Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Robust UAV Path Planning with Obstacle Avoidance for Emergency Rescue

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid potential-field and simulated-annealing planner claims shorter collision-free 3D paths than APF, RRT, and RRT*.

desk verdict Plausible APF-SA hybrid, but the unreachable-target fix has a sign error and the claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09338 v1 pith:IUIICUOR submitted 2025-01-16 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Junteng Mao , Ziye Jia , Hanzhi Gu , Chenyu Shi , Haomin Shi , Lijun He , Qihui Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords UAVpathplanningartificialpotentialfieldsimulatedannealingobstacleavoidance3Denvironmentforestfirefightingno-flyzoneslocalminimumescape
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

APF-SA (artificial potential field with simulated annealing) is a UAV path planner for 3D emergency-rescue flights. The paper tries to show that the two classic failure modes of the artificial potential field—a navigation method in which the target attracts the UAV and obstacles repel it—namely getting trapped in a local minimum and failing to reach a target near an obstacle, can be cured by reshaping the attractive and repulsive forces and by adding a simulated-annealing escape step, a probabilistic search that accepts occasionally worse moves while temperature cools. The paper claims the planner finds shorter collision-free paths than classical APF, RRT, and RRT* in a forest-fire scenario built from cylindrical, spherical, and moving obstacles, with the same algorithm serving for static and dynamic obstacles. The practical payoff is a rescue UAV that can autonomously reach a fire destination under an energy budget; the paper's stronger claim is that the annealing step lets the path converge toward a globally optimal solution.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a modified artificial potential field. An artificial potential field treats the UAV as a particle attracted by the target and repelled by obstacles; APF-SA changes the attractive force $F_{\mathrm{att}}(X_u) = -\eta[\rho(X_u,X_g)+e^{-(\rho(X_u,X_g)-\varepsilon\Delta s)}]$ and the repulsive field $U_{\mathrm{rep}}(X_u) = \frac{1}{2}\beta(\frac{1}{\rho(X_u,X_{oi})}-\frac{1}{\rho_0})^2 \rho(X_u,X_g)^\mu$. The first change makes the falloff near the goal reverse, so the target keeps pulling the UAV; the second scales repulsion down to zero at the goal, making the goal the global minimum of the potential landscape. When the resultant force $F_s = F_{\mathrm{att}} + F_{\mathrm{rep}}$ is zero, a simulated-annealing loop with temperature update $T(t)=\alpha T(t-1)$ and Metropolis acceptance inserts a random point to break the stalemate. These pieces carry the argument that the UAV can escape local minima and reach the target on a shorter path.

What would settle it

Run APF-SA in the paper's 200 m × 200 m × 20 m scenario with a single sphere obstacle moving perpendicular to the start–goal line at speeds from 1 m/s to 10 m/s, with step sizes $\Delta s$ in the paper's range; record whether a collision occurs when the obstacle crosses the UAV's path between two position updates. If the collision rate rises with obstacle speed, the instantaneous-distance check in Eq. (4) plus the SA random point is insufficient; if it stays at zero, the dynamic-obstacle claim holds for those speeds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that APF-SA removes the two standard failures of classical APF in 3D obstacle fields. The attractive force is modified to grow near the goal (Eq. 14), and the repulsive field is multiplied by a positive power of the distance from the UAV to the target (Eq. 15), so the target becomes the lowest-potential point even when an obstacle sits next to it. When the attractive and repulsive forces cancel exactly, the algorithm generates a random reachable point and accepts or rejects it with the Metropolis criterion, breaking the zero-force equilibrium. In the paper's simulations in a 200 m × 200 m × 20 m space, traditional APF oscillates or stalls while APF-SA reaches the target, and over 100 runs APF-SA's optimal and average path lengths are shorter than those of APF, RRT, and RRT*, with only the worst-case path slightly longer than RRT*. The paper concludes that the method is suitable for static and dynamic obstacle environments in forest firefighting.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamic-obstacle claim rests on the assumption that checking only the UAV's current position against fixed-radius cylinder/sphere obstacles at each step is enough to avoid moving obstacles, since the paper models no obstacle velocity or acceleration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • APF-SA's optimal and average path lengths are shorter than those of APF, RRT, and RRT* over 100 runs in the paper's 3D forest scenario.
  • The modified potential functions make the target the lowest-potential point even when an obstacle is near it, eliminating the unreachable-target failure.
  • The simulated-annealing insertion breaks zero-force local-minimum states that stop classical APF.
  • The same APF-SA planner is reported to handle static and dynamic obstacles without switching modes.
  • Shorter reported paths translate to lower energy use under the paper's linear energy-per-unit-length model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the global-optimality claim is not proven analytically; a fair test would compare APF-SA's path-length distribution against RRT* over many random obstacle layouts and annealing schedules.
  • Editorial inference: because Eq. (4) checks only instantaneous distance with no obstacle velocity, a stronger dynamic-obstacle version would add time-to-collision or velocity obstacles to bound the needed look-ahead.
  • Editorial inference: the energy constraint in Eq. (5) is not part of the minimization objective, so a direct extension is to minimize a weighted sum of path length and energy use rather than length alone.
  • Editorial inference: the cylinder/sphere geometry suits forest no-fly zones; urban rescue would need signed-distance fields or convex-shape distance functions, but the APF-SA structure would carry over.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript addresses 3D UAV path planning in a forest-firefighting scenario with static cylindrical obstacles, static spherical no-fly zones, and moving spherical obstacles. The authors propose APF-SA, which modifies the attractive potential by adding an exponential term, modifies the repulsive potential by multiplying with a target-distance factor, and invokes simulated annealing to escape local minima. The paper reports simulation comparisons against APF, RRT, and RRT* and claims shorter paths, solution of the unreachable-target problem, and robustness in dynamic environments.

