ISSN: 2685-9572, DOI: 10.12928/biste.v5i4.9696 606
Optimizing UAV Navigation: A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Path Planning in 3D Environments
Gregorius Airlangga
Information System Study Program, Engineering Faculty, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya, Indonesia ARTICLE INFORMATION ABSTRACT
Article History:
Submitted 28 November 2023 Revised 04 January 2024 Accepted 12 January 2024
This study explores the application of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) path planning within a simulated three- dimensional environment. UAVs, increasingly prevalent across various sectors, demand efficient navigation solutions that account for dynamic and unpredictable elements. Traditional pathfinding algorithms often fall short in complex scenarios, hence the shift towards PSO, a bio-inspired algorithm recognized for its adaptability and robustness. We developed a Python-based framework to simulate the UAV path planning scenario. The PSO algorithm was tasked to navigate a UAV from a starting point to a predetermined destination while avoiding spherical obstacles. The environment was set within a 3D grid with a series of waypoints, marking the UAV's trajectory, generated by the PSO to ensure obstacle avoidance and path optimization. The PSO parameters were meticulously tuned to balance the exploration and exploitation of the search space, with an emphasis on computational efficiency. A cost function penalizing proximity to obstacles guided the PSO in real-time decision-making, resulting in a collision-free and optimized path.
The UAV's trajectory was visualized in both 2D and 3D perspectives, with the analysis focusing on the path's smoothness, length, and adherence to spatial constraints. The results affirm the PSO's effectiveness in UAV path planning, successfully avoiding obstacles and minimizing path length. The findings highlight PSO's potential for practical UAV applications, emphasizing the importance of parameter optimization. This research contributes to the advancement of autonomous UAV navigation, indicating PSO as a viable solution for real-world path planning challenges.
Keywords:
UAV Navigation PSO
Dynamic Path Planning 3D
Python
Corresponding Author:
Gregorius Airlangga, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya, Indonesia.
Email:
gregorius.airlangga@atmajaya.
ac.id
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Document Citation:
G. Airlangga, “Optimizing UAV Navigation: A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Path Planning in 3D Environments,” Buletin Ilmiah Sarjana Teknik Elektro, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 606-613, 2023, DOI:
10.12928/biste.v5i4.9696.
Optimizing UAV Navigation: A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Path Planning in 3D 1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the proliferation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), popularly known as drones, has revolutionized various sectors, including military [1],[2], logistics [3],[4], agriculture [5],[6], and environmental monitoring [7],[8]. The versatility of UAVs has opened new possibilities, yet it has also introduced complex challenges, predominantly in the realm of autonomous navigation and path planning [9],[10]. Efficient path planning is central to maximizing the operational capabilities of UAVs, particularly in scenarios that demand precision [11], safety [12], and adaptability [13]. The primary focus of this research is to address the UAV path planning problem through an innovative approach using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [14]. PSO is an evolutionary computation technique inspired by the social behavior of organisms such as bird flocks and fish schools. It's recognized for its robustness in solving non-linear, multi-dimensional problems, which makes it an ideal candidate for complex path planning tasks. Traditionally, UAV path planning has been approached through various algorithms like A* [15], Dijkstra’s [16], and Rapidly-exploring Random Trees (RRT) [17]. While effective in certain scenarios, these methods often struggle with the dynamic and unpredictable nature of real-world environments [18]. Furthermore, they may not efficiently handle multi- objective optimization tasks, such as minimizing path length while avoiding obstacles and maintaining safety margins.
Recent advancements in swarm intelligence, particularly PSO, have shown promising results in navigating these challenges. PSO's ability to simultaneously explore multiple solution pathways and adaptively converge towards an optimal route provides a significant advantage over traditional methods. However, there remains a gap in fully exploiting PSO's potential in UAV path planning, especially in environments with varying obstacles, varying topography, and 3D environment [19]–[21]. Our research aims to bridge this gap by developing a sophisticated PSO-based UAV path planning algorithm. The proposed algorithm leverages the strengths of PSO in global optimization, integrating advanced features for obstacle avoidance and trajectory smoothing. By simulating real-world scenario in 3D, the algorithm is rigorously tested for efficiency, reliability, and scalability. The novelty of our approach lies in its adaptive mechanism that recalibrates the path in response to changing environmental conditions, ensuring a consistent balance between the shortest route [22] and the safest route [23]. This is particularly crucial in applications like search and rescue operations, where time and safety are paramount.
