Comparison of Parallel Genetic Algorithm and Particle Swarm Optimization for Real-Time UAV Path Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is of high interest to many governmental and military organizations around the world. An essential aspect of UAV autonomy is the ability for automatic path planning. In this paper, we use the genetic algorithm (GA) and the particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSO) to cope with the complexity of the problem and compute feasible and quasi-optimal trajectories for fixed wing UAVs in a complex 3D environment, while considering the dynamic properties of the vehicle. The characteristics of the optimal path are represented in the form of a multiobjective cost function that we developed. The paths produced are composed of line segments, circular arcs and vertical helices. We reduce the execution time of our solutions by using the “single-program, multiple-data” parallel programming paradigm and we achieve real-time performance on standard commercial off-the-shelf multicore CPUs. After achieving a quasi-linear speedup of 7.3 on 8 cores and an execution time of 10 s for both algorithms, we conclude that by using a parallel implementation on standard multicore CPUs, real-time path planning for UAVs is possible. Moreover, our rigorous comparison of the two algorithms shows, with statistical significance, that the GA produces superior trajectories to the PSO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".