MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937396187 · doi:10.1177/0954410019842487

Optimal scheduling for aerial recovery of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles using genetic algorithm

2019· article· en· W2937396187 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Genetic algorithmDroneGreedy algorithmReal-time computingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to deploy multiple unmanned aerial vehicles expands their application range, but aerial recovery of unmanned aerial vehicles presents many unique challenges owing to the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and the limited recovery time. In this paper, scheduling the aerial recovery of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles by one mothership is posed as a combinatorial optimization problem. A mathematical model with recovery time windows of the unmanned aerial vehicles is developed to formulate this problem. Furthermore, a genetic algorithm is proposed for finding the optimal recovery sequence. The algorithm adopts the path representation of chromosomes to simplify the encoding process and the genetic operations. It also resolves decoding difficulties by iteration, and thus can efficiently generate a recovery timetable for the unmanned aerial vehicles. Simulation results in stochastic scenarios validate the performance of the proposed algorithm compared with the random search algorithm and the greedy algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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