Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Survey examines UAV path planning, focuses on risk-calibrated methods, suggesting practical approaches for mission success.
Effective mission planning, path search, and path following are critical for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operating in complex, dynamic, and resource-constrained environments. Classical path planning approaches, including graph-based search, sampling-based methods, and trajectory optimization, provide structured solutions with performance guarantees but often exhibit limited adaptability to uncertainty, environmental disturbances, and evolving mission constraints. Reinforcement learning (RL) offers a complementary capability by enabling adaptive decision-making and online response to dynamic obstacles and partial observability. This paper examines UAV path planning and navigation within a Risk-Calibrated, Certifiably Safe, and Resource-Aware (RCSR) framework, with emphasis on its implications for mission planning, path search, and path following. Classical planning techniques are reviewed alongside recent advances in RL-based navigation for single-UAV and multi-UAV systems. Particular attention is given to safe reinforcement learning, constrained optimization, and runtime assurance mechanisms that address safety, regulatory compliance, and resource limitations in real-world deployments. Through a comparative analysis of classical, learning-based, and hybrid planning architectures, this work highlights key trade-offs among adaptability, safety, computational cost, and energy efficiency. The paper concludes by identifying hybrid learning–planning approaches as a practical direction for scalable, reliable, and deployable UAV mission planning systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: