Cooperative actuator fault accommodation of formation flying vehicles with absolute measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a new cooperative fault accommodation algorithm is proposed for multiple-vehicle formation flying missions embedded with absolute measurements. This framework provides two recovery modules, namely a low-level fault recovery (LLFR) module and a formation-level fault recovery (FLFR) module. The framework also includes a high-level (HL) supervisor. In the LLFR module, a conventional recovery controller (RC) based on a given fault severity estimate is employed. In case that the LLFR controller cannot fully recover the faulty vehicle due to an imprecise fault estimate, the error bounds imposed by the mission specifications can be violated and the supervisor identifies this violation and activates the FLFR module. This module is responsible for reconfiguring the weighted absolute measurement formation (WAMF) digraph, applying a robust controller, and imposing constraints on the desired input vectors of the partially LL-recovered vehicle and its neighbor vehicles. Consequently, the formation mission specifications can still be guaranteed so that the fault is cooperatively recovered by our proposed scheme. Simulation results for a satellite formation in planetary orbital environment (POE) confirm the validity and effectiveness of our analytical work.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".