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

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207