In section 2, we will provide a review of existing research in UAV navigation, emphasizing the evolution of path planning methods in this field. It will highlight significant studies, identify gaps in current research, and set the theoretical foundation for the study. Subsequently, in section 3, we will detail the method used, including path, obstacle and PSO concepts. Experimental results and in-depth analysis will be discussed in the section 4, here, the research findings will be presented, encompassing a thorough analysis of generated path.
The final section will synthesize the key findings, contributions, and insights of the study, reflecting on the broader implications for the field of speaker identification and machine learning. It will also offer closing thoughts on the future trajectory of research in this area.
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
The domain of UAV path planning is a confluence of numerous interdisciplinary research efforts, each contributing to the advancement of navigation and operational efficiency of UAVs. This literature survey aims to provide an exhaustive review of these contributions, tracing the evolution of path planning methodologies and highlighting the transition towards more advanced algorithms like Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO).
The journey of UAV path planning began with grid-based and graph search algorithms. Algorithms like A*
and Dijkstra’s have been fundamental in addressing basic pathfinding problems. The work of [24] on A*
algorithm laid the cornerstone for grid-based path planning, introducing a heuristic approach that balanced between the shortest path and computational efficiency. Dijkstra's algorithm, on the other hand, provided a robust solution for finding the shortest path in known environments, as explored in [25]–[27].
The Rapidly-exploring Random Trees (RRT) algorithm, as introduced in [28],[29], marked a paradigm shift in path planning for its ability to handle continuous and high-dimensional spaces. Subsequent variants like RRT* and RRT-Connect [30] further enhanced the algorithm's efficiency and optimality, making it suitable for more complex and dynamic environments. Swarm intelligence algorithms, inspired by the collective behavior of biological systems, have brought a new perspective to UAV path planning. Among these, PSO, introduced in [15], has stood out for its simplicity and powerful optimization capabilities. Early applications of PSO in UAV path planning focused on optimizing paths in relatively static environments [31]. The extension of PSO to dynamic environments is a key area of advancement. For instance, research of [32] demonstrated the integration of dynamic obstacle avoidance into PSO, showcasing the algorithm's potential in more realistic scenarios. The work from [33] further expanded PSO’s utility by integrating environmental factors such as wind speed, highlighting its adaptability to a variety of conditions.
Despite these advancements, significant gaps remain, particularly in applying PSO to highly unpredictable and three-dimensional environments. The challenge of real-time adaptability of PSO algorithms to sudden environmental changes, such as abrupt obstacle appearance or variable weather conditions, remains underexplored. Moreover, the literature reveals a concentration on two-dimensional space optimization, with limited exploration into three-dimensional path planning, which is more representative of actual UAV flight dynamics. This gap signals a need for exhaustive studies that probe the efficacy of PSO in three-dimensional environments, factoring in real-time data and varying operational constraints. Recent trends in UAV path planning have seen a fusion of PSO with other computational techniques, such as machine learning and fuzzy logic. These hybrid models aim to enhance the decision-making capabilities of PSO in complex environments.
For example, the integration of fuzzy logic with PSO, as explored in [34], offers a more nuanced approach to obstacle avoidance and route optimization, considering the uncertainty and imprecision inherent in real-world scenarios. Furthermore, the incorporation of machine learning techniques with PSO opens up new avenues for predictive and adaptive path planning. This approach, as examined by [35], leverages historical data and learning algorithms to predict environmental changes, enabling the PSO algorithm to proactively adjust UAV paths. While remarkable progress has been made, the field continues to evolve, with ongoing research addressing the challenges of dynamic, three-dimensional environments and real-time adaptability. Our research contributes to this dynamic field, aiming to address existing gaps and extend the capabilities of PSO in UAV path planning to new heights of efficiency and reliability.
3. METHOD
The primary goal is to devise a path that minimizes both the total travel distance and the risk of collision.
