As a result, the control system responsible for solving this problem
adopts a variable structure [19].

Construction of automated optimal control systems with elements of artificial intelligence (Khu Ven Tsen)
368  ISSN: 2722-2586

The identification of situations at the control object requires the formulation and solution of the
problem of their recognition. The content and method of solving this problem depend on the specifics of the
object under consideration, as well as the criteria used, according to which the situations to be taken into
account during control are differentiated. It is essential to recognize that the reduction of the CTS control
issue (2) to a particular subproblem (4) with fewer variables, simpler circumstances, and an objective
function invariably leads to some level of coarsening. This is one of the reasons why it is necessary to
recognise this fact. In the general case, we are unable to provide a guarantee that the solutions to issues (2)
and (4) would completely coincide with one another. It is only feasible for there to be a coincidence up to a
certain margin of error. Therefore, when examining the similarities between problems (2) and (4), it is
important to keep in mind that they both occur within certain limitations and may be evaluated utilizing a
wide variety of indicators that comply with the standards.
Despite this, the actual implementation of situational decomposition is not hampered in any way by
the reality in question. When dealing with actual control systems, it is generally unnecessary to pinpoint the
precise value that is optimal. Instead, it is often sufficient to use an approximation of the optimal solution,
which is represented by an arbitrary point within a given proximity of the optimal solution. As a result, the
solution will invariably be imperfect in some way. In this regard, it is permissible for there to be a difference
in the solutions to issues (2) and (4) so long as that difference does not go beyond a certain threshold. A very
accurate solution to the control problem is not necessary since the execution of results at the control object
utilizing automatic control systems and technical executive devices always entails an error that is greater than
the error in solving the control problem [10], [20]. In addition, achieving a highly accurate solution to the
control problem is not required.
The method of situational decomposition that was proposed is fundamentally different from the
traditional decomposition methods in that it involves a single unique (local) control problem, which can also
modify its structure. This is one of the ways in which it differentiates itself from traditional decomposition
methods. In addition to this, it does not rule out the possibility of applying the principles of decentralized
administration to the object that has been modified. As a direct consequence of this, a combined control
system is produced, which in turn implements a space-time decomposition of the CTS control issue [21].

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The primary challenge in implementing the proposed method lies in constructing a mapping
operator, denoted as R, to identify current situations. It is typically difficult to specify this operator
analytically, particularly in the form of a function R (x, u, y), as it is challenging to establish patterns
connecting continuously changing variable values with discrete situation numbers. As a result, numerical
procedures are commonly employed to selectively extract situation features when specifying the operator R.
This results in the necessity for complicated computational schemes or the development of expert systems
because the number of possible scenarios is typically very large, and the thorough definition of each scenario
necessitates taking into consideration a great deal of information. When this occurs, an intelligent component
is included into the system that is being controlled.
Another challenge involves determining the composition of significant variables 𝐷𝑖 , to be
considered in the modified problem (4) for each situation number i. This selection process entails assessing
the sensitivity of output variables yi to changes in control variables ui permitted in the i-th situation, given a
specific value of xi. It may also involve solving an additional problem of identifying the optimal structure of
the CTS model. To address these challenges, it is suggested to focus on typical situations rather than
considering all possible situations. Typical situations are those that systematically arise in the behavior of the
CTS and possess clearly distinguishable features. The use of typical situations is predicated on the concept
that, under actual production conditions, it is frequently possible to conduct an analysis of the CTS and to
systematize typical scenarios related to control decisions. This is the reasoning behind the use of typical
situations. Furthermore, the totality of the conceivable scenarios can be broken down into subsets in such a
way that the circumstances of the present can, to an error margin that is deemed to be acceptable, be
interpreted as corresponding to individual examples of typical scenarios or combinations of these scenarios.
It is possible to predefine modified control problems (4) for each and every typical scenario by
taking into account only the important variables and conditions imposed by the restrictions. Additionally,
attribute systems can be constructed to identify each specific typical situation. Sequentially enumerating
these attribute systems ensures the identification of the current typical situation. When the current
circumstance cannot be unambiguously linked to one of the typical situations, the quality of management can
be improved by examining two or more typical scenarios simultaneously. In such circumstances, there should
be a mechanism in place to identify common factors for crossing situations. This would allow for the
formation of the variable composition of the modified control problem, which would involve adding the

