Efficient 3D Path Planning For Drone Swarm Using I
Efficient 3D Path Planning For Drone Swarm Using I
Research Article
Keywords: Path Planning, Internet of Drones (IoDs), Meta-heuristics, Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA), Drone
Swarm, Obstacle Avoidance
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3142581/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Read Full License
Abstract
Path planning for a swarm of drones is primarily concerned with avoiding
collision among the drones and environmental obstacles while determin-
ing the most efficient flight path to the region of interest. This paper
proposes an efficient methodology for drone swarm path planning prob-
lems in 3D environments. An improved population based meta-heuristic
algorithm, Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA), has been proposed to solve this
problem. As part of the improvements, the population of SCA is initial-
ized using a chaotic map, and a non-linearly decreasing step size is used
to balance the local and global search. In addition, a convergence factor is
employed to increase the convergence rate of the original SCA. The per-
formance of the proposed improved SCA (iSCA) is tested over the drone
swarm path planning problem, and the results are compared with those
of the original SCA, and other state-of-the-art meta-heuristic algorithms.
1
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
The experimental results show that the drone swarm 3D path planning
problem can be efficiently handled with the proposed improved SCA.
1 Introduction
In recent years, the field of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) has grown
rapidly, including miniature aircraft, airships, and drones for a wide range of
purposes such as surveillance, military operations, telecommunications, medi-
cal supplies delivery, rescue operations, and monitoring [1–3]. A large number
of UAV systems rely on only one aerial vehicle. Nevertheless, the active coop-
eration of several UAVs is essential in many applications. They can carry out
complicated tasks beyond the ability of a single UAV while being cost effective
and more robust.
A network of drones connected to each other is known as the Internet of
Drones (IoDs) or drones swarm, a layered network control architecture that
primarily coordinates the access of UAVs, controls the airspace, and provides
navigation services between locations known as nodes [4]. Drone swarm can be
used for various applications, such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS),
to enhance vehicle-infrastructure communication. In this application, drone
swarm is an efficient way to improve traffic rules on the ground and provide
ground users with efficient information dissemination. In order to accomplish
such complex tasks, drones must collaborate due to the heterogeneity of their
goals and communication technologies. At the current scenario, drones are
becoming increasingly autonomous as technology advances, and they gain new
capabilities. However, as drones get closer to each other or obstacles in case of
high drone density or challenging missions, they pose new threats.
Obstacles can be static or dynamic. The obstacles that are static are fixed,
such as mountains and buildings, while those that are dynamic include other
drones or air vehicles, birds, etc. Furthermore, controlling drone swarm and
communicating among drones become more complicated tasks. Moreover, if
the drone swarm merge in different directions, the risk of catastrophic collisions
increases. As the likelihood of colliding among drones in a swarm increases,
collision avoidance becomes a more challenging task, and thus, drone swarm
should have a proper method to prevent or avoid collisions.
One of the most important problems for autonomous multi-UAV system
i.e. drone swarm is path planning. Considering the given flight conditions and
flight environment, a collision-free path for drone swarm needs to be planned
based on the given starting and destination points. The planned path should
be cost-effective and comply with relevant constraints. Thus the drone swarm
path planning can be viewed as an optimization problem that involves multiple
constraints [5], and aims to find a feasible minimum path from a given starting
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
Where xlb , ylb , and zlb are the lower limits of the flying space while xub , yub ,
and zub are the upper bounds.
Where (xc , yc , zc ) are the coordinates of center of the k1th obstacle and θ ∈
[0, 2π] , φ ∈ [0, π/2].
Where Fpl is the cost associated with path length, Foc is the cost of drones
collision with obstacles and Fmc is the collision cost among drones. The goal
is to minimize the objective function F . The next subsection describes the
mathematical formulations of Fpl , Foc , and Fmc .
evaluate the cost associated with path length, we use the following path length
ratio (PLR) [37].
PD−1 p
j=1 (xj+1 − xj )2 + (yj+1 − yj )2 + (zj+1 − zj )2
Fpl = p . (7)
(xD − x1 )2 + (yD − y1 )2 + (zD − z1 )2
D X
k
X α × dist(j, k1 )
Foc = exp − (8)
j=1 k1 =1
R k1
Where (x(j), y(j), z(j)) represents the coordinates of the j th waypoint and
(x0 (k1 ), y0 (k1 ), z0 (k1 )) are the coordinates of the center of the k1th obstacle.
