Observer-Based Adaptive Resilient Fault-Tolerant Cooperative Control for Multiple Fixed-Wing UAVs Subject to Cyberattacks and Actuator Faults
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes an adaptive resilient fault-tolerant cooperative control (RFTCC) scheme for multiple fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) subject to cyberattacks and actuator faults. A control-oriented dynamic modeling framework is established to characterize fixed-wing UAV formation tracking under cyberattack and actuator fault threats. A fixed-time composite cyberattack observer is designed to simultaneously estimate and compensate for persistent spoofing attacks and intermittent DoS attacks on position measurements, ensuring rapid convergence under attacked conditions. To enhance the resilience of the multiple fixed-wing UAV system, an adaptive RFTCC scheme is investigated, integrating adaptive laws to dynamically adjust control gains against actuator faults and attack-induced uncertainties. Stability analysis proves the boundedness of tracking errors under the proposed control framework. Numerical simulations involving four UAVs demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control scheme in maintaining formation tracking despite simultaneous cyberattacks and actuator faults. The simulation results highlight the control effectiveness in attack mitigation, fault tolerance, and trajectory recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it