IAES Int J Rob & Autom, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2023: 365-372
IAES Int J Rob & Autom ISSN: 2722-2586  369

private variables of the relevant situations that are being taken into consideration. In real CTS control
systems, the need to develop and implement control decisions is most often associated with the occurrence of
disturbing influences, which are caused by a change in the values of the quality indicators of the processed
raw materials, or by a change in the loads on technological equipment, identified with the input parameters.
In accordance with this, the assessment of situations can be carried out by the values of the input variable x.
For this case, the following version of the situational decomposition is proposed.
Let the behavior of the CTS in time allow it to be considered as a sequence of stationary states of the
CTS in space 𝑋 × 𝑈 × 𝑌. Each stationary state of the CTS corresponds to a certain vector ( x,u ,y ) , where
𝑥 ∈ 𝑋, 𝑢 ∈ 𝑈, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑌. The accepted assumption means that the disturbing effect x(t) has the nature of a
piecewise constant function and can be represented by a sequence of discrete values х ( t) =x 1 ,x 2 , …,x N . If
these discrete values x(t) are identified with the moments of making control decisions, problem (1) can be
reduced to a sequence of partial static problems of the form

х𝑖 ∈ 𝑋, 𝑢 ∈ 𝑈, 𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 ,
𝑓(𝑥𝑖 , 𝑢, 𝑦) → max (5)
𝑢 𝑖 = 1,2, … , 𝑁,

where N is the number of situations to be considered.

Problems (5) are completely autonomous, since they are not related to each other. Therefore, they
can be formulated as

х𝒊 ∈ 𝑿, 𝒖𝒊 ∈ 𝑼, 𝒚𝒊 ∈ 𝒀,
f ( xi , ui , yi ) → max (6)
ui 𝒊 = 𝟏, 𝟐, … , 𝑵.

Each of the problems (6) can be interpreted as a particular or local control problem for the CTS for the i-th
situation, determined by the value xi. Thus, the original CTS control problem (1) turns out to be reduced to N
particular problems (6) for the situations taken into account by inputs. The problems stated in (6) represent
specific variations of the general static CTS control problem (2). It should be acknowledged that certain
problems may be considerably intricate, posing challenges in terms of ensuring timely decision-making
within the intervals between the considered situations. Addressing these complexities, it may be feasible to
pre-solve the problem and store the solution in the computer's memory. This way, when required, the solution
can be retrieved without directly solving the control problem. This approach is particularly suitable for
recurring situations.
Memorization and automatic reproduction of ready-made solutions in relation to specific situations
can be considered as the ability of a control system to self-learning, which is one of the manifestations of the
property of intelligence. In the overall scenario, the potential number of situations N can be significantly
large, as it depends on the dimension of the vector x, the various combinations of its components xi, and the
discrete values that each component can assume. Suppose the dimension of the vector x is n, and there are m
possible discrete values for each component xi. In that case, the total number of situations to consider will be
influenced by the ratio.
𝑛!
𝑁 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑖 ⋅ 𝑚 ⋅ . (7)
𝑖!(𝑛−𝑖)!

As you can see, even for insignificant values of n and m, the number of possible situations N will be
quite large. In CTS control problems, which are characterized by large dimensions and significant ranges of
possible values of variables, the number of situations can turn out to be so large that their complete
accounting will turn into an intractable problem that complicates the practical application of the method
under consideration. In such cases, the way out of the difficulty can be the use of typical situations, which
were mentioned above [17], [18].
In the context being discussed, a typical situation is characterized by the effectiveness of only a
specific subset of the control vector components u. In other words, only these components have a tangible
impact on the state of the CTS and are considered as variables, while the remaining components are treated
as constants. This simplifies the solution to the STS management task. It is evident that managing using
typical situations aligns with the principles of human management. To formalize the coordination problem of
situation recognition, the following approach can be adopted. Let D represent the set of situations considered
in problem (2), each corresponding to its own composition of effective variables. Suppose that the set D can
be divided into L subsets Dk, where k=1, 2, ..., L, representing typical situations. All current situations are

