Network analysis of decentralized fault-tolerant UAV swarm coordination in critical missions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have gained prominence across various sectors for their versatile applications. While their advantages are evident, addressing concerns associated with their deployment is essential to ensure reliability. This study presents an innovative approach for coordinating a group of UAVs in aerial survey missions. The decentralized strategy presented in this article allow UAVs to self-organize into linear formation, optimize their coverage paths, and adapt to agent failures, thereby ensuring efficient and adaptive mission execution. The strategy has been tested and validated on two different platforms: the inter-UAV communication performance is evaluated on NS-3 simulator to measure metrices such as packet delivery ratio, throughput, delay, and routing overhead within the UAV swarms, while mission efficiency and fault tolerance is analyzed on robot operating system framework, and visualized on Gazebo simulator with real-time parameters. Through experimental results, we show that, after proper tuning of control parameters, the approach succeeds in flock formation with high level of fault tolerance, offering higher efficiency in terms of mission time, transmission delay, packet delivery rate, and control overhead, when compared to the benchmark approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".