Visual Collaboration Leader-Follower UAV-Formation for Indoor Exploration
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
UAVs operating in a leader-follower formation demand the knowledge of the relative pose between the collaborating members. This necessitates the RF-communication of this information which increases the communication latency and can easily result in lost data packets. In this work, rather than relying on this autopilot data exchange, a visual scheme using passive markers is presented. Each formation-member carries passive markers in a RhOct configuration. These markers are visually detected and the relative pose of the members is on-board determined, thus eliminating the need for RF-communication. A reference path is then evaluated for each follower that tracks the leader and maintains a constant distance between the formation-members. Experimental studies show a mean position detection error (5 × 5 × 10cm) or less than 0.0031% of the available workspace [0.5 up to 5m, 50.43° × 38.75° Field of View (FoV)]. The efficiency of the suggested scheme against varying delays are examined in these studies, where it is shown that a delay up to 1.25s can be tolerated for the follower to track the leader as long as the latter one remains within its FoV.
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