MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402689362 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-4257

Robust Pitch Control of the Cessna Citation X Using C-Star Architecture and Adaptive Neural Networks

2024· article· en· W4402689362 on OpenAlexaff
Rojo Princy Andrianantara, Francisco Daniel Mancera Coyotl, Georges Ghazi, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStar (game theory)ArchitectureAdaptive controlArtificial neural networkComputer scienceControl (management)PhysicsArtificial intelligenceAstrophysicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a technique for designing a robust pitch controller using a C* control architecture, and implementing adaptive methods for the longitudinal control of the Cessna Citation X business jet aircraft. First, the design of the inner loop aims to control the pitch rate and the load factor, also known as the C-star parameter. A Proportional–Integral– Derivative (PID) controller is combined with a Neural Network Adaptive controller. The gains of the PID remain constant for all flight conditions, while the NN hyperparameters are updated online. A reference signal is imposed on the C-star command in order to meet the handling quality requirements for longitudinal modes. Second, an adaptive pitch controller is proposed using a second neural network. The overall control algorithm is designed for cruise control and tested for 63 cruise conditions across the Cessna Citation X flight envelope. Its robustness is tested against uncertainties, including wind gust, wind shear and Dryden turbulence model with various intensities. Results show that the proposed control algorithm is perfectly able to control the aircraft and follow a given model reference pitch signal.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Control Systems OptimizationFrench-language works237,207