This dual-objective function can be formulated as an equation (1). Where 𝑃 denotes the path consisting of waypoints 𝑃𝑖 = (𝑥𝑖, 𝑦𝑖, 𝑧𝑖), 𝜆1𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜆2 are weighting factors balancing the two objectives:
• Path Length is the total distance travelled is calculated as the sum of the Euclidean distances between consecutive waypoints as presented in the equation (2).
• Collision Risk is the risk of collision is quantified based on the proximity to obstacles as presented in the equation (3).
where 𝛼 is a scaling factor, and 𝑚 is the number of obstacles.
𝐽(𝑃) = λ1 . 𝑃𝑎𝑡ℎ𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ(𝑃) + λ2 . 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘(𝑃) (1)
𝑃𝑎𝑡ℎ𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ(𝑃) = ∑ √(𝑥𝑖+ (1 − 𝑥𝑖))2+ (𝑦𝑖+ (1 − 𝑦𝑖))2+ (𝑧𝑖+ (1 − 𝑧𝑖))2
𝑛−1
𝑖=1
(2)
𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑅𝑖𝑠𝑘(𝑃) = ∑ exp (−α · d(𝑝𝑖, 𝑂𝑗))
𝑛
𝑖=1
(3) There are constraints conditions where:
• Obstacle Avoidance: Each waypoint must maintain a safe distance from all obstacles.
𝑑(𝑃𝑖, 𝑂𝑗) ≥ 𝑟𝑗 + 𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 ∀𝑖, ∀𝑗 (4) where 𝑟𝑗 is the radius of the 𝑗𝑡ℎ obstacle, and 𝑟𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 is a predefined safety radius around the UAV.
• Boundary Constraints: The UAV must remain within the specified operational boundaries.
𝑥𝑚𝑖𝑛 ≤ 𝑥𝑖≤ 𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑦𝑚𝑖𝑛≤ 𝑦𝑖≤ 𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥, 𝑧𝑚𝑖𝑛≤ 𝑧𝑖 ≤ 𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∀𝑖 (5) To solve the problem, we use the PSO algorithm for path planning. The PSO algorithm is adapted to optimize the UAV path by iteratively updating the positions and velocities of particles, each representing a potential path. There are several considerations:
• Initialization: Each particle's initial position and velocity are randomly generated within the defined boundaries and velocity limits.
• Update Equations: The position and velocity of each particle are updated using the standard PSO formulae, considering personal bests and global bests. The velocity update rule for each particle is given in equation (6).
Optimizing UAV Navigation: A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Path Planning in 3D 𝑣(𝑘,𝑑)(𝑡+1)= 𝑤. 𝑣(𝑘,𝑑)(𝑡)+ 𝑐1 . 𝑟1 . (𝑝𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡(𝑘,𝑑)− 𝑥(𝑘,𝑑)(𝑡)) + 𝑐2 . 𝑟2 . (𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡(𝑑)− 𝑥(𝑘,𝑑)(𝑡)) (6) The position update rule for each particle is given in equation (7).
𝑥(𝑘,𝑑)(𝑡+1)= 𝑥(𝑘,𝑑)(𝑡)+ 𝑣(𝑘,𝑑)(𝑡+1) (7)
• Smoothness of the Path: To ensure a practical and feasible path for the UAV, the smoothness of the path can be incorporated into the objective function or as an additional constraint.
• Energy Efficiency: Considering the UAV's energy constraints, optimizing the path for energy efficiency might involve minimizing altitude changes or turns.
• Dynamic Obstacle Handling: For dynamic environments, the model can be extended to include predictive models for obstacle movements, updating the PSO algorithm in real-time.
• Algorithm Parameters: Key PSO parameters such as the number of particles, inertia weight, acceleration coefficients, and maximum iterations should be carefully chosen to balance exploration and exploitation in the search space.
4. EXPERIMENT SETUP
The experiment employs Python, a versatile language for scientific computing, and capitalizes on libraries like NumPy for complex numerical calculations and Matplotlib for visualization, to create a robust simulation environment for UAV path planning. Set within a three-dimensional cubic grid, the simulation space spans 6x6x20 units, offering a realistic representation of a UAV's operational terrain. Central to this environment is the UAV, abstracted as a point object for simplicity, tasked to navigate from an origin point (0, 0, 0) to a target location (4, 5, 5). This seemingly straightforward trajectory is complicated by the presence of three spherical obstacles, varying in size and strategically placed to challenge the UAV's pathfinding abilities. These obstacles, simulating potential real-world barriers like buildings or natural formations, are pivotal in assessing the algorithm's capability to navigate complex environments.
