ARIES-Mission2: A Zero-Shot Vision-Language-Action Framework for Fast Large-Scale Aerial Mission Generation

Baili Lu; Dexing Yao; Dingcheng Yang; Haochen Li; Junhao Wei; Sio-Kei Im; Xu Yang; Yanxiao Li; Yapeng Wang; Yifu Zhao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

ARIES-Mission2: A Zero-Shot Vision-Language-Action Framework for Fast Large-Scale Aerial Mission Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ARIES-Mission2 shows that separating VLM perception from TSP route optimization generates shorter drone missions than either raw VLA output or human planning, achieving 62.43 km over 30 tasks.

desk verdict Useful VLM+TSP systems combo, but the headline gains over human planning are unproven without target-set equivalence and error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12763 v1 pith:EG4UIJWQ submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CE

Junhao Wei , Yanxiao Li , Haochen Li , Yifu Zhao , Dexing Yao , Baili Lu , Zikun Li , Yapeng Wang

show 3 more authors

Sio-Kei Im Dingcheng Yang Xu Yang

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CE

keywords vision-language-actionzero-shottargetgroundingUAVmissiongenerationtravelingsalespersonproblemparticleswarmoptimizationsatelliteimageryMAVLinkwaypointmetaheuristicroute

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes ARIES-Mission2, a zero-shot framework that generates drone flight missions from natural-language instructions and satellite images by splitting the job in two: a vision-language model finds targets and turns their pixel locations into GPS waypoints, and a separate Traveling Salesperson Problem solver decides the order in which a drone should visit them. The central claim is that this separation fixes a weakness of multimodal models, which can perceive objects but produce wandering, backtracking routes, and that it outperforms both an unoptimized vision-language baseline and human experts. On a 30-task benchmark the full system produces a total route of 62.43 km, compared with 79.66 km for the raw vision-language order and 69.00 km for manual human planning, and it completes all 30 tasks in about 575 seconds. If correct, this indicates that perception and route optimization should be treated as separate modules rather than asked of a single large model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the decoupled front-end/back-end architecture with an algorithmic competition selection rule. The front end chains DeepSeek-V3 (instruction parsing) with Molmo-7B (zero-shot target grounding) and maps pixel positions to GPS coordinates by linear interpolation using the image's geographic metadata. The back end formulates the waypoint set as a TSP whose objective is a closed-loop Haversine distance, then runs three particle-swarm variants—standard PSO, GPSO with a distance-based heuristic initialization and linearly decaying inertia weight, and IPSO with Tent-chaos initialization and Lévy-flight mutation—alongside the raw VLM order. The final route is simply the minimum-cost member of these four candidates, encoded as a MAVLink waypoint file locally. The mechanism's contribution is that the route optimization is fully decoupled from perception, so the optimizer's sub-second runtime (0.16 s/task) dwarfs the VLM inference time (19.02 s/task).

What would settle it

Count the targets the Molmo-7B pipeline detects per task and compare them with the benchmark's ground-truth waypoint set and with the waypoints the human planner visited. If on any task the VLM detects fewer or different waypoints, the reported 9.5% distance gain over human planning is an artifact of comparing different routes, not better planning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a workflow, not a new model: instead of asking a multimodal large language model to both locate targets and order them into a flight path, ARIES-Mission2 lets a language model parse the instruction, a vision model output pixel coordinates, and a deterministic geospatial interpolation convert those coordinates into GPS waypoints. It then treats the remaining multi-target traversal problem as a closed-loop Traveling Salesperson Problem over those waypoints, computes flight costs with the Haversine formula, and competes four candidate visiting orders—the raw VLM order plus routes from PSO, GPSO, and IPSO—selecting the shortest. The result is a 21.6% reduction in total flight distance relative to the pure VLA baseline and a 9.5% reduction relative to an experienced human planner, with the whole 30-task run taking about 575 seconds. The paper presents this as evidence that light metaheuristic optimization, not bigger models, is what closes the gap between semantic understanding and physically efficient flight.

