Test bed for applications of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the development and implementation of a test bed for applications of heterogeneous unmanned vehicle systems. The test bed consists of unmanned aerial vehicles (Parrot AR.Drones versions 1 or 2, Parrot SA, Paris, France, and Bebop Drones 1.0 and 2.0, Parrot SA, Paris, France), ground vehicles (WowWee Rovio, WowWee Group Limited, Hong Kong, China), and the motion capture systems VICON and OptiTrack. Such test bed allows the user to choose between two different options of development environments, to perform aerial and ground vehicles applications. On the one hand, it is possible to select an environment based on the VICON system and LabVIEW (National Instruments) or robotics operating system platforms, which make use the Parrot AR.Drone software development kit or the Bebop_autonomy Driver to communicate with the unmanned vehicles. On the other hand, it is possible to employ a platform that uses the OptiTrack system and that allows users to develop their own applications, replacing AR.Drone's original firmware with original code. We have developed four experimental setups to illustrate the use of the Parrot software development kit, the Bebop Driver (AutonomyLab, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada), and the original firmware replacement for performing a strategy that involves both ground and aerial vehicle tracking. Finally, in order to illustrate the effectiveness of the developed test bed for the implementation of advanced controllers, we present experimental results of the implementation of three consensus algorithms: static, adaptive, and neural network, in order to accomplish that a team of multiagents systems move together to track a target.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".