MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991983718 · doi:10.2514/1.55218

Robust Attitude Coordination Control for Spacecraft Formation Flying Under Actuator Failures

2012· article· en· W1991983718 on OpenAlexaff
An‐Min Zou, Krishna Dev Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Guidance Control and Dynamics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftActuatorControl theory (sociology)Attitude controlAerospace engineeringComputer scienceControl (management)Control engineeringAeronauticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines attitude coordination control for spacecraft formation flying. A class of distributed adaptive fault-tolerant attitude coordination control laws is proposed. The proposed control laws do not require online identification of failures. Using the Lyapunov approach and graph theory, it is shown that the control laws guarantee a group of spacecraft that simultaneously track a common time-varying reference attitude, even when the reference attitude is available only to a subset of the members of a group. Finally, numerical simulation is presented to show that the distributed controller is successful in achieving high-attitude tracking and synchronization performance, even in the presence of an unknown mass moment of inertia matrix, bounded external disturbances, actuator failures, and control saturation limits.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations87
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Guidance Control and DynamicsSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207