Dynamic-Detection-Based Trajectory Planning for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle to Collect Data From Underwater Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine science and Internet of Underwater Things applications rely significantly on collecting data from underwater sensors. Data collection using long-distance underwater acoustic communications consumes a lot of energy in underwater sensor nodes, which are powered by batteries. To achieve low-energy consumption, we can use the autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) to move close to sensor nodes and exploit the short-range and high-rate communications. Most of the existing AUV-based data collection schemes consider the scenarios having the knowledge of node positions, where the cruising trajectory can be computed before the AUV’s departure. These schemes cannot apply to some scenarios such as turtle tracking for a certain sea area having no position information. To this end, we first propose a planning-while-detecting approach to dynamically detect the sensors on turtles and adjust the AUV cruising direction to collect data. To further improve data efficiency under the energy limit of the AUV, we group the sensors that can share the same trajectory using their detected directions. A grouping-based dynamic trajectory planning (GDTP) is then proposed to determine the next cruising direction that can visit the group of sensors having the largest amount of data and demanding the least cruising energy at the risk of detection errors. Simulation results show that GDTP achieves significantly higher data collection efficiency than the existing trajectory planning algorithms in dynamic scenarios, and as the communication range increases, it can even outperform the existing algorithms with node locations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".