Model-Free Gradient-Based Adaptive Learning Controller for an Unmanned Flexible Wing Aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical gradient-based approximate dynamic programming approaches provide reliable and fast solution platforms for various optimal control problems. However, their dependence on accurate modeling approaches poses a major concern, where the efficiency of the proposed solutions are severely degraded in the case of uncertain dynamical environments. Herein, a novel online adaptive learning framework is introduced to solve action-dependent dual heuristic dynamic programming problems. The approach does not depend on the dynamical models of the considered systems. Instead, it employs optimization principles to produce model-free control strategies. A policy iteration process is employed to solve the underlying Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation using means of adaptive critics, where a layer of separate actor-critic neural networks is employed along with gradient descent adaptation rules. A Riccati development is introduced and shown to be equivalent to solving the underlying Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equation. The proposed approach is applied on the challenging weight shift control problem of a flexible wing aircraft. The continuous nonlinear deformation in the aircraft’s flexible wing leads to various aerodynamic variations at different trim speeds, which makes its auto-pilot control a complicated task. Series of numerical simulations were carried out to demonstrate the effectiveness of the suggested strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".