MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333291351 · doi:10.2514/6.2009-6268

Receding Horizon Model-Based Predictive Control for Dynamic Target Tracking: a Comparative Study

2009· article· en· W2333291351 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModel predictive controlComputer scienceHorizonControl theory (sociology)Tracking (education)Control (management)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

when the targets are moving. This article describes an application of receding horizon model-based predictive control for UAV target tracking in a dynamic environment. The advantage that predictive control oers over traditional control strategies is that it can account for predicted/future UAV and target trajectories. As such, the proposed method is compared to ve existing target tracking algorithms to demonstrate its eectiveness. For each tracking algorithm, simulations are conducted to test the UAV’s aptitude to track a moving ground target and performance metrics, namely the mean and maximum UAV-to-target distance for the simulation duration, are used to evaluate each method. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed UAV guidance strategy based on predictive control improves the aircraft’s ability to track a dynamic ground target.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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