The probability of collision among drones increases as the drone swarm den-
sity increases space. It is therefore extremely important to ensure that drones
are not too close to each other when drone swarm paths are generated. If pathi
is the planned path for dronei and patho is the planned path for any other
drone then every waypoint’s of pathi must be checked with every waypoint’s
of other paths (patho ). To do so, it is necessary to consider a safety distance
(sd) between paths.
The cost associated with collision among drones can be written as follows
[35].
D X D̃
X α × dist(j, j1 )
Fmc = exp − (10)
j=1 j =1
sd
1
Where D and D̃ are the number of waypoints in the pathi and patho , respec-
tively. α ∈ [0, 1] is a control parameter, sd is the inter-drone distance, and
dist(j, j1 ) represents the distance between pathi and patho and is defined as
follows: q
dist(j, j1 ) = (xj − xj1 )2 + (yj − yj1 )2 + (zj − zj1 )2 (11)
Where (xj , yj , zj ) and (xj1 , yj1 , zj1 ) are the waypoints of pathi and patho ,
respectively.
In the above model, the cost of member collisions among drones is mostly
driven by the distance between pathi and other paths (patho ). As the safety
distance (sd) should be maintained, the cost will increase when the distance
between paths is ≤ sd, and it decreases rapidly as the distance between the
paths increases.
... (14)
xi,D = (xxi,D , xyi,D , xzi,D ) (15)
P = (X1 , X2 , . . . , XN )T (16)
For SCA with N number of candidate solutions, there is one destination point
(global best solution), which can be written as
Now, in tth iteration the position of each candidate solution is updated based
on the following formula [31]:
(
(t)
(t+1) Xi,j + r1 × sin(r2 )× | r3 × Gtbest − Xi,j
t
|, if r4 < 0.5
Xi,j = (t) t t
(18)
Xi,j + r1 × cos(r2 )× | r3 × Gbest − Xi,j |, Otherwise
Where r2 , r3 , and r4 are random numbers in the ranges (0, 2π), (0, 1), and
(0, 1), respectively. Here, the parameter r4 is known as the switching param-
eter, because it is used to choose the search paths using sine or cosine
function.
The parameter r1 is known as the control parameter, which decreases lin-
early from a number β to 0. It is responsible to manage the exploration and
exploitation during the search by changing its value. r1 > 1 indicates the explo-
ration of the search space, while r1 < 1 indicates exploitation. r1 is defined as
follows:
t
r1 = β × 1 − (19)
M axiteration
Where t and M AXiteration are the current iteration number and the maximum
number of iterations, respectively .
The pseudo-code of SCA is shown in Algorithm 1.
yj+1 = µ × yj × (1 − yj ), j = 0, 1, 2, . . . (20)
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
yj+1 = µ × yj × (1 − yj ), j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , D (21)
Where xmax,j and xmin,j are the upper and lower bounds of the j th variable,
respectively.
4. Finally, ith candidate solution using logistic map is
t2
r1new = γ × exp − (24)
(β × M AXiteration )2
Where t and M AXiteration are current and maximum number of iterations,
respectively. γ is a user-defined parameter.
Symbols have their usual meaning. The pseudo-code of improved SCA (iSCA)
for drone swarm path planning is shown in Algorithm 3.
Algorithm 3 The improved SCA (iSCA) for drone swarm path planning
Environment construction:
Set the boundary for drones flying area.
Set obtacles positions.
Set the starting and destination position for each drone.
for d = 1 : total number of drones do
Initialize the N number of candidate solutions using chaos based
initialization (Equation (20)).
Evaluate all the solutions.
Identify the best candidate solution.
Main loop:
while t < M axiteration do
Calculate r1new using (24) .
Calculate CF using (25).
for i = 1 : N do
for j = 1 : D do
Generate r2 , r3 and r4 .
Update the position of each candidate solution using (26).
end for
end for
Evaluate the updated population.
Identify the best candidate solution.
end while
Output: The optimal path for drone d.
end for
of size 16000 × 16000 × 16000. Four static obstacles are placed in the search
space, whose positions are listed in Table 2. The location of each obstacle and
the current positions of drones with their destinations (goals) are presented in
2D and 3D views in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The parameters correspond-
ing to all the considered algorithms are presented in Table 3. The parameters
in Table 4 are common to all the algorithms. In Table 4, sd stands for safety
distance for collision avoidance among the drones, D stands for the total num-
ber of waypoints, N represents the population size, and µ is the bifurcation
coefficient.
