MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136047551 · doi:10.1017/s0263574707003670

Full formation control for autonomous helicopter groups

2007· article· en· W2136047551 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Robustness (evolution)Nonlinear systemHelicopter rotorRobust controlControl engineeringSliding mode controlComputer scienceControl (management)EngineeringRotor (electric)Control systemArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This paper reports the design of sliding-mode control laws for controlling multiple small-sized autonomous helicopters in arbitrary formations. Two control schemes, which are required for defining arbitrary three-dimensional formation meshes, are discussed. In the presented leader–follower formation control schemes, each helicopter only needs to receive motion information from at most two neighboring helicopters. A nonlinear six-degree-of-freedom dynamic model has been used for each helicopter. Four control inputs, the main and the tail rotor thrusts, and the roll and pitch moments, are assumed. Parameter uncertainty in the dynamic model and wind disturbance are considered in designing the controllers. The effectiveness and robustness of these control laws in the presence of parameter uncertainty in the dynamic model and wind disturbances are demonstrated by computer simulations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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