MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092590055 · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2012.2196710

Neural Network-Based Distributed Attitude Coordination Control for Spacecraft Formation Flying With Input Saturation

2012· article· en· W2092590055 on OpenAlexaff
An‐Min Zou, Krishna Dev Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuaternionControl theory (sociology)SpacecraftAttitude controlArtificial neural networkObserver (physics)Controller (irrigation)Computer scienceLyapunov functionControl (management)Control engineeringEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligenceNonlinear systemAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This brief considers the attitude coordination control problem for spacecraft formation flying when only a subset of the group members has access to the common reference attitude. A quaternion-based distributed attitude coordination control scheme is proposed with consideration of the input saturation and with the aid of the sliding-mode observer, separation principle theorem, Chebyshev neural networks, smooth projection algorithm, and robust control technique. Using graph theory and a Lyapunov-based approach, it is shown that the distributed controller can guarantee the attitude of all spacecraft to converge to a common time-varying reference attitude when the reference attitude is available only to a portion of the group of spacecraft. Numerical simulations are presented to demonstrate the performance of the proposed distributed controller.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations133
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning SystemsSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207