Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Inspection Routing and Scheduling for Engineering Management
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technological advancements in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have revolutionized various industries, enabling the widespread adoption of UAV-based solutions. In engineering management, UAV-based inspection has emerged as a highly efficient method for identifying hidden risks in high-risk construction environments, surpassing traditional inspection techniques. Building on this foundation, this paper delves into the optimization of UAV inspection routing and scheduling, addressing the complexity introduced by factors such as no-fly zones, monitoring-interval time windows, and multiple monitoring rounds. To tackle this challenging problem, we propose a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model that optimizes inspection task assignments, monitoring sequence schedules, and charging decisions. The comprehensive consideration of these factors differentiates our problem from conventional vehicle routing problem (VRP), leading to a mathematically intractable model for commercial solvers in the case of large-scale instances. To overcome this limitation, we design a tailored variable neighborhood search (VNS) metaheuristic, customizing the algorithm to efficiently solve our model. Extensive numerical experiments are conducted to validate the efficacy of our proposed algorithm, demonstrating its scalability for both large-scale and real-scale instances. Sensitivity experiments and a case study based on an actual engineering project are also conducted, providing valuable insights for engineering managers to enhance inspection work efficiency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it