MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003323955 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2007.4370928

Pitch Control of an Aircraft with Aggregated Reinforcement Learning Algorithms

2007· article· en· W2003323955 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE International Conference on Neural Networks/IEEE ... International Conference on Neural Networks · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdaptive Dynamic Programming Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceCerebellar model articulation controllerController (irrigation)AerodynamicsControl theory (sociology)Control systemPitch controlControl engineeringControl (management)Adaptive controlArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pitch control is a basic function of an Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS). Due to the complexity of problems, stochastic behavior, and the disturbing of the environment, traditional techniques, such as, linear feedback control, quantitative feedback theory, and adaptive control, which are all based on the explicit aerodynamic model of an aircraft, are not efficient in designing pitch controllers. This paper adopts multiple Reinforcement Learning (RL) algorithms and Cerebellar Model Articulation Controller (CMAC) techniques to design a pitch controller. In order to improve learning and control performances, a learn system named "Aggregated Multiple Reinforcement Learning System (AMRLS)" is proposed, which combines the outcomes of individual RL algorithms by using several aggregation methods. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that the improved RL based control technology can be applied effectively to pitch control problem.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · 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