MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stabilized Robust Control for Lightweight Autonomous Aircraft Mobility: A Quantum Reinforcement Learning Approach

2025· article· en· W4413680163 on OpenAlexafffund
Gyu Seon Kim, Jaehyun Chung, Trung Q. Duong, Soohyun Park, Joongheon Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceControl (management)Robust controlQuantumArtificial intelligenceControl systemEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stability of aircraft remains vulnerable to sudden external disturbances and unpredictable vortices. The aircraft's attitude angles undergo rapid changes due to random turbulence. Consequently, to ensure safety, it is essential to control the aircraft's control surfaces, i.e., ailerons, elevators, and rudder angles, to maintain its static stability. Although classical closed-loop control methods have been widely adopted, their limited adaptability to changing dynamics calls for more robust solutions. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers adaptive capabilities but often demands a large number of training parameters and substantial computational resources, which may be impractical for real-time lightweight aircraft applications. To overcome these limitations, this paper introduces a quantum aircraft with the quantum actorcritic networks-based aircraft control (QACN-AC) algorithm. By utilizing quantum neural networks (QNN), QACN-AC significantly reduces the number of parameters required for training, thus mitigating computational overhead while preserving robust control performance. The QACN-AC's effectiveness is validated through realistic simulations leveraging Boeing's B777 specifications. The results highlight QACN-AC's superiority over conventional RL, evidenced by a <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$1.25 \times$</tex> higher control performance and a <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$760 \times$</tex> reduction in the number of required parameters.

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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Traffic Management and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207