MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007392070 · doi:10.1109/icc40277.2020.9148608

A Double Q-Learning Approach for Navigation of Aerial Vehicles with Connectivity Constraint

2020· preprint· en· W3007392070 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Khamidehi, E.S. Sousa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceTrajectoryMathematical optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the trajectory optimization problem for an aerial vehicle with the mission of flying between a pair of given initial and final locations. The objective is to minimize the travel time of the aerial vehicle ensuring that the communication connectivity constraint required for the safe operation of the aerial vehicle is satisfied. We consider two different criteria for the connectivity constraint of the aerial vehicle which leads to two different scenarios. In the first scenario, we assume that the maximum continuous time duration that the aerial vehicle is out of the coverage of the ground base stations (GBSs) is limited to a given threshold. In the second scenario, however, we assume that the total time periods that the aerial vehicle is not covered by the GBSs is restricted. Based on these two constraints, we formulate two trajectory optimization problems. To solve these non-convex problems, we use an approach based on the double Q-learning method which is a model-free reinforcement learning technique and unlike the existing algorithms does not need perfect knowledge of the environment. Moreover, in contrast to the well-known Qlearning technique, our double Q-learning algorithm does not suffer from the over-estimation issue. Simulation results show that although our algorithm does not require prior information of the environment, it works well and shows near optimal performance.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207