MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149292252 · doi:10.1109/acc.2008.4587070

Control of helicopters’ formation using non-iterative Nonlinear Model Predictive approach

2008· article· en· W2149292252 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Saffarian, Farbod Fahimi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationModel predictive controlNonlinear systemNonlinear modelControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceController (irrigation)Iterative methodControl engineeringControl (management)EngineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A non-iterative nonlinear model predictive controller (NMPC) for formation control of helicopters is proposed and validated through simulations. The method is based on minimizing the error of geometrical formation parameters specifically designed for helicopters. These parameters are used to form desired three-dimensional (3D) configurations among members of a helicopter group. This approach is tested for both initializing and maintaining the desired formation. Also, simulation has been conducted considering the presence of environmental disturbances and model uncertainties. Compared to the similar approaches, the method has a substantially smaller computational cost. In addition, it is shown that unlike the conventional NMPC optimization methods, the presented framework does not require any iteration. This method inherently possesses the same computational cost for all the time steps throughout the whole time period of the flight scenario. These features make this framework a suitable choice for implementation for formation control of helicopter groups.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207