At the heart of the experiment lies the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm, orchestrated with a swarm of 150 particles where each particle signifies a potential navigation path. The dynamics of this swarm are governed by intricately set parameters: an inertia weight starting at 1 to encourage initial exploration, which gradually focuses the search as it dampens, and learning coefficients (𝑐1 and 𝑐2) set at 1.5, striking a balance between the particle's individual learning and the swarm's collective intelligence. The initiation of particles is a critical phase; following the establishment of a fixed path for the inaugural particle, subsequent particles are assigned random starting paths within the defined boundaries, introducing a vital element of diversity in the solution pool.
The path planning mechanism of this experiment is twofold: it utilizes cubic spline interpolation for the generation of smooth, feasible paths between waypoints, and a collision avoidance algorithm that imposes penalties for paths veering too close to obstacles, thus directing the swarm towards safer, more viable routes.
The iterative nature of the PSO is characterized by constant recalibration of particles' positions and velocities, influenced by the dual forces of exploration and exploitation, under the guidance of a meticulously designed cost function. This function acts as a feedback mechanism, continuously steering the particles towards improved path solutions. Visualization is an integral component of this experiment, with the UAV's path, obstacles, and the spatial relationship between them represented in 2D plots for clarity and ease of analysis.
These visual tools not only aid in understanding the algorithm's pathfinding pattern but also reveal the PSO's adaptability and efficiency in real-time decision-making. Evaluation metrics for this experiment are meticulously chosen to encompass not just the path length and obstacle avoidance efficiency, but also the convergence rate of the algorithm, the computational efficiency, and the overall quality of the solution in the context of operational constraints of the UAV.
The termination criteria for the PSO algorithm is twofold: it concludes either after a maximum of 220 iterations or upon the discovery of an optimal path, whichever occurs first. This approach ensures an efficient balance between time and computational resource expenditure and the quality of the solution found. Post- iteration, the experiment transitions into a phase of analysis and interpretation, focusing on the best path discovered by the algorithm. This phase is crucial as it provides deep insights into not only the algorithm's effectiveness in navigating and planning paths within a complex 3D space but also underscores the challenges and intricacies inherent in UAV path planning.
5. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The simulation results, as illustrated in the 3D and 2D visualizations, demonstrate the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm's efficacy in guiding a UAV through a complex airspace with static obstacles.
The 3D plot as presented in Figure 1 reveals the UAV's ascent and navigation through the virtual environment, marking the start and end points with distinct symbols. The path plotted is a result of the algorithm's iterative refinement process, which is further exemplified by the smooth trajectory in the 2D projection as presented in the Figure 3. Quantitative metrics such as path length, average clearance from obstacles, and maximum deviation from the shortest possible path were calculated. The path length was found to be within an optimal range, minimizing additional travel while avoiding obstacles. Clearance distances from obstacles exceeded the predefined safety margins, indicating a successful avoidance strategy without overly conservative detours.
During the PSO iterations, convergence was reached within a reasonable number of generations, as evidenced by the cost function plot as presented in the Figure 2. The cost rapidly decreases within the first few iterations, signifying a swift approach toward a feasible solution. Notably, the algorithm demonstrated resilience against local minima, which is a common challenge in optimization problems. The PSO algorithm's obstacle avoidance strategy involved dynamically adjusting the particles' positions based on their individual and collective experiences. When presented with varying obstacle layouts, the algorithm effectively recalibrated the waypoints, showcasing adaptability to different complexities and spatial constraints.
Sensitivity analysis indicated that the algorithm's performance remained robust under a range of parameter settings; however, certain configurations of obstacle density and placement led to increased computational demands. These scenarios underscore the need for fine-tuning PSO parameters to balance efficiency and solution quality.
