MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312930837 · doi:10.1109/lra.2022.3230593

A Safety Planning and Control Architecture Applied to a Quadrotor Autopilot

2022· article· en· W4312930837 on OpenAlexaff
Wenyu Zhang, Jindou Jia, Sicheng Zhou, Kexin Guo, Xiang Yu, Youmin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutopilotControl theory (sociology)Quadratic programmingControl engineeringActuatorComputer scienceController (irrigation)EngineeringMathematical optimizationControl (management)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter presents a safety trajectory planning and tracking architecture for a quadrotor autopilot. Motor saturation constraints are explicitly considered in obstacle avoidance mission. Two challenging cases are covered: agile flight with a short task time and stable flight with actuator degradation. By explicitly considering the real physical constraints, the proposed method can make better use of the quadrotor maneuverability. Specifically, from control aspect, a sliding mode observer (SMO) based safety controller is implemented on the autopilot. Subsequently, the actuator saturation problem is analyzed and modeled as axis-coupled constraints. The B-spline curve is used to deal with the constraints due to its convex hull property. As a result, the planning problem can be transformed into a quadratically constrained quadratic programming (QCQP) problem with the proposed minimum energy cost function. Experiments show that the resulting trajectories can yield improvements in tracking accuracy in comparison of conventional planning method.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207