Construction of automated optimal control systems with elements of artificial intelligence (Khu Ven Tsen)
370  ISSN: 2722-2586

assessed for their belonging to a specific set Dk, and problem (7) is replaced by an equivalent problem for the
typical situation Dk.
The division of set D into subsets Dk, where k=1, 2, ..., L, can be carried out in various ways, such
as based on the formation of a system of distinctive features of typical situations. These distinctive features
can include the values of the vector variable components, the indices of the components that experienced
changes, the magnitude and direction of these changes, and other quantitative assessments. In the simplest
case, distinct typical situations will have no intersections, i.e.,

Dk∩Dj=ø, for k=1, 2, ..., L; j=1, 2, ..., L; k ≠ j (8)

This implies that during the management process, only certain pure typical situations will occur.
However, such a clear distinction between typical situations is the exception rather than the norm. In general,
condition (8) is not satisfied, meaning that for some current situations, there may be indications that
correspond to different typical situations. In such cases, all typical situations for which an intersection occurs
must be taken into account in the specific problem at hand.
Calculating all of the distinctive elements of the current scenario and comparing them with the
systems of indicators for individual usual circumstances is the first step in determining whether or not the
current circumstance falls into the category of a typical one. When all of the indicators are consistent with
one another, it will correspond to a specific typical scenario. The absence of such a typical situation shows
that the current circumstance belongs to overlapping typical situations, which are situations in which there
are differentiating qualities that simultaneously belong to multiple separate typical situations. When this is
taken into consideration, the coordination problem can be stated as identifying the differentiating elements of
the current situation that correspond to distinct typical circumstances, and then proceeding to combine the
situations that cross. This is the most general case of the problem. The following is one possible way to
phrase this task:

𝑑 = 0; 𝑎𝑗 = 0, 𝑗 = 1,2, . . . 𝐿;

∃𝑘 = 1,2, . . . , 𝐿; 𝑝𝑠 ∈ 𝑃𝑘 , 𝑠 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑆 ⇒ 𝑑 = 1; 𝑏𝑘𝑠 = 1; 𝑎𝑘 = 1

𝐷̄ =∪ 𝐷̄𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1,2, . . . , 𝐿 (9)

d, bks and aj are auxiliary variables used as indicators; ps is the s-th sign of the situation; Pk is the set of
distinguishing features of the k-th typical situation; D ̄ represents the set of effective variables considered in
the modified control problem; 𝐷̄𝑖 - represents the intersecting sets of typical situations where 𝑎𝑗 ≠ 0.
The essence of this problem lies in determining if there exists a k-th typical situation, characterized
by the features defined by the set Pk, that coincides with the features of the current situation p s. The number
of coinciding features is calculated while simultaneously keeping track of the number of the typical situation
[19], [20]. In this case, all typical situations that exhibit the specified coincidence of signs are taken into
consideration. The set of effective variables 𝐷̄ for the modified control problem is formed by combining the
sets of effective variables for the intersecting typical situations 𝐷̄ .
If there are no features that cross with one another, then the solution to problem 7 is to perform a
sequential enumeration of systems of features of typical circumstances Pk in order to locate a system that
completely matches the features of the current scenario. The following is one possible way to phrase this
task:
𝑆
𝑑=1⇒∑ 𝑏𝑘𝑠 → max, 𝑘 = 1,2, . . . , 𝐿 ; 𝐷̄ = 𝐷𝑘 ∗ (10)
𝑠=1 𝑘

The solution to problem (8) is given by k = k*, where the sum of significant features of a typical
situation ∑𝑆𝑠=1 𝑏𝑘𝑠 is maximum. Accordingly, the set of variables considered for the modified control problem
is 𝐷𝑘 ∗ . The local low-level problem corresponding to the general control problem (2) and modified according
to the specific typical situation can be represented as:

𝑔𝑘 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑢𝑘 , 𝑦𝑖 ) = 0
𝐹𝑖 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑢𝑘 , 𝑦𝑖 ) → 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑈𝑘 = {𝑢𝑘 : } ∪ 𝑈𝑘 = 𝑈 , 𝑖 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑁 (11)
𝑢𝑘 ∈𝑈𝑘 ℎ𝑘 (𝑥𝑖 , 𝑢𝑘 , 𝑦𝑖 ) ≥ 0

where i represents the number of the current situation, k is the number of a typical situation, 𝑖 ∈
{1,2, . . . , 𝑁}; 𝑘 ∈ {1,2, . . . , 𝐿}. The presented method for solving problem (2) can be characterized as a

