Adaptive Linear Quadratic Attitude Tracking Control of a Quadrotor UAV Based on IMU Sensor Data Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an infinite-horizon adaptive linear quadratic tracking (ALQT) control scheme is designed for optimal attitude tracking of a quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The proposed control scheme is experimentally validated in the presence of real-world uncertainties in quadrotor system parameters and sensor measurement. The designed control scheme guarantees asymptotic stability of the close-loop system with the help of complete controllability of the attitude dynamics in applying optimal control signals. To achieve robustness against parametric uncertainties, the optimal tracking solution is combined with an online least squares based parameter identification scheme to estimate the instantaneous inertia of the quadrotor. Sensor measurement noises are also taken into account for the on-board Inertia Measurement Unit (IMU) sensors. To improve controller performance in the presence of sensor measurement noises, two sensor fusion techniques are employed, one based on Kalman filtering and the other based on complementary filtering. The ALQT controller performance is compared for the use of these two sensor fusion techniques, and it is concluded that the Kalman filter based approach provides less mean-square estimation error, better attitude estimation, and better attitude control performance.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".