Aircraft Speed/Altitude Control Using a Sigma-Pi Neural Network
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
– Performance and stability of small aircraft are sensitive to the onboard aerodynamic model of the flight controller. Due to aerodynamic uncertainty with excessive bias, scale factor, or noise affecting the plant, a small aircraft typically lacks the modeling accuracy required for designing a robust flight control system. These deficiencies can be overcome by implementing a traditional linear control law augmented with an adaptive nonlinear control law. A nonlinear dynamic inversion control law with feedback linearization is stable but lacks in performance when modeling uncertainty is introduced to the model. Compensating the traditional approach with a neural network to estimate the imperfect and unmodeled dynamics provides a robust control design, even for in-flight regimes not previously seen by the aircraft. In this research, we investigate using the Sigma-Pi Neural Network (SPNN) to adapt to both the engine speed and elevator commands in the aircraft speed/altitude control. Training the neural network model is performed using a recursive least square estimator (RLSE), and the SPNN control designs are validated on a six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) digital 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it