MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407802651 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3544482

Intelligent Motion Control to Enhance the Swimming Performance of a Biomimetic Underwater Vehicle Using Reinforcement Learning Approach

2025· article· en· W4407802651 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Antonio Algarín-Pinto, Luis E. Garza-Castañón, Adriana Vargas‐Martínez, Luis I. Minchala, Pierre Payeur

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsReinforcement learningUnderwaterComputer scienceMotion controlBiomimeticsMotion (physics)Artificial intelligenceControl (management)RobotGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops an intelligent motion control strategy using reinforcement learning to regulate a biomimetic autonomous underwater vehicle (BAUV) swimming performance. The BAUV is driven by the oscillatory motion of a lunate-shaped caudal fin. To navigate effectively, the vehicle must regulate its propeller’s motion to swim toward goals. The caudal fin’s oscillatory motion is defined by sine functions, where the amplitude, frequency, bias, and time shifting are the main flapping parameters that must be regulated. The developed algorithm, based on the n-step state-action-reward-state-action on-policy learning, fine-tunes these parameters. Further, deep Q learning network speed adjusters were designed to enhance BAUV guidance. By integrating waypoint guidance systems and intelligent path trackers, the vehicle reduces its heading deviation and distance to goals. The effectiveness of these methods was validated through simulations featuring various disturbances like longitudinal, lateral, and swirl currents. The proposed scheme allowed the vehicle to reach desired targets efficiently, even in the presence of strong currents.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanismsFrench-language works237,207