Load-bearing premise

The comparisons assume the VLM detects exactly the same set of targets on every task that the human planner used, with no missed targets or hallucinated extra ones; the paper does not report detection recall or waypoint counts per task.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The raw VLM visiting order is the weakest candidate in every reported comparison, so direct VLM route generation is not enough even when perception is accurate.
Because the TSP solver adds only 0.16 s per task, the approach scales to larger missions at negligible optimization cost; the bottleneck is image-to-waypoint grounding.
Generating the final MAVLink mission file locally avoids the latency and hallucination risk of asking a large model to emit control code.
The framework is zero-shot: no fine-tuning or task-specific training is needed to reach the reported route quality.
If the detection parity assumption holds, decoupling perception from combinatorial optimization is a general recipe for spatial-instruction tasks beyond UAVs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next experiment is to report detection precision and recall per task; if recall is high, the distance numbers are strong, and if not, the proper comparison is route cost per detected target.
The same decoupling could be applied to ground robots or maritime vehicles, replacing the Haversine cost with the appropriate metric (road network, currents) and still keeping the perception module unchanged.
One could test whether the four-candidate competition can be replaced by a single well-tuned optimizer or an exact TSP solver; if so, the metaheuristic choice matters less than the separation itself.
The reported scalability analysis suggests a parameter-free prediction: on tasks with more than 20 targets the VLM will dominate runtime even more, so caching or smaller grounding models would improve end-to-end latency more than any solver change.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's my read on arXiv:2608.12763. The paper is a straightforward but useful systems integration: a zero-shot VLM front end (DeepSeek-V3 for parsing, Molmo-7B for grounding) feeding a TSP back end that compares the raw VLM order, PSO, and two PSO variants, then picks the shortest route. On the UAV-VLPA-nano-30 benchmark, the full system reports 62.43 km total flight distance, down from 79.66 km for the raw VLA baseline and 69.00 km for human planning, with a 575 s total workflow.

What's actually new is the specific combination and the measured result on that benchmark. The individual pieces are known, but the architecture is clean, the paper is readable, and the timing breakdown (VLM dominates at ~19 s/task; TSP ~0.16 s/task) is a useful data point. I credit the authors for seeing that raw VLM ordering is poor and that a cheap TSP post-processor fixes most of it.

The soft spots are real and they sit in the evaluation. The biggest one: we never see the target sets. No detection precision/recall, no per-task waypoint counts, no statement that ARIES-Mission2, the raw VLA baseline, and the human planner all worked from the same ground-truth targets. For the raw VLA comparison this doesn't matter much, because both methods use the same VLM detections, so the 21.6% reduction is likely a fair routing gain. But the 9.5% margin over human planning is suspect: if the VLM detects fewer or different targets than the human used, the tour shortens for reasons unrelated to routing quality. The HumanPlan protocol is also vague—no interface, instructions, or whether the human saw the same imagery and target definitions.

Second, the optimization comparisons are single-run. PSO-family variants are stochastic, and the 'optimal' result is the min over four related solvers, which is selection bias if you only report the best. There are no error bars or multiple runs. Third, there is no exact or strong heuristic TSP baseline (e.g., Concorde or LKH). The TSP sizes here are small enough that an exact solver is feasible, and its absence weakens the claim that these metaheuristics are competitive.

The novelty of GPSO and IPSO individually is minor—linear inertia weight, distance prior initialization, Tent chaos, Levy mutation—but as a systems paper that's acceptable. The citation pattern is heavy on the authors' own PSO variants, which is padding rather than circularity; the benchmark is external and the distances are measured.

