MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Algorithm for Flock Formation Control using Distributed Consensus

2023· article· en· W4378191837 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlocking (texture)Computer scienceAlgorithmConsensus algorithmA priori and a posterioriControl theory (sociology)Control (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a formation control algorithm based on a flocking approach to coordinate a team of quadro-tors. A flock formation control algorithm aims to respect for Reynolds rules (cohesion, alignment and separation) whereas maintaining a formation shape of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) team defined a priori. In the proposed algorithm, the navigation approach for flocking algorithm presented by Olfati-Saber is reformulated for keeping a predefined formation shape, propagating the desired formation in the network using a distributed consensus algorithm, starting from a virtual leader. The proposal is validated using a Model-in-the-Loop (MiL) simulation composed by the linear models of quadrotors and the position, altitude and attitude proportional-derivative controllers. The results obtained were presented and analysed based on graphic resources and metrics for formation control and flocking behaviour algorithms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207