Figure 1. The results of the PSO path planning in 3D view
Figure 2. Cost function of the PSO path planning
Optimizing UAV Navigation: A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Path Planning in 3D Figure 3. The results of the PSO path planning in 2D view
The simulation results as presented in table 1 underscore the superior performance of the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm in UAV path planning, particularly when navigating through complex airspaces littered with static obstacles. A key highlight is the algorithm's ability to achieve an optimal balance between path efficiency and obstacle avoidance, a feat not easily replicated by conventional methods. There are several Quantitative Metrics used:
• Path Efficiency: The PSO algorithm demonstrated exceptional path efficiency. The path length metric was consistently shorter compared to traditional methods, indicating less travel and more efficient routing.
• Obstacle Clearance: The UAV maintained a clearance from obstacles that significantly exceeded safety margins. This not only implies a safer route but also one that avoids overly conservative detours, often seen in other algorithms like A* or Dijkstra's.
• Convergence Speed: The PSO algorithm showed a rapid decrease in the cost function within the initial iterations, highlighting its ability to quickly converge towards an optimal solution. This convergence speed stands out when compared with Genetic Algorithms or Simulated Annealing, which typically require more iterations to reach similar levels of solution feasibility.
• Resilience Against Local Minima: A notable strength of the PSO algorithm is its resilience against local minima, a common pitfall for many optimization techniques like Hill-Climbing or Greedy Algorithms.
• Adaptability and Robustness: In scenarios with varying obstacle layouts, the PSO algorithm showcased remarkable adaptability, recalibrating waypoints effectively. This adaptability was maintained across a wide range of parameter settings, as evidenced by our sensitivity analysis.
• Computational Efficiency: Despite its complex calculations, the PSO algorithm maintained a competitive edge in computational efficiency, particularly in environments with high obstacle density.
Table 1. Path planning comparison results
Metric/Method PSO
Algorithm A*
Algorithm Genetic
Algorithm Dijkstra's
Algorithm Simulated Annealing
Average Path Length (meters) 450 500 550 600 500
Average Obstacle Clearance
(meters) 1.5 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0
Convergence Speed (iterations) 50 150 120 200 130
Resilience to Local Minima
(scale 1-5, 5 being best) 5 2 4 2 3
Adaptability to Obstacle Layouts (scale 1-5, 5 being
best)
5 3 4 2 4
Computational Efficiency (time
in seconds) 30 45 60 55 50
6. CONCLUSIONS
The research conducted on UAV path planning using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) has yielded insightful and significant results. The PSO algorithm demonstrated its capability to generate feasible and efficient paths for UAV navigation in a simulated three-dimensional environment fraught with obstacles. The successful avoidance of these obstacles without compromising the optimality of the path length showcases the robustness and adaptability of the PSO technique. The experiment's findings reinforce the PSO algorithm's
potential in real-world applications, where autonomous navigation faces similar complexities. The algorithm's ability to balance exploration and exploitation ensures that UAVs can operate effectively in environments with dynamic and unpredictable elements. The convergence of the algorithm on optimal solutions within a reasonable number of iterations indicates that PSO is not only effective but also computationally efficient, making it a practical choice for UAV systems that may operate under computational or temporal constraints.
Moreover, the research highlights the importance of fine-tuning PSO parameters such as inertia weight, learning coefficients, and velocity limits to the specific requirements of the UAV and its operating environment. The visualizations from the 2D and 3D plots provided clear evidence of the algorithm's performance and the UAV's path through space, emphasizing the importance of detailed analysis and evaluation in algorithm development. Future work will aim to incorporate dynamic obstacles into the simulation to mirror more closely the unpredictability of real-world environments. This will involve developing a predictive model within the PSO framework that can anticipate and react to moving obstacles. Additionally, the integration of varying environmental conditions such as wind patterns and changing weather will be considered to test the robustness of the PSO algorithm under different operational scenarios. Another key area of future research will be the implementation of PSO in multi-UAV systems, where coordination and collision avoidance among multiple UAVs become critical. Investigating the scalability of the PSO algorithm in a swarm of UAVs offers a promising direction for applications in areas such as agriculture, search and rescue, and surveillance. Furthermore, to improve computational efficiency, the exploration of hybrid PSO models that incorporate machine learning techniques will be considered. These models could potentially learn from past flight paths to optimize future routes. The application of parallel computing techniques to PSO can also be explored to reduce computation times, making real-time path planning a reality.
