Fuzzy logic in real-time decision making for autonomous drones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".