MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tactic Switching For Multiple UAV Teams via Model Predictive Control

2014· article· en· W2603146773 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Unmanned Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModel predictive controlRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceControl (management)Control engineeringStability (learning theory)Control theory (sociology)LinearizationEngineeringNonlinear systemArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent and flexible control strategies are required to allow teams of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to cooperate in order to accomplish a multitude of challenging group tasks. Decentralized Model Predictive Control (MPC) is used to solve the problem of tactic switching for two teams of N UAVs. The UAVs teams accomplish a desired formation tactic, assign themselves to a desired target and then switch to dynamic encirclement around the chosen target. A high-level Linear Model Predictive Control (LMPC) policy is used to control the UAV team during the execution of the desired formation approach, while a combination of decentralized LMPC and Feedback Linearization (FL) is applied on the teams to accomplish dynamic encirclement tactic. The main contribution of this paper lies inthe use of MPC policy to solve the tactic switching problem of two UAV teams around several targets while ensuring the stability and robustness of the system during the simulation.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · 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