Cooperative Adaptive Model-Free Control With Model-Free Estimation and Online Gain Tuning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, a distributed adaptive model-free control algorithm is proposed for consensus and formation-tracking problems in a network of agents with completely unknown nonlinear dynamic systems. The specification of the communication graph in the network is incorporated in the adaptive laws for estimation of the unknown linear and nonlinear terms, and in the online updating of the elements in the main controller gain matrix. The decentralized control signal at each agent in the network requires information about the states of the leader agent, as well as the desired formation variables of the agents in a local coordinate frame. These two sets of variables are provided at each agent by utilizing two recently proposed distributed observers. It is shown that only a spanning-tree rooted at the leader agent is enough for the convergence and stability of the proposed cooperative control and observer algorithms. Two simulation studies are provided to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm in comparison with two state-of-the-art distributed model-free control algorithms. With lower control effort as well as fewer offline gain tuning, the same level of consensus errors is achieved. Finally, the application of the proposed solution is studied in the formation-tracking control of a team of autonomous aerial mobile robots via simulation results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".