Net: this is a reasonable systems paper that would be useful to people building VLA-based drone mission planners. The central performance claim over human planning is not yet falsifiably supported, but the work is not fatally flawed. I'd send it to peer review, not desk-reject, with a required revision that adds detection metrics, multi-run statistics with variances, an exact TSP baseline, and a clear description of the HumanPlan setup. Without those, treat the head-to-head numbers as provisional.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ARIES-Mission2, a zero-shot Vision-Language-Action (VLA) framework that decouples visual-semantic perception from physical route optimization. The front end uses DeepSeek-V3 for task parsing and Molmo-7B for zero-shot target grounding, converting detected pixel locations to GPS waypoints via geospatial interpolation. The back end formulates multi-target UAV traversal as a Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP) and compares four candidate routes—the raw VLM visiting order and routes optimized by PSO, GPSO, and IPSO—selecting the minimum-cost closed-loop route. Experiments on the UAV-VLPA-nano-30 benchmark report a total flight distance of 62.43 km, a 21.6% reduction versus the unoptimized VLA baseline (79.66 km) and a 9.5% reduction versus manual human planning (69.00 km). The complete 30-task workflow takes 575.40 s, about 3.6 times faster than human expert planning. The paper also reports component-level timing and a scalability analysis indicating that the TSP solver's computation time grows more slowly than the VLM's as the number of targets increases.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are validated, the decoupled architecture is a practically interesting and lightweight contribution: it shows that a small metaheuristic TSP solver can repair the poor visiting orders produced by a zero-shot VLM, without retraining or fine-tuning. The pipeline is transparent and the components are standard, making the framework easy to reproduce. The paper also provides a useful decomposition of where latency actually resides (VLM inference dominates by two orders of magnitude). However, the central route-quality claims are not yet falsifiably supported because the paper does not establish that all compared planners used identical target waypoint sets, and the reported totals are best-of-four selections from single stochastic runs. These gaps are load-bearing for the headline conclusions, so the contribution is currently conditional.

major comments (3)

[Section III.A, Table I] The headline route-length comparisons require that all compared planners visit exactly the same set of target waypoints, but the paper never establishes this. Section III.A defines the benchmark as requiring target-point extraction plus closed-loop trajectory planning, and Table I reports only route distances; there is no per-task count of detected waypoints, no detection precision or recall, and no explicit statement that ARIES-Mission2, ARIES-Mission2 w/o MAs, and HumanPlan all planned over identical target sets. The only detection evidence is the qualitative claim in Section III.B referencing Fig. 6. Because removing waypoints from a closed metric tour cannot increase the optimal tour length, the reported 21.6% and 9.5% reductions could be artifacts of visiting fewer or different points rather than of better routing. Please report per-task waypoint counts and detection metrics, and either enforce or explicitly verify identical target sets across all planners.
[Section II.F, Eq. (16), Table I] The total distance of 62.43 km is the sum of the per-task minimum over the four candidate routes (Raw, PSO, GPSO, IPSO), i.e., a best-of-four selection. Since PSO, GPSO, and IPSO are stochastic optimizers and the paper reports a single run with no variance information, this headline number is an apparent minimum selection and may be an optimistic realization; the internal consistency of the numbers does not establish statistical robustness. The hyper-parameters (Pop=30, Iter_max=150) are fixed without sensitivity analysis. Please report multiple independent runs (e.g., 10–30 seeds) with means and standard deviations, and ideally compare against an exact TSP solver or a bound to quantify the optimality gap, as well as against the original UAV-VLA system (reference [17]).
[Section III.B, Table II] The HumanPlan baseline is under-specified. The paper does not state how many human experts participated, what interface or instructions they were given, whether they used the same satellite imagery and target definitions as the automated pipeline, or whether the 2100 s in Table II represents a single expert's time for all 30 tasks. Without this protocol information, the claims of 9.5% shorter distance and 3.6 times faster than human expert planning are not robust. Please specify the planning protocol, number of experts, and how target sets were fixed for the human planners.

minor comments (5)

