Search

There are three primary objectives of this work; first: to establish a gas concentration map; second: to estimate the point of emission of the gas; and third: to generate a path from any location to the point of emission for UAVs or UGVs. A mountable array of MOX sensors was developed so that the angles and distances among the sensors, alongside sensors data, were utilized to identify the influx of gas plumes. Gas dispersion experiments under indoor conditions were conducted to train machine learning algorithms to collect data at numerous locations and angles. Taguchi's orthogonal arrays for experiment design were used to identify the gas dispersion locations. For the second objective, the data collected after pre-processing was used to train an off-policy, model-free reinforcement learning agent with a Q-learning policy. After finishing the training from the training data set, Q-learning produces a table called the Q-table. The Q-table contains state-action pairs that generate an autonomous path from any point to the source from the testing dataset. The entire process is carried out in an obstacle-free environment, and the whole scheme is designed to be conducted in three modes: search, track, and localize. The hyperparameter combinations of the RL agent were evaluated through trial-and-error technique and it was found that ε = 0.9, γ = 0.9 and α = 0.9 was the fastest path generating combination that took 1258.88 seconds for training and 6.2 milliseconds for path generation. Out of 31 unseen scenarios, the trained RL agent generated successful paths for all the 31 scenarios, however, the UAV was able to reach successfully on the gas source in 23 scenarios, producing a success rate of 74.19%. The results paved the way for using reinforcement learning techniques to be used as autonomous path generation of unmanned systems alongside the need to explore and improve the accuracy of the reported results as future works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, an image-based waste collection scheduling involving a node with three waste bins is considered. First, the system locates the three bins and determines the waste level of each bin using four Laws Masks and a set of Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers. Next, a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) is used to decide on the number of days remaining before waste is collected from the node. This decision is based on the HMM’s previous state and current observations. The HMM waste collection scheduling seeks to maximize the number of days between collection visits while preventing waste contamination due to late collection. The proposed system was trained using 100 training images and then tested on 100 test images. Each test image contains three bins that might be shifted, rotated, occluded or toppled over. The upright bins could be empty, partially full or full of garbage of various shapes and sizes. The method achieves bin detection, waste level classification and collection day scheduling rates of 100%, 99.8% and 100% respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various peak models have been introduced to detect and analyze peaks in the time domain analysis of electroencephalogram (EEG) signals. In general, peak model in the time domain analysis consists of a set of signal parameters, such as amplitude, width, and slope. Models including those proposed by Dumpala, Acir, Liu, and Dingle are routinely used to detect peaks in EEG signals acquired in clinical studies of epilepsy or eye blink. The optimal peak model is the most reliable peak detection performance in a particular application. A fair measure of performance of different models requires a common and unbiased platform. In this study, we evaluate the performance of the four different peak models using the extreme learning machine (ELM)-based peak detection algorithm. We found that the Dingle model gave the best performance, with 72 % accuracy in the analysis of real EEG data. Statistical analysis conferred that the Dingle model afforded significantly better mean testing accuracy than did the Acir and Liu models, which were in the range 37-52 %. Meanwhile, the Dingle model has no significant difference compared to Dumpala model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]