An Aerial Robotic Missing-Person Search in Urban Settings—A Probabilistic Approach
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
Autonomous robotic teams have been proposed for a variety of lost-person searches in wilderness and urban settings. In the latter scenarios, for missing persons, the application of such teams, however, is more challenging than it would be in the wilderness. This paper, specifically, examines the application of an autonomous team of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to perform a sparse, mobile-target search in an urban setting. A novel multi-UAV search-trajectory planning method, which relies on the prediction of the missing-person’s motion, given a known map of the search environment, is the primary focus. The proposed method incorporates periodic updates of the estimates of where the lost/missing person may be, allowing for intelligent re-coverage of previously searched areas. Additional significant contributions of this work include a behavior-based motion-prediction method for missing persons and a novel non-parametric estimator for iso-probability-based (missing-person-location) curves. Simulated experiments are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed search-planning method, demonstrating higher rates of missing-person detection and in shorter times compared to other methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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