[Section II.E, Eq. (12)] The Tent chaotic map formula is ambiguous: the '+ U(-0.001,0.001)' term appears to apply to only the second branch, and the initialization of X_{0,j} is not defined. Please clarify.
[Section II.E, Eq. (15)] The position variable X_i^{(t+1)} is used on both sides of the update, which is an overloading of notation; consider using a temporary variable for the intermediate position.
[Figure 10 and surrounding text] The text says the minimum target count of 4 is used as a baseline, but the horizontal axis starts at 6 targets; the figure also lacks error bars and a description of how the computation ratio was averaged. Please clarify.
[Table I] The table is formatted in a run-on manner in the text; please reformat with clear per-task rows and columns, and add a column for target counts if available.
[Section I] The phrase 'breakthrough flight efficiency' in the contribution list is promotional; consider a more neutral formulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: external benchmark, measured distances, and explicit min-selection rule.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The front-end converts natural-language instructions and satellite imagery into GPS waypoints through externally specified deep models (DeepSeek-V3, Molmo-7B) and a deterministic geospatial interpolation (Eqs. 1-3), with no parameter fitted to the reported distances. Route cost is the standard Haversine closed-tour objective (Eqs. 4-6), and the PSO, GPSO, and IPSO update rules are stated explicitly (Eqs. 7-15). Equation (16) selects the minimum-cost route among the raw VLM order and the three optimizer outputs; this makes the final route distance no greater than the raw order by construction, but the paper states this selection mechanism openly rather than presenting it as an empirical discovery, and the numerically reported totals (62.43 km vs 79.66 km vs 69.00 km), timings, and scalability ratios are measured on the external UA V-VLPA-nano-30 benchmark. The comparison against HumanPlan is not forced by any equation in the paper. The heavy self-citation is not load-bearing: the benchmark (Ref. [17]), the textbook TSP formulation, and PSO (Ref. [14]) are independent bases, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The absence of detection precision/recall is an evidence-quality and correctness-risk concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The performance claim rests on benchmark comparability and hand-chosen metaheuristic hyperparameters rather than on a derived theory; none of the assumptions are validated with error bars, detection metrics, or exact-solver baselines.

free parameters (6)

Population size (Pop) = 30
Empirically chosen balance of swarm diversity and runtime (Section III).
Max iterations (Iter_max) = 150
Empirically chosen to achieve sub-second convergence (Section III).
PSO learning factors c1, c2 = 2.0, 2.0
Standard PSO values, but they shape the search trajectory (Eq 7).
Inertia weight bounds w_max, w_min = 0.9, 0.4
Set for GPSO's linear decay (Eq 9).
Levy flight beta = unspecified (Mantegna algorithm default implied)
Controls jump size distribution in IPSO (Eq 13); not reported.
Levy mutation mask probability = 25%
Chosen to protect converged structures in IPSO (Eq 15).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Haversine distance with Earth radius 6371.0 km is the true flight cost between GPS waypoints.
Eq (5); ignores obstacles, terrain, wind, and no-fly zones. The benchmark cost is defined this way.
domain assumption Linear pixel-to-GPS interpolation using image metadata is accurate enough for mission generation.
Eq (3) in Section II.A; no georeferencing error is reported.
domain assumption All compared methods visit the same set of target waypoints in each task.
Section III.A; the paper gives no detection recall, precision, or waypoint counts per method, so route lengths may not be comparable.
domain assumption The UAV-VLPA-nano-30 benchmark and its human-plan baselines are representative and correctly transcribed.
Section III.A; the human expert protocol (number of experts, instructions, time) is not described.
standard math Random-key encoding with ascending-order decoding is a valid representation for PSO on TSP.
Section II.B; this is a standard, valid continuous encoding for permutation problems.
domain assumption PSO/GPSO/IPSO with 150 iterations and 30 particles finds near-optimal TSP tours.
No optimality gap analysis against an exact solver is provided; the claim is empirical.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ARIES-Mission2: A Zero-Shot Vision-Language-Action Framework for Fast Large-Scale Aerial Mission Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EG4UIJWQ