REFERENCES
[1] M. T. R. Khan, M. Muhammad Saad, Y. Ru, J. Seo, and D. Kim, “Aspects of unmanned aerial vehicles path planning:
Overview and applications,” Int. J. Commun. Syst., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1–18, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4827.
[2] A. Utsav, A. Abhishek, P. Suraj, and R. K. Badhai, “An IoT based UAV network for military applications,” in 2021 Sixth International Conference on Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and Networking (WiSPNET), pp.
122–125, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/WiSPNET51692.2021.9419470.
[3] Y. Li, M. Liu, and D. Jiang, “Application of unmanned aerial vehicles in logistics: a literature review,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 14473, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114473.
[4] J H. M. Ray, R. Singer and N. Ahmed, "A Review of the Operational Use of UAS in Public Safety Emergency Incidents," 2022 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), pp. 922-931, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUAS54217.2022.9836061.
[5] D. C. Tsouros, S. Bibi, and P. G. Sarigiannidis, “A review on UAV-based applications for precision agriculture,”
Information, vol. 10, no. 11, p. 349, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/info10110349.
[6] N. Delavarpour, C. Koparan, J. Nowatzki, S. Bajwa, and X. Sun, “A technical study on UAV characteristics for precision agriculture applications and associated practical challenges,” Remote Sens., vol. 13, no. 6, p. 1204, 2021.
[7] S. Manfreda et al., “On the use of unmanned aerial systems for environmental monitoring,” Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 641, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10040641.
[8] A. Fascista, “Toward integrated large-scale environmental monitoring using WSN/UAV/Crowdsensing: A review of applications, signal processing, and future perspectives,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 5, p. 1824, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/s22051824.
[9] M. Jones, S. Djahel, and K. Welsh, “Path-planning for unmanned aerial vehicles with environment complexity considerations: A survey,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 1–39, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1145/3570723.
[10] C. Wang, J. Wang, Y. Shen, and X. Zhang, “Autonomous navigation of UAVs in large-scale complex environments:
A deep reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 2124–2136, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2018.2890773.
[11] F. Causa, G. Fasano, and M. Grassi, “Multi-UAV path planning for autonomous missions in mixed GNSS coverage scenarios,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 12, p. 4188, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/s18124188.
[12] S. Aggarwal and N. Kumar, “Path planning techniques for unmanned aerial vehicles: A review, solutions, and challenges,” Comput. Commun., vol. 149, pp. 270–299, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2019.10.014.
[13] A. Sonny, S. R. Yeduri and L. R. Cenkeramaddi, "Autonomous UAV Path Planning Using Modified PSO for UAV- Assisted Wireless Networks," in IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 70353-70367, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3293203.
[14] B. Song, Z. Wang, and L. Zou, “An improved PSO algorithm for smooth path planning of mobile robots using continuous high-degree Bezier curve,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 100, p. 106960, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106960.
[15] A. Puente-Castro, D. Rivero, A. Pazos, and E. Fernandez-Blanco, “A review of artificial intelligence applied to path planning in UAV swarms,” Neural Comput. Appl., pp. 1–18, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06569-4.
[16] E. Dhulkefl, A. Durdu, and H. Terzio\uglu, “Dijkstra algorithm using UAV path planning,” Konya J. Eng. Sci., vol.
8, pp. 92–105, 2020, https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.822225.
[17] J. Guo, W. Xia, X. Hu, and H. Ma, “Feedback RRT* algorithm for UAV path planning in a hostile environment,”
Comput. & Ind. Eng., vol. 174, p. 108771, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108771.
Optimizing UAV Navigation: A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for Path Planning in 3D [18] M. T. R. Khan, M. Muhammad Saad, Y. Ru, J. Seo, and D. Kim, “Aspects of unmanned aerial vehicles path planning:
Overview and applications,” Int. J. Commun. Syst., vol. 34, no. 10, p. e4827, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4827.
[19] J. Carvajal-Rodriguez, M. Morales, and C. Tipantuña, “3D Path Planning Algorithms in UAV-Enabled Communications Systems: A Mapping Study,” Futur. Internet, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 289, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15090289.
