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 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 score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

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 head0.010
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 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 venueJournal of AircraftSame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207