MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947082796 · doi:10.3390/app9112230

Aerial Grasping of an Object in the Strong Wind: Robust Control of an Aerial Manipulator

2019· article· en· W2947082796 on OpenAlexaff
Guangyu Zhang, Yuqing He, Bo Dai, Feng Gu, Liying Yang, Jianda Han, Guangjun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersScience and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong ProvinceNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Manipulator (device)Controller (irrigation)Control engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringRobotSimulationControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aerial manipulator is a new kind of flying robot system composed of a rotorcraft unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a multi-link robotic arm. It gives the flying robot the capacity to complete manipulation tasks. Steady flight is essential for an aerial manipulator to complete manipulation tasks. This paper focuses on the steady flight control performance of the aerial manipulator. A separate control strategy is used in the aerial manipulator system, in which the UAV and the manipulator are controlled separately. In order to complete tasks in environments with strong wind disturbance, an acceleration feedback enhanced robust H∞ controller was designed for the UAV in the aerial manipulator. The controller is based on the hierarchical inner-outer loop control structure of the UAV and composed of a robust H∞ controller and acceleration feedback enhanced term, which is used to compensate for the wind disturbance. Experimental results of aerial grasping of a target object show that the controller can suppress the wind disturbance effectively, and make the aerial manipulator hover steadily with sufficient accuracy to complete aerial manipulation tasks in strong wind.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207