MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586623916 · doi:10.1017/s0001924000011325

Autonomous obstacle avoidance for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles

2015· article· en· W2586623916 on OpenAlexafffund
Anton de Ruiter, Shahaboddin Owlia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsObstacle avoidanceObstacleTurning radiusStreamlines, streaklines, and pathlinesVector fieldWingPotential fieldComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)CurvatureBounding overwatchWedge (geometry)Boundary (topology)Fixed wingAerospace engineeringArtificial intelligenceGeologyMathematicsGeometryMobile robotEngineeringMathematical analysisGeographyRobotControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates a method for autonomous obstacle avoidance for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), utilising potential fluid flow theory. The obstacle avoidance algorithm needs only compute the instantaneous local potential velocity vector, which is passed to the flight control laws as a direction command. The approach is reactive, and can readily accommodate real-time changes in obstacle information. UAV manoeuvring constraints on turning or pull-up radii, are accounted for by approximating obstacles by bounding rectangles, with wedges added to their front and back to shape the resulting fluid pathlines. It is shown that the resulting potential flow velocity field is completely determined by the obstacle field geometry, allowing one to determine a non-dimensional relationship between obstacle added wedge-length and the corresponding minimum pathline radius of curvature, which can then be readily scaled in on-board implementation. The efficacy of the proposed approach has been demonstrated numerically with an Aerosonde UAV model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Aeronautical JournalSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207