IAES Int J Rob & Autom, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2023: 365-372
IAES Int J Rob & Autom ISSN: 2722-2586  371

decomposition method based on typical situations. Therefore, the control system that implements this method
resembles a decentralized situational control system.
The method can be viewed as projecting the original problem onto the subspace of equivalent
subproblems for specific situations or projecting the set of feasible solutions U of the original problem onto
the subsets Uk, where k=1, 2, ..., L. In this sense, an analogy can be drawn with the coordinate-wise search
method in nonlinear programming, also known as the Gauss-Seidel method [8]. The essence of this method
lies in solving a multidimensional optimization problem by sequentially solving simple one-dimensional
problems resulting from the projection of the original problem into a one-dimensional subspace. In the
considered case, a similar technique is employed, with the only difference being that the original problem is
projected into different subspaces of lower dimension each time [21]–[25]. It is abundantly clear that if issue
(2) is convex, it will continue to be convex in whatever subspace of the variable space that the problem
utilizes. As a consequence of this, the possibility of a solution that is free from ambiguity is ensured. In the
event that the required property of the problem is not satisfied, the solvability of the problem, both in its
initial formulation and in any modified equivalent formulation, is contingent on the efficacy of the algorithms
that are applied. In situations like these, efficient algorithms that can handle multi-extremal issues should be
utilized; alternatively, the problem should be solved multiple times using a variety of distinct starting points.

5. CONCLUSION
The proposed method of situational decomposition offers a means to develop efficient automated
optimal control systems for CTC-class industrial facilities. These control systems incorporate elements of
artificial intelligence, as they consider the prevailing circumstances at the controlled object when generating
control decisions in each specific case. Consequently, it is unnecessary to utilize the complete set of control
object parameters, only those that are effective in the given situation are considered. As a direct consequence
of this, it is possible to drastically reduce the total number of variables in the resultant control problem in
comparison to the total number of variables in the initial problem. Because the control problem has been
simplified in this way, the number of computational resources that are needed to locate a solution has been
cut down. In the end, it improves the overall quality as well as the efficiency of the management process
while simultaneously minimizing the overall costs that are associated with the creation and operation of an
automated control system. The validity of the suggested method has been established through the use of
computer simulations of a control system that is based on the situational decomposition method. These
studies have also shown that the proposed method is highly effective.

REFERENCES
[1] S. French, J. Maule, and N. Papamichail, “Artificial intelligence and expert systems,” in Decision Behaviour, Analysis and
Support, Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 115–139.
[2] W. Pietsch, Big data. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
[3] A. Gelsey, “Intelligent automated quality control for computational simulation,” Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 387–400, Nov. 1995, doi: 10.1017/S0890060400002717.
[4] F. Peien, X. Guorong, and Z. Mingjun, “Feature modeling based on design catalogues for principle conceptual design,” Artificial
Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 347–354, Sep. 1996, doi:
10.1017/S0890060400001669.
[5] H. Shiva Kumar and C. S. Krishnamoorthy, “A framework for case-based reasoning in engineering design,” Artificial Intelligence
for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 161–182, Jun. 1995, doi: 10.1017/S0890060400002419.
[6] G. Maier, G. Bolzon, and F. Tin-Loi, “Mathematical programming in engineering mechanics: some current problems,” in
Complementarity: Applications, Algorithms and Extensions, Springer {US}, 2001, pp. 201–231.
[7] K. Wen-Tsen, “Optimal control based on situational decomposition,” Questions of modern science and practice, vol. 2, no. 3 (13).
Technical Science Series, pp. 50–54, 2008.
[8] G. Scopino, “Key concepts: Algorithms, artificial intelligence, and more,” in Algo Bots and the Law, Cambridge University Press,
2020, pp. 13–47.
[9] E. Delage and Y. Ye, “Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems,”
Operations Research, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 595–612, Jun. 2010, doi: 10.1287/opre.1090.0741.
[10] L. C. Martins and M. B. C. Salles, “Decomposition techniques for multi-objective optimization problems,” Journal of Global
Optimization, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 835–865, 2019.
[11] K. Wen-Tsen, “Features of optimal control of complex technological systems,” Bulletin of the Kazakh Academy of Transport and
Communications, vol. 3, no. 52, pp. 78–83, 2008.
[12] M. D. Mesarovic, D. Macko, and Y. Takahara, Theory of hierarchical, multilevel, systems. Elsevier, 2000.
[13] L. L. S., Optimization of large systems. M.: Nauka, 1975.
[14] F. S. Hillier and G. J. Lieberman, Introduction to operations research. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2002.
[15] E. I. Yurevich, Theory of automatic control, 2nd editio. 2022.
[16] D. M. Himmelblau, Applied nonlinear programming. McGraw-Hill, 2018.
[17] C. Audet and J. E. Dennis, “Analysis of generalized pattern searches,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 889–
903, Jan. 2002, doi: 10.1137/S1052623400378742.
[18] K.-C. Chang, K.-C. Chu, Y.-C. Lin, and J.-S. Pan, “Overview of some intelligent control structures and dedicated algorithms,” in
Automation and Control, IntechOpen, 2021.

