Evolutionary Mapping with Multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been very successful in many civilian and commercial applications, including disaster relief, search and rescue, precision farming, archaeology, cargo transport, and surveillance. In most of these applications, mapping is a required phase that needs to be performed as an initial step. While mapping has attracted much attention in the last decades, much of the works rely on single drones. In this context, we propose a multiple UAV system for efficient mapping, minimizing mission time and cost. The system includes offline and online planning, and a good balance between both to reduce on-board processing. Offline planning includes area decomposition, take-off location finding, and path planning. Online planning will then be used to react to any unforeseen event that might occur during the plan execution. These incidents include a sudden change in weather conditions, communication loss or drone malfunction, and the presence of a nearby flying obstacle. Each of the main offline and online planning tasks are formalized as a Multi-Objective optimization (MOO) problem where requirements need to be met while objectives have to be optimized. In this regard, we consider several evolutionary techniques to tackle these MOO problems. To assess the performance of these techniques, we conducted several experiments and reported the related results. One finding is that MOEA/D outperforms NSGA2, while the latter requires less processing time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".