MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396515242 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-15896

A Machine Learning Approach for Aerial Drones Playing the Pursuit-Evasion Game

2024· dissertation· en· W4396515242 on OpenAlexaff
Ammar Al-Mahbashi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneReinforcement learningPopularityComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePursuit-evasionMachine learningFuzzy logicRange (aeronautics)EngineeringAerospace engineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drone and quadcopters have gained popularity and their full range of potential and wide-ranging application in many applications have yet to be developed.This research presents a machine-learning algorithm.With no prior knowledge of the environment, agents learn to act using reinforcement learning techniques where they observe the environment and take actions based on learning their desired strategies and interactions with the environment.This thesis investigates the use of multi-agent reinforcement learning for aerial drones.Specifically, the use of the fuzzy actor-critic learning (FACL) algorithm.In this thesis, the investigated reinforcement learning algorithm is applied to multiple coordinated aerial drones.We apply Type-1 fuzzy inference systems with reinforcement learning algorithms and show simulation results.We provide empirical results to show the simplicity and effectiveness of Type-1 fuzzy logic systems over that of Type-2 fuzzy logic systems.This method enables a pursuer quadcopter to capture an evader quadcopter in the pursuit-evasion (PE) differential game.In this application, the pursuer learns its desired strategies by interacting with the evader and learning from previous experiences.Both the critic and the actor are fuzzy inference systems (FIS).It is assumed that the pursuer Keywordsquadcopters, FACL, Q-learning, reinforcement learning.6.28 The paths of the pursuer and evader at the 1200th epoch.The evader (0,0,0) is black, pursuer (6,6,6) is blue.Evader was captured by pursuer. . . . . . .103 6.29 Simulation results of Membership Functions at 2 MFs, 3 MFs, 5 MFs, 7 MFs and 10 MFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207