Collision Detection and Recovery Control of Drones Using Onboard Inertial Measurement Unit
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a strategy for collision detection and recovery control of drones using an onboard Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). The collision detection algorithm compares the expected response of the drone with the measurements from the IMU to identify and characterize collisions. The recovery controller implements a gain scheduling approach, adjusting its parameters based on the characteristics of the collision and the drone’s attitude. Simulations were conducted to compare the proposed collision detection strategy with a popular detection method with fixed thresholds, and the simulation results showed that the proposed approach outperformed the existing method in terms of detection accuracy. Furthermore, the proposed collision detection and recovery control approaches were tested with physical experiments using a custom-built drone. The experimental results confirmed that the proposed collision detection algorithm was able to distinguish between actual collisions and aggressive flight maneuvers, and the recovery controller can recover the drone within 0.8 s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it