Payload Drop Application Using an Unmanned Quadrotor Helicopter Based on Gain-Scheduled PID and Model Predictive Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two useful control techniques are investigated and applied experimentally to an unmanned quadrotor helicopter for a practical and important scenario of using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for dropping a payload in circumstances where search and rescue and delivery of supplies and goods is dangerous and difficult to reach environments such as forest or high building fires fighting, rescue in earthquake, flood and nuclear disaster situations. The two considered control techniques for such applications are the Gain-Scheduled Proportional-Integral-Derivative (GS-PID) control and the Model Predictive Control (MPC). Both the model-free (GS-PID) and model-based (MPC) algorithms show a very promising performance with application to taking-off, height holding, payload dropping, and landing periods in a payload dropping mission. Finally, both algorithms are successfully implemented on an unmanned quadrotor helicopter testbed (known as Qball-X4) available at the Networked Autonomous Vehicles Lab (NAVL) of Concordia University for payload dropping tests to illustrate the effectiveness and performance comparison of the two control techniques.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".