Actuator fault accommodation strategy for a team of LTI multi-agent systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cooperative actuator fault accommodation strategy for a team of linear time-invariant (LTI) multi-agent systems with a switching topology and directed communication network graph is studied in this paper. The faults could occur in more than one agent simultaneously and the fault severity is not needed to be precisely estimated. The proposed fault accommodation strategy is performed in two levels: the agent level fault recovery (ALFR) and the team level fault recovery (TLFR). Whenever a fault is detected, the recovery strategy is to locally recover faulty agents based on inaccurate estimates of the faults in the first step and to reconfigure the weights of the information flow graph in the second step. The proposed strategy is based on the sub-optimal solution of a bi-linear matrix inequality (BMI) and guarantees the consensus achievement of the team. The stability properties of the proposed controller and the recovery strategy are investigated based on Lyapunov analysis. The effectiveness of our proposed consensus algorithm is illustrated by performing numerical simulations for a team of ten agents and the performance of our strategy is compared with the centralized and decentralized fault recovery approaches in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it