Distributed iterative learning control for a team of quadrotors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this work is to enable a team of quadrotors to learn how to accurately track a desired trajectory while holding a given formation. We solve this problem in a distributed manner, where each vehicle has only access to the information of its neighbors. The desired trajectory is only available to one (or few) vehicles. We present a distributed iterative learning control (ILC) approach where each vehicle learns from the experience of its own and its neighbors' previous task repetitions, and adapts its feedforward input to improve performance. Existing algorithms are extended in theory to make them more applicable to real-world experiments. In particular, we prove stability for any causal learning function with gains chosen according to a simple scalar condition. Previous proofs were restricted to a specific learning function that only depends on the tracking error derivative (D-type ILC). Our extension provides more degrees of freedom in the ILC design and, as a result, better performance can be achieved. We also show that stability is not affected by a linear dynamic coupling between neighbors. This allows us to use an additional consensus feedback controller to compensate for non-repetitive disturbances. Experiments with two quadrotors attest the effectiveness of the proposed distributed multi-agent ILC approach. This is the first work to show distributed ILC in experiment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".