Fig. 1 Two-dimensional view of the obstacles, starting and destination points of the drone
swarm.
Fig. 2 Three-dimensional view of the obstacles, starting and destination points of the drone
swarm.
Fig. 4 Framework of CL
independently for the comparison. Following two variants of SCA are consid-
ered using each modification independently for the comparison.
• CL: This algorithm initializes the population using a chaos map and linearly
decreasing step size in SCA as shown in Figure 4.
The performances over drone swarm path planning problem of SCA, iSCA,
RCN, and CL are discussed and comparative study has been carried out
based on the performance indicators given below:
SCA iSCA
1.7 2
DRONE1
DRONE2 DRONE1
1.6
DRONE3 DRONE2
DRONE4
1.8
DRONE3
1.5 DRONE5 DRONE4
Fitness value
Fitness value
DRONE5
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.1
1 1
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Iteration Iteration
Fig. 5 Fitness value over iteration for Fig. 6 Fitness value over iteration for
drone swarm path formation by SCA drone swarm path formation by iSCA
While Figures 13-16 represent the 3D views of the planned path for drones for
considered algorithms. From Figures 9-12 and 13-16, it can be seen that the
planned path for each drone by each algorithm is obtained without collision
with obstacles and among drones. Thus it is guaranteed that all the algorithms
SCA, iSCA, RCN, and CL can generate a feasible path for each drone. Table
5 shows the average fitness value (AFV) of the formation during Monte-Carlo
simulations. The best results are highlighted with bold face. Figures 17-20
show the iteration-wise average fitness value (AFV). It can be observed from
Table 5 that from the single drone perspective, iSCA has outperformed all
the algorithms SCA, RCN, and CL for drones 1, 3, 4, and 5 but in the case of
drone 2, iSCA no longer outperforms RCN. However, it is reasonable that the
AFV of the formation is more important and fair than the individual drone’s
performance. Because the AFV of the formation indicates the overall solution
quality of an algorithm, as well as the safety and cost-effectiveness of drone
operations in the flying environment. Moreover, AFV for a single drone can
easily be affected by different environmental constraints, so it is not good
enough to evaluate the performance of an algorithm from a single drone’s
perspective in case of drone swarm optimal path planning. The AFV of the
formation in Table 5 shows that iSCA has the least AFV, RCN performs
second, and CL worst. As compared to original SCA, the AFV of iSCA, RCN,
and CL has decreased to 2.076%, 1.634%, and -0.103%, respectively. Note
that CL is not able to outperform SCA while RCN outperforms SCA inde-
pendently, but RCN and CL which forms iSCA outperforms SCA as shown in
Table 5. Overall, iSCA has a better solution quality than SCA, RCN, and CL.
RCN CL
1.7
1.8 DRONE1
1.6
DRONE2
1.7 DRONE3
DRONE1
DRONE2
1.5 DRONE4
1.6
Fitness value
Fitness value
DRONE5
DRONE3
DRONE4 1.4
1.5 DRONE5
1.4 1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1 1
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Iteration Iteration
Fig. 7 Fitness value over iteration for Fig. 8 Fitness value over iteration for
drone swarm path formation by RCN drone swarm path formation by CL
Fig. 9 2D view of the planned path for Fig. 10 2D view of the planned path for
drone swarm by SCA drone swarm by iSCA
algorithm. Figures 5-8 and Figures 17-20 are the convergence curves of SCA,
iSCA, RCN, and CL in single and multiple runs, respectively. To show the
evolution process of the algorithms over iterations, we assume that the x−axis
represents the iteration number and y−axis represents the average fitness
value in these Figures. In addition, we also adopt the minimum number of
iterations that requires to reach the optimal solution as another indicator
to evaluate the convergence speed. In this process, firstly, we set the crite-
ria for the feasible solution as |AF Vt−20 − AF Vt | < 0.001. In other words,
|AF Vt−20 − AF Vt | < 0.001 represents the difference in AFV obtained in 20
consecutive iterations. Here, t represents the current iteration number and
AF V represents the average fitness value that is obtained in 40 runs. Table 6
represents the average minimum iterations (AMIs) of the formation for each
of the considered algorithms. It can be seen from Table 6 that SCA has the
least AMI with a value of 34.2, while iSCA has the largest AMI with a value
of 62.8. On the other hand, CL and RCN are 2nd and 3rd in the list with val-
ues 38 and 38.6, respectively. Though SCA obtained the highest convergence
speed than iSCA, RCN, and CL, but it can be observed that the solution
obtained by SCA with this fast convergence speed is sub-optimal and inferior
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
Fig. 11 2D view of the planned path for Fig. 12 2D view of the planned path for
drone swarm by RCN drone swarm by CL
Fig. 13 3D view of the planned path for Fig. 14 3D view of the planned path for
drone swarm by SCA drone swarm by iSCA
than iSCA, RCN, and CL. This means that SCA can easily get trapped to
local optima. Since the non-linearly decreasing step-size along with conver-
gence factor are present in iSCA, these factors help iSCA to avoid stagnation
and provide the searching ability for more iterations to obtain global optima.