Construction of automated optimal control systems with elements of artificial intelligence (Khu Ven Tsen)
372  ISSN: 2722-2586

[19] C. Sammut, “Automatic construction of reactive control systems using symbolic machine learning,” The Knowledge Engineering
Review, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 27–42, Mar. 1996, doi: 10.1017/S0269888900007669.
[20] M. Gopinath, F. A. Batarseh, J. Beckman, A. Kulkarni, and S. Jeong, “International agricultural trade forecasting using machine
learning,” Data and Policy, vol. 3, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1017/dap.2020.22.
[21] S. Lu, G. A. Christie, T. T. Nguyen, J. D. Freeman, and E. B. Hsu, “Applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in
disasters and public health emergencies,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1674–1681, Aug.
2022, doi: 10.1017/dmp.2021.125.
[22] A. Agrawal and A. Choudhary, “Deep materials informatics: Applications of deep learning in materials science,” MRS
Communications, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 779–792, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1557/mrc.2019.73.
[23] S. Jaramillo, J. F. Valencia, and P. L. Gambús, “Epilogue: Artificial intelligence methods,” in Personalized Anaesthesia,
Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 285–290.
[24] Q. Lin, Y. Wang, and Z. Liu, “A multi-decomposition-based genetic algorithm for large-scale optimization problems,” Soft
Computing, vol. 23, no. 20, pp. 10425–10440, 2019.
[25] J. Schmidhuber, “Deep learning in neural networks: An overview,” Neural Networks, vol. 61, pp. 85–117, Jan. 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Khu Ven-Tsen is a doctor of Technical Sciences. Currently. He works as a full

professor at the Department of Information Systems and Modeling of the M. Auezov South
Kazakhstan University. His research interests include automation of technological processes
and industries and automated optimal control of complex technological systems. He can be
contacted at [email protected].

Zhanat Rysbayevna Umarova received her Ph.D. degree in Informatics,

Computer Engineering and Control from the Ministry of Education and Science, in 2013.
Currently, she works as an associate professor of the Information Systems and Modeling
Department at M. Auezov South Kazakhstan University. She has supervised and co-supervised
more than 20 master’s students. She has authored or co-authored more than 100 publications.
Her research interests include mathematical modeling, computer simulation, information
security and data protection in information systems, and renewable resources. She can be
contacted at [email protected].

Pernekul Akberdiyevna Kozhabekova is a candidate of technical sciences,

2005, Almaty. Currently, she works as an associate professor of the Information Systems and
Modeling Department at M. Auezov South Kazakhstan University. Her research interests
include mathematical modeling and computer simulation. She can be contacted at
[email protected].

Nabat Bazarkhanovna Suieuova is a Master of Technological Machines and

Equipment 2006, Aktau State University. Currently, she works as a senior lecturer at the
Department of Energy and Transport, Yessenov Caspian University of Technology and
Engineering (Yessenov University). Research interests-Mechanics of deformable elastic
systems. She can be contacted at [email protected].

IAES Int J Rob & Autom, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2023: 365-372