MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898049695 · doi:10.23919/chicc.2018.8483606

Line-of-Sight Path Following Control on UAV with Sideslip Estimation and Compensation

2018· article· en· W2898049695 on OpenAlexaff
Yintao Zhang, Youmin Zhang, Zhixiang Liu, Ziquan Yu, Yaohong Qu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompensation (psychology)Computer sciencePath (computing)Control theory (sociology)Line-of-sightControl (management)Line (geometry)SightControl engineeringSimulationReal-time computingEngineeringArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new online reconfigurable line-of-sight (LOS) path following control approach for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). First, a time-varying lookahead distance mechanism is developed for guaranteeing agile and abrupt actions of the UAV by moving it towards the desired path from which the UAV is far away, while generating more smooth operations of the UAV to reduce the fluctuations when it is close to the demanded path. Then, a self-adjustable integral LOS guidance strategy is devised to effectively compensate the steady-state errors and sideslip angles which are caused by the negative impacts from wind. The neural network technique is employed for learning and regulating control parameters of the proposed guidance law online in order to precisely counteract the adverse effects of time-varying wind-induced sideslips. Finally, extensive simulation studies are carried out to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed path following methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207