Modeling and Analysis of Coverage Degree and Target Detection for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle-Based System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we theoretically investigate the dynamic aspects of the coverage degree and target detection in the underwater environment resulting from the given moving scenarios of the autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). With the help of the continuous moving AUVs, the underwater targets, that cannot be detected by the stationary underwater acoustic sensor network, can be detected with an expected probability, which is determined on the basis of the selected moving scenario of the AUVs. We prove that, for an AUV with randomly selected initial starting point and initial direction, the straight trajectory is the optimal route to achieve the maximum coverage and target detection probability. Then, we present a mathematical model to quantitatively analyze the coverage degree in the underwater environment by using AUVs, as well as formulating the target detection probability of both static target detection and mobile target detection cases. Furthermore, by taking the exposure time of the target into account, we mathematically formulate and analyze the impact of the features of an AUV (i.e., sensing range and velocity) and the moving speed of the mobile target to the mobile target detection probability. We carry out intensive simulation experiments to evaluate the proposed mathematical model, and the experimental results further verify the correctness of our theoretical results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".