Terrain based co‐operative UAV mapping of complex obstacles using 2‐D splinegon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to describe a recently proposed algorithm in terrain‐based cooperative UAV mapping of the unknown complex obstacle in a stationary environment where the complex obstacles are represented as curved in nature. It also aims to use an extended Kalman filter (EKF) to estimate the fused position of the UAVs and to apply the 2‐D splinegon technique to build the map of the complex shaped obstacles. The path of the UAVs are dictated by the Dubins path planning algorithm. The focus is to achieve a guaranteed performance of sensor based mapping of the uncertain environments using multiple UAVs. Design/methodology/approach An extended Kalman filter is used to estimate the position of the UAVs, and the 2‐D splinegon technique is used to build the map of the complex obstacle where the path of the UAVs are dictated by the Dubins path planning algorithm. Findings The guaranteed performance is quantified by explicit bounds of the position estimate of the multiple UAVs for mapping of the complex obstacles using 2‐D splinegon technique. This is a newly proposed algorithm, the most efficient and a robust way in terrain based mapping of the complex obstacles. The proposed method can provide mathematically provable and performance guarantees that are achievable in practice. Originality/value The paper describes the main contribution in mapping the complex shaped curvilinear objects using the 2‐D splinegon technique. This is a new approach where the fused EKF estimated positions are used with the limited number of sensors' measurements in building the map of the complex obstacles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".