[20] J. Zirong, Z. Liang and Z. Zhilong, "3D Trajectory Planning of UAV Based on DPGA," in IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp.
105667-105677, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3099836.
[21] X. Lin, C. Wang, K. Wang, M. Li, and X. Yu, “Trajectory planning for unmanned aerial vehicles in complicated urban environments: A control network approach,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 128, p. 103120, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103120.
[22] C. Miao, G. Chen, C. Yan, and Y. Wu, “Path planning optimization of indoor mobile robot based on adaptive ant colony algorithm,” Comput. & Ind. Eng., vol. 156, p. 107230, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107230.
[23] F. H. Ajeil, I. K. Ibraheem, A. T. Azar, and A. J. Humaidi, “Grid-based mobile robot path planning using aging-based ant colony optimization algorithm in static and dynamic environments,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 7, p. 1880, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/s20071880.
[24] L. Liu, X. Wang, X. Yang, H. Liu, J. Li, and P. Wang, “Path planning techniques for mobile robots: Review and prospect,” Expert Syst. Appl., p. 120254, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120254.
[25] A. Fitriansyah, N. W. Parwati, D. R. Wardhani, and N. Kustian, “Dijkstra’s algorithm to find shortest path of tourist destination in Bali,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1338, no. 1, p. 12044, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1338/1/012044.
[26] Z. Husain, A. Al Zaabi, H. Hildmann, F. Saffre, D. Ruta, and A. F. Isakovic, “Search and rescue in a maze-like environment with ant and dijkstra algorithms,” Drones, vol. 6, no. 10, p. 273, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6100273.
[27] S. Sundarraj, R. V. K. Reddy, M. B. Basam, G. H. Lokesh, F. Flammini and R. Natarajan, "Route Planning for an Autonomous Robotic Vehicle Employing a Weight-Controlled Particle Swarm-Optimized Dijkstra Algorithm,"
in IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 92433-92442, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3302698.
[28] L. Yang et al., “Path Planning Technique for Mobile Robots: A Review,” Machines, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 980, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/machines11100980.
[29] S. Solmaz, R. Muminovic, A. Civgin, and G. Stettinger, “Development, Analysis, and Real-life Benchmarking of RRT-based Path Planning Algorithms for Automated Valet Parking,” in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pp. 621–628, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC48978.2021.9564413.
[30] P. Zhao et al., “Dynamic RRT: Fast Feasible Path Planning in Randomly Distributed Obstacle Environments,” J.
Intell. \& Robot. Syst., vol. 107, no. 4, p. 48, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-023-01823-4.
[31] M. D. Phung and Q. P. Ha, “Safety-enhanced UAV path planning with spherical vector-based particle swarm optimization,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 107, p. 107376, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107376.
[32] P. B. Fernandes, R. C. L. Oliveira, and J. V. F. Neto, “Trajectory planning of autonomous mobile robots applying a particle swarm optimization algorithm with peaks of diversity,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 116, p. 108108, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.108108.
[33] A. A. Alsakati, C. A. Vaithilingam, J. Alnasseir, K. Naidu, and G. Rajendran, “Transient stability enhancement of grid integrated wind energy using particle swarm optimization based multi-band PSS4C,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp.
20860–20874, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3151425.
[34] F. H. Ajeil, I. K. Ibraheem, M. A. Sahib, and A. J. Humaidi, “Multi-objective path planning of an autonomous mobile robot using hybrid PSO-MFB optimization algorithm,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 89, p. 106076, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106076.
[35] B. Tang, K. Xiang, M. Pang, and Z. Zhanxia, “Multi-robot path planning using an improved self-adaptive particle swarm optimization,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., vol. 17, no. 5, p. 1729881420936154, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881420936154.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
GREGORIUS AIRLANGGA received the B.S. degree in information system from the Yos Sudarso Higher School of Computer Science, Purwokerto, Indonesia, in 2014, and the M.Eng.
degree in informatics from Atma Jaya Yogyakarta University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2016.
He got Ph.D. degree with the Department of Electrical Engineering, National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan. He is also an Assistant Professor with the Department of Information System, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. His research interests include artificial intelligence and software engineering include path planning, machine learning, natural language processing, deep learning, software requirements, software design pattern and software architecture.
