MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965940578 · doi:10.1109/tie.2012.2235391

Distributed Cohesive Motion Control of Flight Vehicle Formations

2012· article· en· W1965940578 on OpenAlexaff
İsmail Bayezit, Barış Fi̇dan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsControl theory (sociology)Motion controlComputer scienceDouble integratorContext (archaeology)Rigidity (electromagnetism)Robot kinematicsFlocking (texture)IntegratorMobile robotVehicle dynamicsRobotControl engineeringMulti-agent systemEngineeringControl (management)Artificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringClassical mechanicsPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider the problem of decentralized cohesive motion control of a formation of autonomous vehicles or robots moving in three dimensions, where the formation is required to move from its initial setting (defined by the positions of the agents in the formation) to a final desired setting and, during this motion, maintain its formation geometry defined by the initial distances between the agent pairs. We propose a distributed control scheme to solve this problem utilizing the notions of graph rigidity and persistence as well as techniques of virtual target tracking and smooth switching. The distributed control scheme is developed by modeling the agent kinematics as single-velocity integrator; nevertheless, extension to the cases with practical kinematic and dynamic models of fixed-wing autonomous aerial vehicles and quadrotors is discussed. In this context, we examine the maintenance of geometric formation of a swarm of autonomous flight vehicles. The developed coordination and control schemes are verified via a number of simulations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations200
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207