Fig. 15 3D view of the planned path for Fig. 16 3D view of the planned path for
drone swarm by RCN drone swarm by CL
SCA iSCA
1.18 1.14
1.16
Average fitness value 1.12
Average fitness value
1.14
1.1
1.12
DRONE1 DRONE1
1.1 1.08
DRONE2 DRONE2
DRONE3 DRONE3
1.08 DRONE4 DRONE4
DRONE5 1.06 DRONE5
1.06
1.04
1.04
1.02 1.02
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Iteration Iteration
Fig. 17 Average fitness value over iter- Fig. 18 Average fitness value over iter-
ation on 40 runs for drone swarm path ation on 40 runs for drone swarm path
formation by SCA formation by iSCA
RCN CL
1.16 1.16
1.14 1.14
Average fitness value
1.12
1.12
1.1 DRONE1
1.1 DRONE2
DRONE1
1.08 DRONE2
DRONE3
DRONE3 DRONE4
1.08 DRONE5
1.06 DRONE4
DRONE5
1.04 1.06
1.02 1.04
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Iteration Iteration
Fig. 19 Average fitness value over iter- Fig. 20 Average fitness value over iter-
ation on 40 runs for drone swarm path ation on 40 runs for drone swarm path
formation by RCN formation by CL
to 1.13. This means that the path generated by the algorithm is too long,
and/or the drone collides with an obstacle, and/or the collision happens among
drones. On the other hand, a zero failure rate indicates that F Vt=150 < 1.13.
The average failure number (AFN) of the formation and the total path fail-
ure rate (FR) during the Monte-Carlo simulations on 40 runs are presented
in Table 7. Figure 34 is the graphical representation of the formation failure
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
number (FN) of considered algorithms. From Table 7, one can see that the pro-
posed iSCA has the least failure rate with an improved percentage of 84.057
as compared to the original SCA, while 65.217% improvement is obtained by
RCN. On the other hand, there is no improvement in CL. This shows that
the proposed iSCA can achieve the highest success rate or reliability in the
path generation and guarantees a significant improvement in solution quality
as compared to SCA, RCN, and CL.
Fig. 21 2D view of the planned path for Fig. 22 2D view of the planned path for
drone swarm by PSO drone swarm by IPSO
Fig. 23 2D view of the planned path for Fig. 24 3D view of the planned path for
drone swarm by ABC drone swarm by PSO
the proposed iSCA are shown in Figure 10 and Figure 14 in 2D and 3D views,
respectively. One can see from these figures that iSCA and IPSO can generate
a feasible path for each drone, while PSO and ABC are not able to generate a
feasible path. Moreover, ABC can not even maintain the safety distance among
the drones as the collision happened among themselves also. This is because of
the extensive exploration capability of ABC and unable to maintain the proper
balance between exploration and exploitation. While due to the non-linearly
decreasing step size and convergence factor in iSCA, it can easily generate a
feasible path for the drones while maintaining the safety distance among the
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
Fig. 25 3D view of the planned path for Fig. 26 3D view of the planned path for
drone swarm by IPSO drone swarm by ABC
PSO IPSO
2 2.2
DRONE1 DRONE1
DRONE2 DRONE2
DRONE3 2 DRONE3
1.8 DRONE4 DRONE4
DRONE5
DRONE5
1.8
Fitness value
Fitness value
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1 1
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Iteration Iteration
Fig. 27 Fitness value over iteration for Fig. 28 Fitness value over iteration for
drone swarm path formation by PSO drone swarm path formation by IPSO
PSO
ABC 1.3
1.8
DRONE2
DRONE1
DRONE3
1.6 DRONE2
1.2 DRONE4
DRONE3
Fintess value
DRONE5
1.5 DRONE4
DRONE5
1.15
1.4
1.3 1.1
1.2
1.05
1.1
1
1 0 50 100 150
0 50 100 150 Iteration
Iteration
Fig. 30 Average fitness value over iter-
Fig. 29 Fitness value over iteration for
ation on 40 runs for drone swarm path
drone swarm path formation by ABC
formation by PSO
IPSO ABC
1.2 1.5
1.16
1.4 DRONE3
DRONE4
1.14
1.35 DRONE5
1.12
1.3
1.1 DRONE1
DRONE2 1.25
1.08 DRONE3
DRONE4
1.2
1.06 DRONE5
1.04 1.15
1.02 1.1
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Iteration Iteration
Fig. 31 Average fitness value over iter- Fig. 32 Average fitness value over iter-
ation on 40 runs for drone swarm path ation on 40 runs for drone swarm path
formation by IPSO formation by ABC
70 140
Formation average minimum iteration
60 120
Formation failure number
50 100
40 80
30 60
20 40
10 20
0 0
SCA RCN CL ABC PSO IPSO ISCA SCA RCN CL ABC PSO IPSO ISCA
Different algorithms Different algorithms
been used to check the performance of the proposed improved SCA (iSCA).