@misc{pith2026260812763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ARIES-Mission2: A Zero-Shot Vision-Language-Action Framework for Fast Large-Scale Aerial Mission Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EG4UIJWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12763}
}

read the original abstract

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown strong semantic understanding capabilities, but their direct use in low-altitude Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) mission generation remains limited by weak spatial optimization and inefficient route planning. To address this issue, we propose ARIES-Mission2, a zero-shot Vision-Language-Action (VLA) framework that decouples visual-semantic perception from physical route optimization. Given natural-language instructions and satellite imagery, ARIES-Mission2 first uses DeepSeek-V3 for task parsing and Molmo-7B for zero-shot target grounding, and then converts detected pixel locations into GPS waypoints through geospatial interpolation. To reduce the redundant backtracking caused by raw VLM-generated visiting orders, the back end formulates multi-target UAV traversal as a Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP) and compares four candidate routes, including the raw VLM order and the routes optimized by PSO, GPSO, and IPSO. The minimum-cost closed-loop route is then selected for mission generation. Experiments on the UAV-VLPA-nano-30 benchmark show that ARIES-Mission2 achieves a total flight distance of 62.43 km, reducing the route length by 21.6% compared with the unoptimized VLA baseline (79.66 km) and by 9.5% compared with manual human planning (69.00 km). The complete 30-task workflow takes 575.40 s, averaging 19.18 s per task, which is approximately 3.6 times faster than human expert planning. Component-level timing shows that VLM inference dominates the runtime with 19.02 s per task, while the TSP solver requires only 0.16 s per task. Scalability analysis further indicates that the TSP module maintains lower growth in computation time as the number of targets increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12763 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Internal workflow of the TSP solver. Given the UAV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** One of the flight trajectories manually planned by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Task examples of high-resolution satellite imagery from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Quantitative comparison of trajectory lengths across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Target detection and spatial anchoring results for Task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The chaotic and redundant flight trajectory generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Optimized flight trajectories for Task 6 generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparative convergence curves of the metaheuristic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Computational scalability analysis showing the com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[17]

UA V-VLA: Vision-language- action system for large scale aerial mission generation[C]//2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

Sautenkov O, Yaqoot Y , Lykov A, et al. UA V-VLA: Vision-language- action system for large scale aerial mission generation[C]//2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2025: 1588-1592

work page 2025
[1]

Typefly: Flying drones with large language model[J]

Chen G, Yu X, Ling N, et al. Typefly: Flying drones with large language model[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14950, 2023

arXiv 2023
[2]

Zhang W, Gao C, Yu S, et al. Citynavagent: Aerial vision-and- language navigation with hierarchical semantic planning and global memory[C]//Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers). 2025: 31292- 31309

work page 2025
[3]

MM-UA VBench: How Well Do Multimodal Large Language Models See, Think, and Plan in Low-Altitude UA V Scenarios?[J]

Dai S, Ma Z, Luo Z, et al. MM-UA VBench: How Well Do Multimodal Large Language Models See, Think, and Plan in Low-Altitude UA V Scenarios?[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23219, 2025

arXiv 2025
[4]

Landscape-Aware Bandit Hyper-Heuristics for Online Operator Selection in UA V Inspection Routing[J]

Wei J, Li Y , Zhao Y , et al. Landscape-Aware Bandit Hyper-Heuristics for Online Operator Selection in UA V Inspection Routing[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.14620, 2026

arXiv 2026
[5]

PLoS One 20(9)

Gu Y , Wei J, Li Z, Lu B, Pan S, Cheong N (2025) GWOA: A multi- strategy enhanced whale optimization algorithm for engineering design optimization. PLoS One 20(9)

work page 2025
[6]

An Enhanced Whale Optimization Algo- rithm with Log-Normal Distribution for Optimizing Coverage ofWireless Sensor Networks[C]//AIIPCC 2025; AIIPCC 2025

Wei J, Gu Y , Zhang R, et al. An Enhanced Whale Optimization Algo- rithm with Log-Normal Distribution for Optimizing Coverage ofWireless Sensor Networks[C]//AIIPCC 2025; AIIPCC 2025. VDE, 2025: 138- 147

work page 2025
[7]

WASHH: An Anchor-Aware Whale-Guided Selection Hyper-Heuristic for Continuous Optimization and SVC Configuration

Zhao Y , Zou X, Wei J, et al. W ASHH: An Anchor-Aware Whale- Guided Selection Hyper-Heuristic for Continuous Optimization and SVC Configuration[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28844, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

Show all 26 references

[8]

Low-Cost Labels, Reliable Choices: Rollout- Calibrated Hyper-Heuristics for Job Shop Scheduling[J]