Significance. If the central claims held, the paper would offer a useful incremental improvement to potential-field path planning for UAVs: the problem formulation is clear, the algorithm is described in pseudocode, and comparisons against standard baselines are attempted. The main value is conditional, however, because several displayed equations contain sign, unit, and vector-form errors, no numerical results or parameter values are reported, and the claims of global optimality and dynamic-obstacle handling go beyond the presented evidence. With corrected equations, a quantitative evaluation, and a reproducible parameter set, the method could be a reasonable engineering contribution, but the current manuscript does not substantiate its central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [III-B, Eq. (18)] The sign of Frepg2 is inconsistent with the force law derived from Eq. (15). Because grad rho(Xu,Xg) = (Xu - Xg)/rho(Xu,Xg) points from the target point to the UAV, the negative gradient of the target-distance factor gives Frepg2 = -(mu/2) beta (1/rho(Xu,Xoi) - 1/rho0)^2 rho(Xu,Xg)^(mu-1) grad rho(Xu,Xg), which points from the UAV toward the target point. Eq. (18) prints a plus sign, so as written Frepg2 points away from the target. This contradicts the sentence in Section III-B stating that Frepg2 'points toward the target point' and reverses the mechanism claimed to solve the unreachable-target problem in Figs. 6 and 7. The authors must correct the sign and state explicitly which force law was implemented in the simulations.
  2. [III-B, Eq. (14)] Eq. (14) is not a valid force expression. It adds a distance rho(Xu,Xg), which has units of meters, to the dimensionless quantity exp(-(rho(Xu,Xg) - epsilon Delta s)), and the right-hand side is a scalar, not a vector, so it cannot be combined with the vector Frep in Eq. (10). Because Fatt drives the UAV toward the target in every simulation, this dimensional and vector inconsistency affects the validity of all reported trajectories. Please rewrite Eq. (14) as a vector equation with consistent units, for example Fatt(Xu) = -eta [rho(Xu,Xg) + exp(-(rho(Xu,Xg) - epsilon Delta s))] (Xu - Xg)/rho(Xu,Xg), and define the units of epsilon and Delta s.
  3. [Section IV] The central performance claims are not backed by numerical evidence. The text states that each algorithm was run 100 times and that APF-SA has the shortest optimal and average path, with its worst path slightly longer than that of RRT*, but no table of path lengths, runtimes, variances, or success rates is provided, and no parameter values (eta, beta, rho0, epsilon, mu, alpha, T0, Delta s, Delta l) are reported. Without these data, the comparisons in Fig. 8 are not reproducible and the claimed advantage over APF, RRT, and RRT* cannot be assessed. Please add a quantitative results table and the full parameter set used in the simulations.
  4. [Section II-A and Section IV] The dynamic-obstacle claim is not established by the model. Eq. (1) updates the UAV position with a fixed step under the current resultant force, and Eq. (4) checks collision only at the instantaneous position against static obstacle radii; the moving spheres described in Section II-A are given no velocity or acceleration model, and no prediction or replanning over time is specified. Moreover, because collision is checked only at sampled points, the path segment between consecutive waypoints could intersect an obstacle without being detected. Please provide an explicit dynamic obstacle model, a collision test for path segments, or revise the claims about dynamic environments and Fig. 7.
  5. [Abstract and Section III-C] The claim that APF-SA 'converge[s] to globally optimal solutions' is unsupported. Algorithm 1 uses a random nearby point and the Metropolis acceptance rule in Eq. (19), but no convergence proof, cooling-schedule analysis, or argument that the random perturbations can reach all relevant configurations is given; simulated annealing is a stochastic heuristic and does not guarantee global optimality in finite time. Please replace or qualify this claim, and define E(t_n) and E(t_0) in Eq. (19) in terms of the potential field.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-A, Eq. (1)] The variable gamma_x is described as an angle, but it is used as a displacement component in the update x' = x + Delta s * gamma_x; it should be defined as a component of the unit direction vector.
  2. [Section II-A, Eq. (3)] The notation (Xu - Xoi)^2 is ambiguous for vectors; the squared Euclidean norm ||Xu - Xoi||^2 should be used.
  3. [Section II-C, Eq. (7)] The symbol S in the constraint S is an element of P is not defined; it should be specified as the sequence of waypoints or the continuous path.
  4. [Section IV and Fig. 8] The performance comparison figure needs readable axis labels, units, and error bars or standard deviations so that the claim of comparing 100 runs can be assessed.
  5. [Section IV] The text states that APF-SA shows advantages in time complexity, but no runtime measurements or complexity analysis are provided; please either add this evidence or remove the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: APF-SA is benchmarked against external baselines and its modifications are presented as explicit algorithm changes, not as fits of the outcome.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any prediction from fitted constants or define its key quantities in terms of the outcome it claims to produce. APF-SA is a constructive algorithm: Eqs. (14)-(18) modify the standard attractive and repulsive potentials of Eqs. (11)-(13) in the manner stated, and the simulated-annealing escape in Algorithm 1 with Eqs. (19)-(20) is a standard Metropolis-acceptance loop. The central performance claim is checked against external baselines (traditional APF, RRT, RRT*) over 100 runs in Figs. 5-8, so it is externally falsifiable rather than equivalent to an input. The author self-citations ([1]-[3], [12], [13]) support contextual or auxiliary statements such as UAV applications, grid-refinement tradeoffs, and energy constraints; none is load-bearing for the proposed force law or for the claimed empirical superiority. The lack of reported gain/step coefficients is a reproducibility or tuning concern, and the sign in Eq. (18) appears inconsistent with the text's statement that Frepg2 points toward the target, but these are correctness risks, not circular reasoning. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm's behavior is controlled by at least nine coefficients whose values are not reported, so the simulations are not reproducible and the reported paths could reflect hand tuning rather than intrinsic robustness. The global-optimality claim rests on an unproved SA assumption, and the energy constraint defined in Section II-B is silently omitted from the solved problem.

