MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002312256 · doi:10.1109/taes.2020.2967851

Output-Feedback Image-Based Visual Servoing for Multirotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Line Following

2020· article· en· W3002312256 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Awais Rafique, Alan F. Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual servoingMultirotorComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceInertial measurement unitControl theory (sociology)Optical flowImage planeRobotEngineeringImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article considers visual servoing-based motion control of multirotor unmanned aerial vehicles. We employ output feedback and image-based visual servoing to control the vehicle's pose with respect to a static planar visual target with a linear structure (e.g., electric transmission lines or pipelines). The method uses measurements from inexpensive sensors typically found on-board: an inertial measurement unit, and a monocular computer vision system. Unlike existing work, it does not require linear velocity, position measurements, or an optical flow sensor. The method directly controls the relative pose to the visual target and does not require global navigation satellite system measurements of the vehicle or target. The visual servoing method ensures the vehicle flies centered above the lines at specified height and yaw. Such motion control is important in a number of applications such as efficient data collection for infrastructure inspection. Our article exploits the inherent robustness of an image-based approach where feature error is computed directly in the image plane. A virtual camera is combined with output feedback and convergence of the closed loop is proven. The method is adaptive to vehicle mass, thrust constant, desired depth, and a constant disturbance force. Simulation and experimental results illustrate the method's performance and robustness to model uncertainty.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic SystemsSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207