MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408362165 · doi:10.3390/drones9030203

A Survey on Obstacle Detection and Avoidance Methods for UAVs

2025· article· en· W4408362165 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Merei, Hamid Mcheick, Alia Ghaddar

Bibliographic record

VenueDrones · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacle avoidanceObstacleComputer scienceCollision avoidanceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionAeronauticsComputer securityEngineeringGeographyMobile robotRobotArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obstacle avoidance is crucial for the successful completion of UAV missions. Static and dynamic obstacles, such as trees, buildings, flying birds, or other UAVs, can threaten these missions. As a result, safe path planning is essential, particularly for missions involving multiple UAVs. Collision-free paths can be designed in either 2D or 3D environments, depending on the scenario. This study provides an overview of recent advancements in obstacle avoidance and path planning for UAVs. These methods are compared based on various criteria, including avoidance techniques, obstacle types, the environment explored, sensor equipment, map types, and path statuses. Additionally, this paper includes a process addressing obstacle detection and avoidance and reviews the evolution of obstacle detection and avoidance (ODA) techniques in UAVs over the past decade.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDronesSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207