Fractional‐order fault‐tolerant containment control of multiple fixed‐wing UAVs via disturbance observer and interval type‐2 fuzzy neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article investigates the fault‐tolerant containment control (FTCC) problem for a group of fixed‐wing unmanned aerial vehicles with simultaneous considerations of faults and collision avoidance. A fractional‐order (FO) FTCC scheme is established to steer all follower UAVs into the convex hull formed by the leader UAVs with the involvements of FO calculus, disturbance observers (DOs), and interval type‐2 fuzzy neural networks (IT2FNNs). In the proposed control protocol, FO sliding‐mode surfaces with artificial potential functions are first designed to revamp the filtered containment errors. Then, the DOs with FO calculus are constructed to estimate the FO lumped disturbances due to faults and external disturbances. Moreover, to compensate for the DO estimation errors, IT2FNN learning mechanisms are introduced to improve the FTCC capability. It is shown by Lyapunov stability analysis that all follower UAVs can successfully converge into the convex hull spanned by the leader UAVs without collisions even when a portion of UAVs is encountered by faults. Simulation results are presented to show the effectiveness of the developed control scheme.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".