MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410637391 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-03287-y

Agile DQN: adaptive deep recurrent attention reinforcement learning for autonomous UAV obstacle avoidance

2025· article· en· W4410637391 on OpenAlexafffund
Fadi AlMahamid, Katarina Grolinger

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReinforcement learningObstacle avoidanceComputer scienceAgile software developmentReinforcementArtificial intelligenceAvoidance learningMachine learningPsychologyNeuroscienceRobotMobile robotSoftware engineeringSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) obstacle avoidance in 3D environments demands sophisticated handling of high-dimensional inputs and effective state representations. Current Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) algorithms struggle to prioritize salient aspects of state representations and manage extensive state and action spaces, particularly in partially observable environments. Addressing these challenges, this paper proposes Agile DQN (AG-DQN), a novel algorithm that dynamically focuses on key visual features and robust Q-value estimation to enhance learning. The AG-DQN architecture synergizes several components-Glimpse Network, LSTM Recurrent Network, Emission Network, and Q-Network-to dynamically and selectively process crucial visual features, optimizing decision-making without processing the entire state. AG-DQN's adaptive temporal attention strategy also adjusts to environmental changes, maintaining a balance between recent and past observations. Experimental results demonstrate AG-DQN's improved performance over existing DRL methods, highlighting its potential in advancing autonomous UAV navigation and robotics.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207