Two Reconfigurable Control Allocation Schemes for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle under Stuck 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
Two reconfigurable control allocation (called also as control reallocation) schemes for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) under stuck actuator failures have been proposed in this paper. The two control reallocation algorithms include a cascaded generalized inverse algorithm and a fixed-point algorithm. The performance of the two algorithms has been evaluated with a UAV model known as ALTAV (Almost-Lighter-Than-Air-Vehicle). Different stuck faults on the actuators have been implemented in the ALTAV benchmark and used for evaluating the control reallocation schemes. An effective re-distribution of the control surface deflections with the remaining healthy control actuators is used in order to achieve acceptable performance in the presence of control actuator failures. Comparisons were made among the two algorithms with different commanded inputs. Simulation results show the effectiveness of reconfigurable control allocation algorithms for handling stuck failures in such a UAV with less hardware redundancy.
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