The results are compared with the original SCA and other state-of-the-art
meta-heuristic algorithms. The comparison results show that the proposed
iSCA can generate the optimal paths for the drones more accurately with high
convergence speed as compared to other considered algorithms. The same
study with the dynamic obstacle environment is the future research agenda.
1.5 1.5
Formation running time
0.5 0.5
0 0
SCA RCN CL ISCA ABC PSO IPSO ISCA
Different algorithms Different algorithms
Fig. 35 Formation running time by dif- Fig. 36 Formation running time by dif-
ferent algorithms ferent algorithms
Declarations
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no known com-
peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Ethics Approval: This article does not contain any studies with human par-
ticipants or animals performed by any of the authors.
References
[1] Mozaffari, M., Saad, W., Bennis, M. and Debbah, M., 2015, December.
Drone small cells in the clouds: Design, deployment and performance anal-
ysis. In 2015 IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM) (pp.
1-6). IEEE.
[3] Al-Hourani, A., Kandeepan, S. and Lardner, S., 2014. Optimal LAP alti-
tude for maximum coverage. IEEE Wireless Communications Letters,
3(6), pp.569-572.
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
[4] Gharibi, M., Boutaba, R. and Waslander, S.L., 2016. Internet of drones.
IEEE Access, 4, pp.1148-1162.
[5] Huo, L., Zhu, J., Wu, G. and Li, Z., 2020. A novel simulated annealing
based strategy for balanced UAV task assignment and path planning.
Sensors, 20(17), p.4769.
[6] Ma, Y., Hu, M. and Yan, X., 2018. Multi-objective path planning for
unmanned surface vehicle with currents effects. ISA transactions, 75,
pp.137-156.
[7] YongBo, C., YueSong, M., JianQiao, Y., XiaoLong, S. and Nuo, X., 2017.
Three-dimensional unmanned aerial vehicle path planning using modified
wolf pack search algorithm. Neurocomputing, 266, pp.445-457.
[9] Bayili, S. and Polat, F., 2011. Limited-Damage A*: A path search algo-
rithm that considers damage as a feasibility criterion. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 24(4), pp.501-512.
[10] Baumann, M., Leonard, S., Croft, E.A. and Little, J.J., 2010. Path
planning for improved visibility using a probabilistic road map. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics, 26(1), pp.195-200.
[11] Brubaker, M.A., Geiger, A. and Urtasun, R., 2015. Map-based proba-
bilistic visual self-localization. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and
machine intelligence, 38(4), pp.652-665.
[13] Moon, C.B. and Chung, W., 2014. Kinodynamic planner dual-tree RRT
(DT-RRT) for two-wheeled mobile robots using the rapidly explor-
ing random tree. IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics, 62(2),
pp.1080-1090.
[14] Chen, Y., Yu, J., Su, X. and Luo, G., 2015. Path planning for multi-UAV
formation. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 77(1), pp.229-246.
[15] Chen, Y.B., Luo, G.C., Mei, Y.S., Yu, J.Q. and Su, X.L., 2016. UAV path
planning using artificial potential field method updated by optimal control
theory. International Journal of Systems Science, 47(6), pp.1407-1420.
