Barrier Lyapunov function and adaptive backstepping-based control of a quadrotor UAV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents backstepping control and backstepping constraint control approaches for a quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) control system. The proposed methods are applied to a Parrot Mambo drone model to control rotational motion along the $x$ , $y$ , and $z$ axes during hovering and trajectory tracking. In the backstepping control approach, each state of the system controls the previous state and is called “virtual control.” The last state is controlled by the real control input. The idea is to compute, in several steps, a control law that ensures the asymptotic stability of the system. The backstepping constraint control method, based on barrier Lyapunov functions (BLFs), is designed not only to track the desired trajectory but also to guarantee no violation of the position and angle constraints. Symmetric BLFs are introduced in the design of the controller. A nonlinear mathematical model is considered in this study. Based on Lyapunov stability theory, it can be concluded that the proposed controllers can guarantee the stability of the UAV system and the state converges asymptotically to the desired trajectory. To make the control robust, an adaptation law is applied to the backstepping control that estimates the unknown parameters and ensures their convergence to their respective values. Validation of the proposed controllers was performed by simulation on a flying UAV system.
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 | 0.000 | 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".