Wei J, Li Y , Zhao Y , et al. Low-Cost Labels, Reliable Choices: Rollout- Calibrated Hyper-Heuristics for Job Shop Scheduling[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23957, 2026

2026 arXiv
[9]

Wei J, Gu Y , Law K L E, et al. Adaptive position updating particle swarm optimization for UA V path planning[C]//2024 22nd International Symposium on Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks (WiOpt). IEEE, 2024: 124-131

2024
[10]

LSEWOA: an enhanced whale optimization algorithm with multi-strategy for numerical and engineering design optimization problems[J]

Wei J, Gu Y , Yan Y , et al. LSEWOA: an enhanced whale optimization algorithm with multi-strategy for numerical and engineering design optimization problems[J]. Sensors, 2025, 25(7): 2054

2025
[11]

MRBMO: An Enhanced Red-Billed Blue Magpie Optimization Algorithm for Solving Numerical Optimization Challenges[J]

Lu B, Xie Z, Wei J, et al. MRBMO: An Enhanced Red-Billed Blue Magpie Optimization Algorithm for Solving Numerical Optimization Challenges[J]. Symmetry, 2025, 17(8): 1295

2025
[12]

A Geometric Whale Optimization Algorithm with Triangular Flight for Numerical Optimization and En- gineering Design[J]

Wei J, Zhang R, Gu Y , et al. A Geometric Whale Optimization Algorithm with Triangular Flight for Numerical Optimization and En- gineering Design[J]. Scientific Reports, 2026

2026
[13]

DHCRWOA: adaptive whale optimization algorithm with Cauchy-Rayleigh distribution for numerical and engi- neering design optimization[J]

Li Y , Wei J, Zhao Y , et al. DHCRWOA: adaptive whale optimization algorithm with Cauchy-Rayleigh distribution for numerical and engi- neering design optimization[J]. Scientific Reports, 2026

2026
[14]

Particle swarm optimization[C]//Proceedings of ICNN’95-international conference on neural networks

Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization[C]//Proceedings of ICNN’95-international conference on neural networks. ieee, 1995, 4: 1942-1948

1995
[15]

(2025) LSWOA: An enhanced whale optimization algorithm with Levy flight and Spiral flight for numerical and engineering design optimization problems

Wei J, Gu Y , Xie Z, Yan Y , Lu B, Li Z, Cheong N, et al. (2025) LSWOA: An enhanced whale optimization algorithm with Levy flight and Spiral flight for numerical and engineering design optimization problems. PLoS One 20(9): e0322058

2025
[16]

Li Z, Zhu W, Zhang R, et al. ASKSSA-CNN-BiLSTM: A Novel Time Series Forecasting Model for Stock Price Prediction Based on An Enhanced Sparrow Search Algorithm[C]//2026 2026 6th Asia Confer- ence on Information Engineering (ACIE) ACIE. Nanyang Technological University, Singapor...

2026
[18]

GeoSSA: Geometric Sparrow Search Algo- rithm for UA V Path Planning and Engineering Design Optimization[J]

Wei J, Zhu W, Xu Q, et al. GeoSSA: Geometric Sparrow Search Algo- rithm for UA V Path Planning and Engineering Design Optimization[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.19346, 2026

2026
[19]

Application of ant colony optimization algorithm based on triangle inequality principle and partition method strategy in robot path planning[J]

Wu S, Li Q, Wei W. Application of ant colony optimization algorithm based on triangle inequality principle and partition method strategy in robot path planning[J]. Axioms, 2023, 12(6): 525

2023
[20]

CICDWOA: A Collective Cognitive Sharing Whale Optimization Algorithm with Cauchy Inverse Cumu- lative Distribution for 2D/3D Path Planning and Engineering Design Problems[J]

Wei J, Li Y , Mirjalili S, et al. CICDWOA: A Collective Cognitive Sharing Whale Optimization Algorithm with Cauchy Inverse Cumu- lative Distribution for 2D/3D Path Planning and Engineering Design Problems[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20501, 2026

