A stability guaranteed active fault‐tolerant control system against actuator failures
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
Abstract In this paper, a new strategy for fault‐tolerant control system design has been proposed using multiple controllers. The design of such controllers is shown to be unique in the sense that the resulting control system neither suffers from the problem of conservativeness of conventional passive fault‐tolerant control nor from the risk of instability associated with active fault‐tolerant control in case that an incorrect fault detection and isolation decision is made. In other words, the stability of the closed‐loop system is always ensured regardless of the decision made by the fault detection and isolation scheme. A correct decision will further lead to optimal performance of the closed‐loop system. This paper deals with the conflicting requirements among stability, redundancy, and graceful degradation in performance for fault‐tolerant control systems by using robust control techniques. A detailed design procedure has been presented with consideration of parameter uncertainties. Both total and partial actuator failures have been considered. This new control strategy has been demonstrated by controlling a McDonnell F‐4C airplane in the lateral‐direction through simulation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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