MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388917398 · doi:10.23977/jeis.2023.080508

Trajectory planning method for UAV inspection of transmission towers based on simulated annealing algorithm

2023· article· en· W4388917398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haomin Wu, Hao Chang, Xinyao Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronics and Information Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Inspection Robots
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulated annealingComputer scienceTravelling salesman problemGridMotion planningMATLABAlgorithmTrajectoryTrajectory optimizationPower gridOptimization algorithmHotspot (geology)Mathematical optimizationPath (computing)Real-time computingPower (physics)Artificial intelligenceRobotMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficiently planning the trajectory of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for power grid inspections is a critical factor in ensuring the performance of such inspections and represents a current research hotspot in the field of UAV-based power grid inspections. In this study, addressing the limitations of traditional algorithms in meeting the requirements of UAV inspections, we propose a multi-objective Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) optimization model. This model aims to optimize the UAV trajectory while considering both speed and prioritizing visits to towers with multiple defects. The simulated annealing algorithm is employed to solve this optimization problem and implement it through MATLAB programming. The results show that the path distance obtained after applying the algorithm converges more effectively towards the optimal solution. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in addressing the optimization challenges related to UAV-based inspection trajectories.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electronics and Information ScienceSame topicPower Line Inspection RobotsFrench-language works237,207