MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hypergraph Neural Networks for Collaborative Drone Mission Planning

2025· article· W4416751068 on OpenAlexaff
K. Thamaraiselvi, S. Sam Peter, T. Sathya, S Aadhitya, Akshya Jothi, M Sundarrajan, Mani Deepak Choudhry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneHypergraphScalabilityGraphMotion planningArtificial neural networkTask (project management)Convolutional neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few years, autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have emerged as a significant presence in activities such as environmental monitoring, disaster response, surveillance, and infrastructure management in smart cities. The classical mission planning frameworks are primarily based on traditional graph-based models, such as Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), Graph Attention Networks (GATs), and Message Passing Neural Networks (MPNNs). Although useful in some limited aspects, these models have a theoretical drawback in that they are unable to model the higher-order interactions of many agents and tasks, as they focus on modeling the relationships between only a pair of them at a time. To address such difficulties, we introduce a new decision support tool, specifically designed to combat a mission called Hypergraph Neural Network, or HyperGNNs. We applied our suggested architecture, based on HyperGNN, utilizing PyTorch Geometric, and tested it with the help of rigorous simulations on the Google Colab platform. In the proposed experiment, realistic drone limitations were considered, including battery capacity, task type, environmental factors, and safety margins. The comparison analysis revealed that our model achieved a success rate of 93%, whereas the other approaches were GCN (82%), GAT (85%), and MPNN <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$(87 \%)$</tex>. It also showed a 15 to 20 percent reduction in the planning process, a 12 percent increase in energy consumption, and a 75 percent reduction in collision rate compared to baselines. These enhancements suggest the potential for describing collaborative drone missions using hypergraph structures. Overall, our method is scalable and provides an efficient approach to real-time, multi-agent mission planning, offering an excellent platform for extending work to address adaptive, neuromorphic, and real-world systems.

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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207