On the Design and Use of a Micro Air Vehicle to Track and Avoid Adversaries
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 MAV ’08 competition focused on the problem of using air and ground vehicles to locate and rescue hostages being held in a remote building. To execute this mission, a number of technical challenges were addressed, including designing the micro air vehicle (MAV), using the MAV to geo-locate ground targets, and planning the motion of ground vehicles to reach the hostage location without detection. In this paper, we describe the complete system designed for the MAV ’08 competition, and present our solutions to three technical challenges that were addressed within this system. First, we summarize the design of our MAV, focusing on the navigation and sensing payload. Second, we describe the vision and state estimation algorithms used to track ground features, including stationary obstacles and moving adversaries, from a sequence of images collected by the MAV. Third, we describe the planning algorithm used to generate motion plans for the ground vehicles to approach the hostage building undetected by adversaries; these adversaries are tracked by the MAV from the air. We examine different variants of a search algorithm and describe their performance under different conditions. Finally, we provide results of our system’s performance during the mission execution.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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