2026
[21]

Navrl: Learning safe flight in dynamic environments[J]

Xu Z, Han X, Shen H, et al. Navrl: Learning safe flight in dynamic environments[J]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

2025
[22]

KIO-planner: Attention-Guided Single-Stage Motion Planning with Dual Mapping for UA V Navigation[J]

Yao D, Li H, Wei J, et al. KIO-planner: Attention-Guided Single-Stage Motion Planning with Dual Mapping for UA V Navigation[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.19703, 2026

2026 arXiv
[23]

Ego-planner: An esdf-free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors[J]

Zhou X, Wang Z, Ye H, et al. Ego-planner: An esdf-free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors[J]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2020, 6(2): 478-485

2020
[24]

SAGA: A Robust Self-Attention and Goal- Aware Anchor-based Planner for Safe UA V Autonomous Navigation[J]

Wei J, Li Y , Yao D, et al. SAGA: A Robust Self-Attention and Goal- Aware Anchor-based Planner for Safe UA V Autonomous Navigation[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02301, 2026

2026 arXiv
[25]

You only plan once: A learning-based one- stage planner with guidance learning[J]

Lu J, Zhang X, Shen H, et al. You only plan once: A learning-based one- stage planner with guidance learning[J]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024, 9(7): 6083-6090

2024
[26]

Research on UA V Applications in Public Administration: Based on an Improved RRT Algorithm[J]

Xie Z, Lu B, Gu Y , et al. Research on UA V Applications in Public Administration: Based on an Improved RRT Algorithm[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14096, 2025

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [17]

UA V-VLA: Vision-language- action system for large scale aerial mission generation[C]//2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI)

Sautenkov O, Yaqoot Y , Lykov A, et al. UA V-VLA: Vision-language- action system for large scale aerial mission generation[C]//2025 20th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2025: 1588-1592

work page 2025

[2] [1]

Typefly: Flying drones with large language model[J]

Chen G, Yu X, Ling N, et al. Typefly: Flying drones with large language model[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14950, 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [2]

Zhang W, Gao C, Yu S, et al. Citynavagent: Aerial vision-and- language navigation with hierarchical semantic planning and global memory[C]//Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers). 2025: 31292- 31309

work page 2025

[4] [3]

MM-UA VBench: How Well Do Multimodal Large Language Models See, Think, and Plan in Low-Altitude UA V Scenarios?[J]

Dai S, Ma Z, Luo Z, et al. MM-UA VBench: How Well Do Multimodal Large Language Models See, Think, and Plan in Low-Altitude UA V Scenarios?[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23219, 2025

arXiv 2025

[5] [4]

Landscape-Aware Bandit Hyper-Heuristics for Online Operator Selection in UA V Inspection Routing[J]

Wei J, Li Y , Zhao Y , et al. Landscape-Aware Bandit Hyper-Heuristics for Online Operator Selection in UA V Inspection Routing[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.14620, 2026

arXiv 2026

[6] [5]

PLoS One 20(9)

Gu Y , Wei J, Li Z, Lu B, Pan S, Cheong N (2025) GWOA: A multi- strategy enhanced whale optimization algorithm for engineering design optimization. PLoS One 20(9)

work page 2025

[7] [6]

An Enhanced Whale Optimization Algo- rithm with Log-Normal Distribution for Optimizing Coverage ofWireless Sensor Networks[C]//AIIPCC 2025; AIIPCC 2025

Wei J, Gu Y , Zhang R, et al. An Enhanced Whale Optimization Algo- rithm with Log-Normal Distribution for Optimizing Coverage ofWireless Sensor Networks[C]//AIIPCC 2025; AIIPCC 2025. VDE, 2025: 138- 147

work page 2025

[8] [7]

WASHH: An Anchor-Aware Whale-Guided Selection Hyper-Heuristic for Continuous Optimization and SVC Configuration

Zhao Y , Zou X, Wei J, et al. W ASHH: An Anchor-Aware Whale- Guided Selection Hyper-Heuristic for Continuous Optimization and SVC Configuration[J]. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28844, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026