MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Improved Genetic Algorithm for Rapid UAV Path Planning

2022· article· en· W4226322432 on OpenAlexaff
Jinrong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion planningRobustness (evolution)Fitness functionGenetic algorithmComputer scienceObstacleSwarm behaviourPath (computing)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceMathematicsRobotMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract UAV technologies have advanced rapidly and are widely used in military and civilian fields. For instance, the UAV swarms have been widely applied to oil and gas exploration, geometric mapping, and cargo transport. However, the UAV swarm system requires a more accurate plan before performing any mission. Path planning is one of the essential parts of mission planning because of the higher requirement of robustness and real-time communication. UAV path planning could generate the optimal path starting from the current position to the target in an environment with an obstacle. While the standard genetic algorithm has lacked efficiency in the iteration process and poor stability, a new genetic operator is proposed for the genetic algorithm and applied to the path planning simulation of UAV swarms in this study. A three-dimensional mapping and fitness function are already constructed for the simulation. The simulation result shows the algorithm with improved selection and mutation operator can efficiently and stably converge to the optimal solution.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207