UAV collision avoidance using cooperative predictive control
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the use of predictive control for the decentralized cooperative control of unmanned aerial vehicles in an unfamiliar three-dimensional environment. It is assumed that each vehicle is equipped with an autopilot and a trajectory control unit. The autopilot insures the stability of the vehicle. The setpoints of the autopilot are calculated by the trajectory control unit, thus forming a cascade control structure. The trajectory control unit relies on a predictive control algorithm to calculate the optimal commands (autopilot setpoints) such that the vehicle will reach fixed targets at known positions while avoiding static obstacles that are detected en route. The advantage in using predictive control is that it offers great flexibility in the objective function to optimize while respecting constraints such as command limits, limits on the displacement that a vehicle can carry out, and the constraints that allow obstacle avoidance. The principle proposed in order to avoid static obstacles (that are assumed ellipsoid) is to verify that the predicted vehicle trajectory does not intersect these obstacles. With the objective to increase performance, cooperation between vehicles must also be privileged. Thus, if some vehicles are within the communication range, they can share the position and shape of the obstacles they have detected. Simulations illustrate the method and higlight the benefits of cooperation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it