Effective UAV patrolling for swarm of intruders with heterogeneous behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The phenomenal growth in the utilization of commercial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones leads to an urgent need for new approaches to ensure safety in the sky. Effective aerial surveillance requires patrolling swarms to react according to the various behaviors demonstrated by intruding swarms, but existing approaches are not practical when dealing with a large number of drones. Specifically, predicting the behaviors or planned paths of the intruding swarms is highly challenging as intruders may perform evasive strategies to avoid detection. Therefore, this work utilizes heuristic search strategies and investigates how various intruder behaviors affect the search performance. To investigate the search performance, a swarm versus swarm simulator is developed. Using the simulator, first, a comparative study is performed to evaluate how intruders’ behaviors can affect the performance of the patrolling swarm. Subsequently, three approaches, including single-objective optimization, multi-objective optimization, and Lévy flight, are compared in terms of their detection performance in a bounded space. The results suggest that multi-objective optimization outperforms both single-objective optimization and Lévy flight-based approaches. Furthermore, our results show that intruders have a lower chance of being tracked when moving in a dense crowd, and this finding reaffirms the schooling behaviors of fish. In a specific simulation scenario, the total percentage of detection is above 90%. However, the detection percentage is highly related to other factors such as search space, number of patrolling UAVs, and the intruders’ behaviors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".