Pareto Optimal PID Tuning for Px4-Based Unmanned Aerial Vehicles by Using a Multi-Objective Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are affordable these days. For that reason, there are currently examples of the use of UAVs in recreational, professional and research applications. Most of the commercial UAVs use Px4 for their operating system. Even though Px4 allows one to change the flight controller structure, the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) format is still by far the most popular choice. A selection of the PID controller parameters is required before the UAV can be used. Although there are guidelines for the design of PID parameters, they do not guarantee the stability of the UAV, which in many cases, leads to collisions involving the UAV during the calibration process. In this paper, an offline tuning procedure based on the multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) algorithm for the attitude and altitude control of a Px4-based UAV is proposed. A Pareto dominance concept is used for the MOPSO to find values for the PID comparing parameters of step responses (overshoot, rise time and root-mean-square). Experimental results are provided to validate the proposed tuning procedure by using a quadrotor as a case study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".