MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408633802 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2024.7.008

Fuzzy logic in real-time decision making for autonomous drones

2025· article· en· W4408633802 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdelwahed Motwakel, Adnan Shaout, Arif Muntasa, Manar Ahmed Hamza, Sitelbanat Abdel-gaddir Alhadi, Elmouez Samir Abd Elhamee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsDroneFuzzy logicComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid advancement of drone technology has expanded their applications across various sectors, necessitating robust real-time decision-making systems. Traditional algorithms often falter in dynamic and unpredictable environments. This paper introduces a fuzzy logic-based approach to enhance the decision-making capabilities of autonomous drones. Utilizing Monte Carlo simulations, the proposed model was evaluated through three distinct experiments involving 300, 600, and 950 scenarios respectively. The first experiment demonstrated an obstacle avoidance efficiency of 82.00%, an 8.00% reduction in energy consumption, a decision accuracy of 95.33%, and a mission success rate of 79.33%. The second experiment showed an avoidance efficiency of 82.50%, maintaining the energy consumption reduction at 8.00%, with a decision accuracy of 95.83% and a mission success rate of 78.33%. The third experiment achieved an avoidance efficiency of 82.11%, with an 8.00% reduction in energy consumption, a decision accuracy of 95.26%, and a mission success rate of 78.31%. These results highlight the superior performance of fuzzy logic in real-time decision-making for autonomous drones compared to traditional 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.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.328 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207