MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053868191 · doi:10.1109/syscon.2014.6819230

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle formation flying using Linear Model Predictive Control

2014· article· en· W2053868191 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFlocking (texture)Model predictive controlAerodynamicsControl theory (sociology)Identification (biology)Linear modelControl (management)Vehicle dynamicsSimulationArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A team of three Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) accomplishes a line abreast, triangular and cross formation based on high-level Linear Model Predictive Control (LMPC). All flight tests respect Reynold's rules of flocking, where the UAVs avoid collisions with nearby flockmates, attempt to match velocity of other team members and attempt to stay close to other flockmates. A linear system identification model is at the base of the error dynamics describing the formation control algorithm. The main contribution of this paper lies in the use of LMPC to implement multiple formations on UAVs in simulation and using the Qball-X4 quadrotor.

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 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 score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207