Simulation for path planning of autonomous underwater vehicle using Flower Pollination Algorithm, Genetic Algorithm and Q-Learning
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
The motivation behind this paper is to address the necessity for exploration in near bottom ocean environment employing Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. This paper presents a simulation for an optimized path planning for an autonomous underwater vehicle in benthic ocean zones. The statistical data pertaining to the near-bottom ocean currents has been sourced from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Canada. A cost function is developed which incorporates the interaction of the underwater vehicle with the ocean currents. This cost function takes the source and destination coordinates as the inputs and outputs the time taken by the vehicle to travel between them. This paper aims to minimize this cost function to obtain a path having the least travel time for the vehicle. Various biologically inspired algorithms such as Flower Pollination Algorithm and Genetic Algorithm have been used to optimize this cost function. The optimization of the cost function has also been performed using Q-Learning technique and the results have been compared with the biologically inspired algorithms. The results depict that Q-Learning Algorithm is better in computational complexity and ease of simulating the environment. Thus, an efficient Path planning technique, which has been tested for the cost function of an autonomous underwater vehicle is proposed through this paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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