Fault tolerant cooperative control for UAV rendezvous problem subject to actuator faults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the problem of fault tolerant cooperative control for UAV rendezvous problem in which multiple UAVs are required to arrive at their designated target despite presence of a fault in the thruster of any UAV. An integrated hierarchical scheme is proposed and developed that consists of a cooperative rendezvous planning algorithm at the team level and a nonlinear fault detection and isolation (FDI) subsystem at individual UAV's actuator/sensor level. Furthermore, a rendezvous re-planning strategy is developed that interfaces the rendezvous planning algorithm with the low-level FDI. A nonlinear geometric approach is used for the FDI subsystem that can detect and isolate faults in various UAV actuators including thrusters and control surfaces. The developed scheme is implemented for a rendezvous scenario with three Aerosonde UAVs, a single target, and presence of a priori known threats. Simulation results reveal the effectiveness of our proposed scheme in fulfilling the rendezvous mission objective that is specified as a successful intercept of Aerosondes at their designated target, despite the presence of severe loss of effectiveness in Aerosondes engine thrusters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".