MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392373047 · doi:10.18280/jesa.570122

Vision-Based Autonomous Landing and Charging System for a Hexacopter Drone

2024· article· en· W4392373047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdel Ilah Nour Alshbatat, Moath Awawdeh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneAeronauticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringComputer visionEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the challenges in Drone-based systems is the limited capacity of the onboard battery.To overcome the limitation of the onboard battery capacity, an intelligent decisionmaking system for autonomous landing and charging processes is presented in this paper.The system aims to recharge drained battery and extend flight duration.It based on the infrared light-emitting diodes (LEDs) detection and marker recognition.A novel landing pad with twenty infrared LEDs and eight barcodes is carefully designed and used in this research.The landing process is divided into two phases.During the first phase, the LEDs are observed by a camera that is equipped with an infrared-pass filter, while the barcodes are observed by two Pixy cameras in the second phase.To land the Drone on the proper polarity and then start recharging process, a hierarchical vision-based autonomous landing algorithm (HVALA) based on Otsu thresholding method and Laplacian of Gaussian (LOG) operator is proposed.The whole system has been designed and tested through a series of autonomous flights.The experimental results, obtained during the final phase of the landing process confirm the feasibility and robustness of the system where a small error of 4.4cm on average was observed with maximum landing time of 10 seconds.Such error is acceptable in this application and leads to a higher landing success rate.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207