free parameters (9)
  • eta (attractive force gain)
    Controls the strength of the pull toward the target in Eqs. (11)-(14); its value is never specified, yet it strongly affects path shape and target reachability.
  • beta (repulsion gain)
    Controls the strength of obstacle repulsion in Eqs. (13), (15), (17), and (18); value not reported.
  • rho0 (repulsion influence radius)
    Sets the maximum distance at which obstacles exert repulsion; value not reported.
  • epsilon (step size impact factor)
    Appears in the modified attractive force Eq. (14) as part of the exponential term; value not reported.
  • mu (repulsion distance exponent)
    Positive real number in Eq. (15) controlling how quickly repulsion vanishes near the target; described only as 'positive real number', no value given.
  • alpha (SA cooling factor)
    Temperature decay factor in Eq. (20), said to be in (0.85, 1); exact value not reported.
  • T0 (initial SA temperature)
    Initial temperature for the simulated annealing schedule; never specified.
  • Delta s (UAV step size)
    Basic motion unit in Eq. (1) and in the path-length objective; no value given.
  • Delta l (grid cell side length)
    Resolution of the 3D grid in Eq. (2); the paper discusses its trade-offs but never states the value used in simulations.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Total potential is the sum of attractive and repulsive potentials, with forces as negative gradients (Eqs. 9-13).
    Standard APF model from [14], invoked in Section III-A.
  • domain assumption Obstacles are represented as cylinders and spheres with known radii, and the UAV is a point particle; collision is a binary distance check (Eq. 4).
    Section II-A; no sensor noise, irregular obstacle shapes, UAV dimensions, or dynamics are modeled.
  • domain assumption A fixed step size Delta s with position update Eq. (1) adequately represents continuous UAV motion.
    Section II-A; ignores velocity, acceleration, turning constraints, and time-optimality of the resulting path.
  • ad hoc to paper Randomly generated nearby points plus Metropolis acceptance (Eq. 19) are sufficient to escape local minima and reach a globally optimal solution.
    Section III-C and Algorithm 1; this is the load-bearing, unproved premise behind the global-optimality claim.
  • domain assumption The energy constraint in Eq. (5) can be dropped from the optimization problem (6)-(8).
    The constraint is defined in Section II-B but never appears in the solved optimization problem, the algorithm, or the simulation evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust UAV Path Planning with Obstacle Avoidance for Emergency Rescue." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUIICUOR

