MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388917367 · doi:10.23977/jeis.2023.080505

UAV Path Planning Method Based on Improved Wolf Pack Algorithm

2023· article· en· W4388917367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hongzhe Fan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronics and Information Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainMotion planningComputer scienceConvergence (economics)AlgorithmPath (computing)Genetic algorithmTrajectoryRoute planningMATLABDroneMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeographyRobotMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At present, there are more and more situations using drones to perform missions, and the working environment of drones is becoming more and more complex. Path planning has become the basic premise for the smooth completion of missions. Although the Wolf pack algorithm is fast and robust in trajectory planning, which has good results for solving problems with complex high dimensions and multiple peaks. In view of the premature convergence, the poor global optimization ability and the final result does not reach the optimal route of Wolf package algorithm (WPA), and the slow convergence of genetic algorithm, an improved trajectory planning method is proposed. First, the equivalent terrain simulation method is used to equivalent and analyze the terrain obstacles in the working environment with the mountains, and constructed the equivalent terrain map of the work of UAV. Planning known UAV orbit at the beginning and end positions, simulations in matlab found that the improved Wolf pack algorithm can find the shortest path with shorter time. Eventually, our simulation results are better than using the Wolf Pack Algorithm or the Genetic Algorithm.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electronics and Information ScienceSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207