MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322742245 · doi:10.3390/drones7030169

Path Planning for Autonomous Drones: Challenges and Future Directions

2023· article· en· W4322742245 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrones · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneMotion planningPlannerPath (computing)Computer scienceKey (lock)PopularityRepresentation (politics)Control (management)Operations researchRobotArtificial intelligenceEngineeringComputer securityComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or drones, have gained a lot of popularity over the last decade. The use of autonomous drones appears to be a viable and low-cost solution to problems in many applications. Path planning capabilities are essential for autonomous control systems. An autonomous drone must be able to rapidly compute feasible and energy-efficient paths to avoid collisions. In this study, we review two key aspects of path planning: environmental representation and path generation techniques. Common path planning techniques are analyzed, and their key limitations are highlighted. Finally, we review thirty-five highly cited publications to identify current trends in drone path planning research. We then use these results to identify factors that need to be addressed in future studies in order to develop a practical path planner for autonomous drones.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.238 · 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