MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145616332 · doi:10.1177/0954410011422970

Improving transient performance in computationally simple gyro-corrected satellite attitude determination

2011· article· en· W2145616332 on OpenAlexafffund
Anton de Ruiter

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInertial Sensor and Navigation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsTransient (computer programming)Control theory (sociology)Kalman filterFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceSteady state (chemistry)Extended Kalman filterTime constantConstant (computer programming)Transient responseEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article extends a previously presented Kalman-like filter for fusing gyro measurements with attitude measurements obtained from external sensors such as star-trackers, magnetometers, and sun-sensors. The simplicity of this approach is useful for applications such as micro/nano-satellites where computational power is limited. The previously presented filter uses constant filter gains. It was shown that by appropriately choosing the constant gains, near- optimal steady-state performance is obtained. A drawback of using constant gains is that optimal transient filter performance is lost, meaning that convergence is slower. In this article, a computationally simple analytical approximation to the transient part of the Kalman filter gain is derived, allowing the transient performance to be recovered. The transient approximation of the gain is then applied for a predetermined fixed period of time, after which the gain is switched to the previously presented constant steady-state Kalman gain. A simple expression for a suitable time to switch from transient to steady-state filter operation is derived. Simulation results demonstrate the efficacy of this approach.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicInertial Sensor and NavigationFrench-language works237,207