MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048709413 · doi:10.1109/lra.2020.3015464

Target Search on Road Networks With Range-Constrained UAVs and Ground-Based Mobile Recharging Vehicles

2020· article· en· W3048709413 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle E. C. Booth, Chiara Piacentini, Sara Bernardini, J. Christopher Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsAUG Signals (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRendezvousRange (aeronautics)Integer programmingLinear programmingRouting (electronic design automation)Real-time computingEngineeringComputer networkAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study a range-constrained variant of the multi-UAV target search problem where commercially available UAVs are used for target search in tandem with ground-based mobile recharging vehicles (MRVs) that can travel, via the road network, to meet up with and recharge a UAV. We propose a pipeline for representing the problem on real-world road networks, starting with a map of the road network and yielding a final routing graph that permits UAVs to recharge via rendezvous with MRVs. The problem is then solved using mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) and constraint programming (CP). We conduct a comprehensive simulation of our methods using real-world road network data from Scotland. The assessment investigates accumulated search reward compared to ideal and worst-case scenarios and briefly explores the impact of UAV speeds. Our empirical results indicate that CP is able to provide better solutions than MILP, overall, and that the use of a fleet of MRVs can improve the accumulated reward of the UAV fleet, supporting their inclusion for surveillance tasks.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Robotics and Automation LettersSame topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207