Emergency Trajectory Structure for UAVs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of the design of emergency trajectories of air vehicles is one of the key elements in improving airspace safety for air vehicles. The aim is to lighten pilots’ workload, offering quick and effective solutions. However, almost all flight optimizers proposed in the literature still need to be completed when it comes to resolving emergency contexts, which presents a significant disadvantage to the advancement of scientific research. This resolution is based on the following problems: (a) finding paths free of obstacles, (b) ensuring their flight capacity, and finally, (c) calculating trajectories optimizing several criteria with a calculation time constraint (a few minutes). This document analyzes the safety landing problem and proposes an architecture that effectively reduces complexity and ensures solvability within a reasonable computational time. This architectural framework is designed to be adaptable, allowing for testing several algorithms to provide a quick overview of their strengths and weaknesses in this context. The primary aim of these tests is to benchmark the computational time of the overall architecture, ensuring that this adaptable framework is fully capable of handling the problem’s complexity. It is important to note that the algorithms chosen address only a simplified version of the problem. The initial results are promising in terms of time response and the potential to enhance the representativeness and complexity of the problem. The next phase of our research will focus on striking the right balance between complexity, representativity, and computational time, aiming to impact emergency response significantly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".