The Drone Scheduling Problem: A Systematic State-of-the-Art Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drones are receiving popularity with time due to their advanced mobility. Although they were initially deployed for military purposes, they now have a wide array of applications in various public and private sectors. Further deployment of drones can promote the global economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though drones offer a number of advantages, they have limited flying time and weight carrying capacity. Effective drone schedules may assist with overcoming such limitations. Drone scheduling is associated with optimization of drone flight paths and may include other features, such as determination of arrival time at each node, utilization of drones, battery capacity considerations, and battery recharging considerations. A number of studies on drone scheduling have been published over the past years. However, there is a lack of a systematic literature survey that provides a holistic overview of the drone scheduling problem, existing tendencies, main research limitations, and future research needs. Therefore, this study conducts an extensive survey of the scientific literature that assessed drone scheduling. The collected studies are grouped into different categories, including general drone scheduling, drone scheduling for delivery of goods, drone scheduling for monitoring, and drone scheduling with recharge considerations. A detailed review of the collected studies is presented for each of the categories. Representative mathematical models are provided for each category of studies, accompanied by a summary of findings, existing gaps in the state-of-the-art, and future research needs. The outcomes of this research are expected to assist the relevant stakeholders with an effective drone schedule design.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".