A Q-Learning Approach to Flocking With UAVs in a Stochastic Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past two decades, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have demonstrated their efficacy in supporting both military and civilian applications, where tasks can be dull, dirty, dangerous, or simply too costly with conventional methods. Many of the applications contain tasks that can be executed in parallel, hence the natural progression is to deploy multiple UAVs working together as a force multiplier. However, to do so requires autonomous coordination among the UAVs, similar to swarming behaviors seen in animals and insects. This paper looks at flocking with small fixed-wing UAVs in the context of a model-free reinforcement learning problem. In particular, Peng's Q(λ) with a variable learning rate is employed by the followers to learn a control policy that facilitates flocking in a leader-follower topology. The problem is structured as a Markov decision process, where the agents are modeled as small fixed-wing UAVs that experience stochasticity due to disturbances such as winds and control noises, as well as weight and balance issues. Learned policies are compared to ones solved using stochastic optimal control (i.e., dynamic programming) by evaluating the average cost incurred during flight according to a cost function. Simulation results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed learning approach at enabling agents to learn how to flock in a leader-follower topology, while operating in a nonstationary stochastic environment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".