Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2405.11722

AI Algorithm for Predicting and Optimizing Trajectory of UAV Swarm

Amit Raj·Kapil Ahuja·Yann Busnel
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper explores the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques for generating the trajectories of fleets of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). The two main challenges addressed include accurately predicting the paths of UAVs and efficiently avoiding collisions between them. Firstly, the paper systematically applies a diverse set of activation functions to a Feedforward Neural Network (FFNN) with a single hidden layer, which enhances the accuracy of the predicted path compared to previous work. Secondly, we introduce a novel activation function, AdaptoSwelliGauss, which is a sophisticated fusion of Swish and Elliott activations, seamlessly integrated with a scaled and shifted Gaussian component. Swish facilitates smooth transitions, Elliott captures abrupt trajectory changes, and the scaled and shifted Gaussian enhances robustness against noise. This dynamic combination is specifically designed to excel in capturing the complexities of UAV trajectory prediction. This new activation function gives substantially better accuracy than all existing activation functions. Thirdly, we propose a novel Integrated Collision Detection, Avoidance, and Batching (ICDAB) strategy that merges two complementary UAV collision avoidance techniques: changing UAV trajectories and altering their starting times, also referred to as batching. This integration helps overcome the disadvantages of both - reduction in the number of trajectory manipulations, which avoids overly convoluted paths in the first technique, and smaller batch sizes, which reduce overall takeoff time in the second.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Amit Raj, Kapil Ahuja, Yann Busnel. 2024-05-20. AI Algorithm for Predicting and Optimizing Trajectory of UAV Swarm. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11722

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