MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408794490 · doi:10.1109/swc62898.2024.00346

Simulating a Multi-Agent UAV System Coordinated by State Machines Using Godot

2024· article· en· W4408794490 on OpenAlexaff
Leo Howard, Fuhua Lin, Henry Leung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceState (computer science)Multi-agent systemDistributed computingEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aerial vehicles have advanced quickly and are now a dominant force in several domains, including military, security, and even logistics. 3D simulations with virtual environments are cost effective tools for assessing feasibility and costs of developing new systems or upgrading current systems. This is especially true for multiagent or swarm systems that require many agents working in concert. The total costs can be much higher when only physical prototypes are used for testing and analysis. There are existing 3D libraries for aiding with UAV simulations, but they’re too specialized; it is difficult to create highly customized virtual environments with these packages. A simulation development framework needs to be capable and stable for accurate simulations yet generalized enough that any types of simulations can be developed without exhausting efforts. This paper explores the feasibility and ease of using Godot, an open-source game engine, to develop a simulation that can assess the function of a multiagent UAV system. It is found that the Godot engine is a powerful tool that is both accurate and generalized enough to develop highly customizable UAV simulation. This allows verification and testing of UAV designs and control algorithms in highly customizable and flexible virtual environments, using a free open-sourced tool.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207