@misc{pith2026250109338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust UAV Path Planning with Obstacle Avoidance for Emergency Rescue},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUIICUOR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09338}
}
read the original abstract

The unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are efficient tools for diverse tasks such as electronic reconnaissance, agricultural operations and disaster relief. In the complex three-dimensional (3D) environments, the path planning with obstacle avoidance for UAVs is a significant issue for security assurance. In this paper, we construct a comprehensive 3D scenario with obstacles and no-fly zones for dynamic UAV trajectory. Moreover, a novel artificial potential field algorithm coupled with simulated annealing (APF-SA) is proposed to tackle the robust path planning problem. APF-SA modifies the attractive and repulsive potential functions and leverages simulated annealing to escape local minimum and converge to globally optimal solutions. Simulation results demonstrate that the effectiveness of APF-SA, enabling efficient autonomous path planning for UAVs with obstacle avoidance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09338 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Obstacle avoidance trajectory scenario for UAV in 3D environment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. APF principle. motion of the UAV is constrained by the gravitational and repulsive forces, the resultant force can be expressed as: Fs(Xu) = Fatt (Xu) + Frep (Xu), (10) where Fatt (Xu) denotes the gravitational force, directed by the UAV towards the target point, so that the UAV can approach the target. Frep (Xu) represents the repulsive force, and the direction is the reverse direction of the connection between the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of attractive force function original v.s. modified. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of local minimum with different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance of unreachable target with different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance in complex space. (a) Path comparison map. (b) Performance comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparisons of multiple algorithms. V. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we investigated the autonomous path planning of UAV based on obstacle avoidance function in 3D space for emergency rescue in forest scenarios. We employed cylindrical and spherical obstacles to respectiv…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Joint trajectory planning and communication design for multiple UA Vs in intelligent collaborative air–ground communication systems,

    Z. Lu, Z. Jia, Q. Wu, and Z. Han, “Joint trajectory planning and communication design for multiple UA Vs in intelligent collaborative air–ground communication systems,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 11, no. 19, pp. 31 053–31 067, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Three-dimension collision-free trajectory planning of UA Vs based on ADS-B information in low-altitude urban airspace,

    C. DONG, Y . ZHANG, Z. JIA, Y . LIAO, L. ZHANG, and Q. WU, “Three-dimension collision-free trajectory planning of UA Vs based on ADS-B information in low-altitude urban airspace,” Chin. J. Aeronaut. , Apr. 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Cooperative cognitive dynamic system in UA V swarms: Reconfigurable mechanism and framework,

    Z. Jia, J. You, C. Dong, Q. Wu, F. Zhou, D. Niyato, and Z. Han, “Cooperative cognitive dynamic system in UA V swarms: Reconfigurable mechanism and framework,” IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 90–101, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    TargetTree-RRT*: Continuous-Curvature Path Planning Algorithm for Autonomous Parking in Complex Environ- ments,

    M. Kim, J. Ahn, and J. Park, “TargetTree-RRT*: Continuous-Curvature Path Planning Algorithm for Autonomous Parking in Complex Environ- ments,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 606–617, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Two-level vehicle path planning model for multi-warehouse robots with conflict solution strategies and improved ACO,

    P. Wu, L. Zhong, J. Xiong, Y . Zeng, and M. Pei, “Two-level vehicle path planning model for multi-warehouse robots with conflict solution strategies and improved ACO,” J. Intell. Connected Veh. , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 102–112, Jun. 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Path planning for indoor UA V based on Ant Colony Optimization,

    Y . He, Q. Zeng, J. Liu, G. Xu, and X. Deng, “Path planning for indoor UA V based on Ant Colony Optimization,” in 2013 25th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Guiyang, China , 2013, pp. 2919– 2923

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    A Method of UA V Navigation Planning Based on ROS and Improved A-star Algorithm,

