MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413086105 · doi:10.1002/asjc.3774

Adaptive mixing formation control of multiquadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle systems

2025· article· en· W4413086105 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

VenueAsian Journal of Control · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Parametric statisticsRobustness (evolution)Adaptive controlComputer scienceRobust controlTracking (education)Scheme (mathematics)EngineeringControl engineeringControl systemControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a distributed adaptive mixing control (AMC) design for formation maintenance of systems of multiquadrotor UAVs (q‐UAVs) during commanded path‐tracking maneuvers. The proposed formation control scheme has a two‐level structure. The high level defines the desired trajectories for rigid and persistent formation acquisition and tracking in 3D to maintain the predefined shape. At the low level, an indirect AMC law based on least‐squares (LS) parameter identification ensures accurate tracking and robustness to parametric uncertainties and disturbances in q‐UAV motion dynamics. The proposed scheme adaptively blends a set of pre‐designed scheduled linear quadratic control (LQC) gains, providing a smooth transition among operation point neighborhoods. The proposed scheme is also compared with a conventional adaptive LQC design. The stability analysis of the proposed control scheme is provided, and both the formation maintenance and path‐tracking performances are tested and compared through real‐time data‐based simulations.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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