Multiple specification controller design for F‐16 fighters
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how to design effective and practical controllers that satisfy multiple simultaneous specifications (MSS) criteria concurrently. Design/methodology/approach In automatic flight control system or autopilots, MSS such as good holding (small static altitude holding error), fast response, smooth transition (less oscillation, overshoot) are needed to be satisfied concurrently. So how to design the MSS controller effectively and practically is a very significant and challenging job. An MSS controller design method is proposed. The paper further applies the method together with the fine‐tuning technique to the 6 DoF non‐linear F‐16 fighter longitudinal control channel. Simulation results show its applicability to non‐linear flight control system. Findings It was found that the simulation results demonstrate that the MSS design method with controller fine‐tuning can be applied to the nonlinear F‐16 fighter longitudinal control system. Research limitations/implications The practical implementation of this research work needs further investigation. Practical implications The simplicity of the design algorithm facilitates the application of the design to other aircrafts by use of Matlab. Originality/value The simulation results presented demonstrate that the proposed MSS apply well to non‐linear F‐16 fighters.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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