MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366782998 · doi:10.54097/hset.v35i.7018

Research on Obstacle Avoidance Control of Multiple UAV Formation based on Genetic Algorithm

2023· article· en· W4366782998 on OpenAlexaff
Weijie Lou

Bibliographic record

VenueHighlights in Science Engineering and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationObstacle avoidanceObstacleCollision avoidanceGenetic algorithmComputer scienceSurvivabilityControl theory (sociology)CollisionSimulationControl (management)Mobile robotArtificial intelligenceComputer securityRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) group cooperative formation flight technology has the advantages of wide coverage, large activity radius, strong overall search ability and high efficiency of the aircraft group. Therefore, it is suitable for various complex tasks in the military field such as battlefield environment reconnaissance, tactical attack and cooperative search. This paper proposes a consistency control strategy based on GA (Genetic Algorithm) and applies it to multi-UAV formation obstacle avoidance, which can effectively solve the collision between UAVs and between UAV formation and obstacles. Demodulate the received ground desired control command, and introduce an additional auxiliary traction acceleration through GA to avoid the local optimal solution. The auxiliary traction acceleration is related to the speed and relative position of UAV and obstacles. It can be used as a disturbance to solve the local optimal solution, and also as an auxiliary acceleration to improve the speed of avoiding moving obstacles. Finally, the rapid formation and obstacle avoidance of UAV fleet during flight are realized, and the survivability of the fleet in the battlefield environment is improved.

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHighlights in Science Engineering and TechnologySame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207