Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) offer cost-effective and flexible solutions for a wide range of real-world applications, particularly in hazardous and time-critical environments. Their ability to navigate autonomously, communicate rapidly, and avoid collisions makes UAVs well suited for emergency response scenarios. However, real-time path planning in dynamic and unpredictable environments remains a major challenge, especially in confined tunnel infrastructures where accidents may trigger fires, smoke propagation, debris, and rapid environmental changes. In such conditions, conventional preplanned or model-based navigation approaches often fail due to limited visibility, narrow passages, and the absence of reliable localization signals. To address these challenges, this work proposes an end-to-end emergency response framework for tunnel accidents based on Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (MARL). Each UAV operates as an independent learning agent using an Independent Q-Learning paradigm, enabling real-time decision-making under limited computational resources. To mitigate premature convergence and local optima during exploration, Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) is integrated as a policy-guidance mechanism within the reinforcement learning (RL) framework. A customized reward function is designed to prioritize victim discovery, penalize unsafe behavior, and explicitly discourage redundant exploration among agents. The proposed approach is evaluated using a frontier-based exploration simulator under both single-agent and multi-agent settings with multiple goals. Extensive simulation results demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves faster goal discovery, improved map coverage, and reduced rescue time compared to state-of-the-art GWO-based exploration and random search algorithms. These results highlight the effectiveness of lightweight MARL-based coordination for autonomous UAV-assisted tunnel emergency response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rehman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: