Adaptive augmented torque control of a quadcopter with an aerial manipulator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A quadcopter manipulator system is an aerial robot consisting of a quadcopter with a robotic arm attached to it. The system has coupled nonlinear dynamics with uncertain time-varying parameters. The work in this paper focuses on designing an adaptive nonlinear controller to facilitate the uncertain system’s trajectory tracking and stability. The novelty of the proposed work is the design and implementation of an adaptive feedback linearization controller, called adaptive augmented torque (AAT) control, for the aerial robot. The control law is based on a feedback linearization controller with model reference adaptive controller and a tracking error-based augmented term. Using the input-to-state stability concept, a bound on the parameter estimation error is also developed. In the presented methodology, the controller uses estimated values of system parameters obtained from the adaptive mechanism and the tracking error to compute the control input using the AAT control law. An adaptive law for estimating unknown parameters is obtained using the strictly positive real-Lyapunov method. The asymptotic stability of the closed-loop system is analyzed via the Lyapunov theory. Simulations implemented in MATLAB and ROS/Gazebo and preliminary hardware experiments are presented to validate the theoretical results and to corroborate the performance of the AAT control law.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".