MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417094313 · doi:10.2514/1.c038281

On Robust State Estimation for Practical Problems in Flight Path Reconstruction

2025· article· en· W4417094313 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory J. Moszczynski, Peter R. Grant, Vincent Myrand-Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFederal Aviation Administration
KeywordsEstimatorA priori and a posterioriTrajectoryControl theory (sociology)Path (computing)Reliability (semiconductor)Covariance matrixNoise (video)Covariance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A state estimation method was developed for general flight path reconstruction applications in which the reliability of airdata measurements may vary greatly over time. The method was developed through the application of robust cost functions to the maximum a posteriori estimation philosophy to achieve a trajectory estimation scheme that accurately treats various forms of process noise and time-varying measurement error characteristics that occur in both aircraft system identification and flight path reconstruction applications. It was shown that the estimator is realized as an adaptive maximum a posteriori estimator in which the trajectory and time-varying measurement error covariance matrix are estimated jointly. The efficacy of the scheme was demonstrated through a case study considering its application to simulation data and comparing the performance of implementations realized using a variety of robust cost functions, including a cost function proposed by the authors. A major finding of this work was that implementation based on the authors’ proposed cost function resulted in superior performance. The efficacy of the estimator was further demonstrated though a case study considering its application to real flight-test data. Findings from this case study were consistent with findings from the case study based on simulation data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueJournal of AircraftSame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207