An Improved Potential Game Theory Based Method for Multi-UAV Cooperative Search
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) has been widely used in a variety of application, and the target search is one of the hot issues in the UAV research fields. Compared with the single UAV, the multi-UAV system can be competent for more complex tasks, with higher execution efficiency and stronger robustness. However, there exist some new challenges in the multi-UAV cooperative search, such as collaborative control and search area covering problems. To complete these tasks efficiently, the cooperative search problem is modeled as a potential game, and a modified binary log linear learning (BLLL) algorithm is proposed in this paper, to solve the covering problem using multiple UAVs. Furthermore, to improve the cooperative control performance based on potential game theory, a novel action selection strategy for UAVs is proposed. This strategy can avoid a UAV wandering around at the zero utility area by exchanging the information with neighbors. Finally, various simulations are carried out. The experimental results show that the proposed method can effectively complete cooperative search tasks and has better performance than the original BLLL 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it