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
[16] Zhang, X. and Duan, H., 2015. An improved constrained differential evolu-
tion algorithm for unmanned aerial vehicle global route planning. Applied
Soft Computing, 26, pp.270-284.
[17] Besada-Portas, E., de la Torre, L., Jesus, M. and de Andrés-Toro, B., 2010.
Evolutionary trajectory planner for multiple UAVs in realistic scenarios.
IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 26(4), pp.619-634.
[18] Zheng, C., Li, L., Xu, F., Sun, F. and Ding, M., 2005. Evolutionary route
planner for unmanned air vehicles. IEEE Transactions on robotics, 21(4),
pp.609-620.
[19] Ma, Y., Zamirian, M., Yang, Y., Xu, Y. and Zhang, J., 2013. Path
planning for mobile objects in four-dimension based on particle swarm
optimization method with penalty function. Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, 2013.
[20] Ma, Y., Hu, M. and Yan, X., 2018. Multi-objective path planning for
unmanned surface vehicle with currents effects. ISA transactions, 75,
pp.137-156.
[21] Ma, H., Shen, S., Yu, M., Yang, Z., Fei, M. and Zhou, H., 2019.
Multi-population techniques in nature inspired optimization algorithms:
A comprehensive survey. Swarm and evolutionary computation, 44,
pp.365-387.
[22] Zhao, Y., Zheng, Z. and Liu, Y., 2018. Survey on computational-
intelligence-based UAV path planning. Knowledge-Based Systems, 158,
pp.54-64.
[23] Roberge, V., Tarbouchi, M. and Labonté, G., 2012. Comparison of parallel
genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization for real-time UAV path
planning. IEEE Transactions on industrial informatics, 9(1), pp.132-141.
[24] Karaboga, Dervis, and Bahriye Basturk. ”A powerful and efficient algo-
rithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC)
algorithm.” Journal of global optimization 39.3 (2007): 459-471.
[25] Dorigo, M., Birattari, M. and Stutzle, T., 2006. Ant colony optimization.
IEEE computational intelligence magazine, 1(4), pp.28-39.
[26] Konatowski, S. and Pawlowski, P., 2018, February. Ant colony opti-
mization algorithm for UAV path planning. In 2018 14th International
Conference on Advanced Trends in Radio electronics, Telecommunications
and Computer Engineering (TCSET) (pp. 177-182). IEEE.
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
[27] Price, K.V., 1996, June. Differential evolution: a fast and simple numerical
optimizer. In Proceedings of North American fuzzy information processing
(pp. 524-527). IEEE.
[28] Pan, J.S., Liu, N. and Chu, S.C., 2020. A hybrid differential evolution
algorithm and its application in unmanned combat aerial vehicle path
planning. IEEE Access, 8, pp.17691-17712.
[30] Bansal, Jagdish Chand, et al. ”Spider monkey optimization algorithm for
numerical optimization.” Memetic computing 6.1 (2014): 31-47.
[31] Mirjalili, S., 2016. SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization
problems. Knowledge-based systems, 96, pp.120-133.
[32] Duan, H. and Qiao, P., 2014. Pigeon-inspired optimization: a new swarm
intelligence optimizer for air robot path planning. International journal
of intelligent computing and cybernetics.
[33] Wang, G., Guo, L., Duan, H., Liu, L. and Wang, H., 2012. A modified
firefly algorithm for UCAV path planning. International Journal of Hybrid
Information Technology, 5(3), pp.123-144.
[35] Ahmed, G., Sheltami, T., Mahmoud, A. and Yasar, A., 2020. IoD
swarms collision avoidance via improved particle swarm optimization.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 142, pp.260-278.
[37] Yang, P., Tang, K., Lozano, J.A. and Cao, X., 2015. Path planning for
single unmanned aerial vehicle by separately evolving waypoints. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics, 31(5), pp.1130-1146.
[38] Gupta, S., 2022. Enhanced sine cosine algorithm with crossover: A com-
parative study and empirical analysis. Expert Systems with Applications,
198, p.116856.
[39] Shao, S., Peng, Y., He, C. and Du, Y., 2020. Efficient path plan-
ning for UAV formation via comprehensively improved particle swarm
optimization. ISA transactions, 97, pp.415-430.
Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
[40] Tian, D. and Shi, Z., 2018. MPSO: Modified particle swarm optimization
and its applications. Swarm and evolutionary computation, 41, pp.49-68.