MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111114397 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2010.5717153

Distributed control of formation flying spacecraft using deterministic communication schedulers

2010· article· en· W2111114397 on OpenAlexaff
Saeid Jafari, Amir Ajorlou, Amir G. Aghdam, S. Tafazoli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft Dynamics and Control
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpacecraftScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)NASA Deep Space NetworkDistributed computingTelecommunications networkControl engineeringGain schedulingControl (management)Real-time computingEngineeringMathematical optimizationAerospace engineeringComputer networkMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the formation flying control of spacecraft using a distributed architecture. Each agent uses an estimate of the formation state to compute its own actuation command. A simple deterministic scheduling strategy is first adopted for updating the estimates over a delayed data network, and the stability analysis is provided subsequently. A scheduling method for balancing the communication load among the agents is also proposed. It is assumed that different agents are coupled through their dynamics, as well as their control objectives, and that the output of each agent must track a desired reference input. Furthermore, an (open-loop) approximation of the parameter variation of the system is carried out throughout the control operation to improve the accuracy of state estimation. Simulations are given for a group of three spacecraft flying with leader-follower structure in deep space, and demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed scheme.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft Dynamics and ControlFrench-language works237,207