    J. Li, X. Xiong, and Y . Yang, “A Method of UA V Navigation Planning Based on ROS and Improved A-star Algorithm,” in2023 CAA Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes (SAFEPROCESS), Yibin, China, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Distributed Motion Planning for Safe Autonomous Vehicle Overtaking via Artificial Potential Field,

    S. Xie, J. Hu, P. Bhowmick, Z. Ding, and F. Arvin, “Distributed Motion Planning for Safe Autonomous Vehicle Overtaking via Artificial Potential Field,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 21 531– 21 547, Nov. 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    Overtaking Path Planning for CA V Based on Improved Artificial Potential Field,

    Q. Ma, M. Li, G. Huang, and S. Ullah, “Overtaking Path Planning for CA V Based on Improved Artificial Potential Field,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 1611–1622, Feb. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    UA V trajectory planning based on APF-RRT* algorithm with goal-biased strategy,

    X. Chen and J. Fan, “UA V trajectory planning based on APF-RRT* algorithm with goal-biased strategy,” in 2022 34th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC) , 2022, pp. 3253–3258

    2022

  3. [11]

    An Improved Artificial Potential Field Method for Path Planning and Formation Control of the Multi-UA V Systems,

    Z. Pan, C. Zhang, Y . Xia, H. Xiong, and X. Shao, “An Improved Artificial Potential Field Method for Path Planning and Formation Control of the Multi-UA V Systems,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Express Briefs Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs , vol. 69, ...

    2022

  4. [12]

    UA V Swarm Deployment and Trajectory for 3D Area Coverage via Reinforcement Learning,

    J. He, Z. Jia, C. Dong, J. Liu, Q. Wu, and J. Liu, “UA V Swarm Deployment and Trajectory for 3D Area Coverage via Reinforcement Learning,” in 2023 International Conference on Wireless Communica- tions and Signal Processing (WCSP) , 2023, pp. 683–688

    2023

  5. [13]

    LEO-Satellite-Assisted UA V: Joint Trajectory and Data Collection for Internet of Remote Things in 6G Aerial Access Networks,

    Z. Jia, M. Sheng, J. Li, D. Niyato, and Z. Han, “LEO-Satellite-Assisted UA V: Joint Trajectory and Data Collection for Internet of Remote Things in 6G Aerial Access Networks,” IEEE Internet Things J , vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 9814–9826, Jun 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Path Optimization and Obstacle Avoidance using Gradient Method with Potential Fields for Mobile Robot,

    V . Dubey, B. Patel, and S. Barde, “Path Optimization and Obstacle Avoidance using Gradient Method with Potential Fields for Mobile Robot,” in 2023 International Conference on Sustainable Computing and Smart Systems (ICSCSS), Coimbatore, India , 2023, pp. 1358–1364

    2023

  7. [15]

    Obstacle Avoidance for Mi- crorobots in Simulated Vascular Environment Based on Combined Path Planning,

    Q. Fan, G. Cui, Z. Zhao, and J. Shen, “Obstacle Avoidance for Mi- crorobots in Simulated Vascular Environment Based on Combined Path Planning,” IEEE Rob. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9794–9801, Oct. 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Shared Control in Robot Teleoperation With Improved Potential Fields,

    A. Gottardi, S. Tortora, E. Tosello, and E. Menegatti, “Shared Control in Robot Teleoperation With Improved Potential Fields,” IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 410–422, Jun. 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Simulated Annealing Particle Swarm Optimization for High-Efficiency Power Am- plifier Design,

    C. Li, F. You, T. Yao, J. Wang, W. Shi, J. Peng, and S. He, “Simulated Annealing Particle Swarm Optimization for High-Efficiency Power Am- plifier Design,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 2494–2505, May. 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Performance Optimization of Variable Cycle Engine Based on Improved Simulated Annealing Algorithm,

    S. Cao, R. Wang, and X. Du, “Performance Optimization of Variable Cycle Engine Based on Improved Simulated Annealing Algorithm,” in 2022 8th International Conference on Control Science and Systems Engineering (ICCSSE), 2022, pp. 159–164

    2022

  11. [19]

    Opti- mizing the Beam Selection for Noncoplanar VMAT by Using Simulated Annealing Approach,

    F. Okoli, J. Bert, S. Abdelaziz, N. Boussion, and D. Visvikis, “Opti- mizing the Beam Selection for Noncoplanar VMAT by Using Simulated Annealing Approach,” IEEE Trans. Radiat. Plasma Med. Sci. , vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 609–618, May. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.