MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412161778 · doi:10.1115/1.4069105

Simple Tuning for an Adaptive and Model-Free Control of Indoor Airships

2025· article· en· W4412161778 on OpenAlexaff
Jorge Esteban Salas Gordoniz, Maarouf Saad, David St-Onge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Energy Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Control theory (sociology)Adaptive controlComputer scienceControl engineeringControl (management)EngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper addresses the challenges involved in designing and tuning flight controllers for uncrewed aerial vehicles, focusing on the complexities specific to lighter-than-air vehicles, often referred to as blimps. Traditional approaches often require numerous iterations in both simulation and real-world environments to identify dynamic model parameters (such as mass, inertia, and damping) and to fine-tune controller gains to achieve stable flights. In contrast, we propose a streamlined methodology that leverages intuitive physics principles to simplify the control, tuning, and stabilization process, ensuring safe and robust path tracking for indoor blimps. Our approach incorporates sliding mode control (SMC) with a saturation term to regulate translational motion across all three axes as well as yaw, while limiting both cruising speeds and control forces. Additionally, we employ a recursive simple moving average (SMA) mechanism that reduces steady-state errors in real-time, enabling altitude control in response to weight changes and adjusting speed to compensate for drag. To further enhance stability, an SMA-based stabilization technique dampens oscillations that naturally occur around the pitch and roll axes, improving performance during both hovering and flight. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of this method, demonstrating its robustness, rapid deployment, path accuracy, and oscillation control, all with minimal tuning effort.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear DynamicsSame topicAerospace Engineering and Energy SystemsFrench-language works237,207