## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

301-306.

**Bayesian Network based sequential collision avoidance action execution for an Ocean Navigational System
**

L. P. Perera* J. P. Carvalho** C. Guedes Soares*** *Centre for Marine Technology and Engineering (CENTEC), Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal (email:prasad.perera@mar.ist.utl.pt). **INESC-ID, Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal (email: joao.carvalho@inesc-id.pt). *** Centre for Marine Technology and Engineering (CENTEC), Technical University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Portugal (Tel: +351 21 841 7468; email: guedess@mar.ist.utl.pt). Abstract: This paper focuses on a study of the sequential action execution module for a collision avoidance system in ocean navigation. The overall decision-action process of collision avoidance consists on a Fuzzy logic based parallel decision making module and those decisions are formulated into collision avoidance actions by a Bayesian network based sequential action execution module. The presented collision avoidance system is capable of making multiple sequential actions to avoid complicated collision situations involving multiple vessels in ocean navigation while still respecting the COLREGs rules and regulations. Keywords: Ocean navigation, Collisions avoidance, Fuzzy logic, Bayesian Network, Decisions support system, Decisions making, Parallel decisions, Sequential actions, COLREGs. (1999), probabilistic approach based on ARPA system data by Zeng et al. (2001), repulsive force based optimization algorithm by Xue et al. (2009), virtual force field by Lee et al. (2004) have been presented in the literature. The problem of collision avoidance in ocean navigation has been previously approached by several authors using several alternative techniques: Case Based Reasoning (CBR) by Liu and Liu (2006); Self learning neuro-fuzzy network by Zhuo and Hearn (2008); Anti-collision algorithm by Yang et al. (2007); Interval programming by Benjamin et al. (2006); IfThen logic by Smeaton and Coenen (1990) and Fuzzy logic by Hasegawa, (1987). The collision avoidance analysis has also been approached for several particular cases: in two vessel collision situations by Kwik (1989); in narrow zig-zag channel by Yavin et al. (1995); strategies in interaction situations in ocean navigation by Chauvin and Lardjane (2008). Even though the problem of collision avoidance in ocean navigation is not new, three major weaknesses have been identified in the previous approaches: the studies are limited to two vessel collision situations; the Target vessel speed conditions are neglected; the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs) rules and regulations IMO (1972) is simply ignored.This study focuses on the formulation of a Bayesian network based sequential action execution process that could be implemented for ocean navigation to avoid multi-vessel collision situations. Furthermore, the collision avoidance decisions have been associated with a Fuzzy logic based parallel decision making process that follows the COLREGs rules and regulations of collision avoidance (Perera et al., 2010b).

1. INTRODUCTION An intelligent decision-action making capability is an important facility in navigation and it has been one of the major challenges in autonomous navigational systems. A robust intelligent decision-action making process is what ultimately influences the success of the autonomous navigational systems in collision situations. Several intelligent collision avoidance facilities have been developed and implemented in land and air navigational systems, but the facilities for ocean navigational systems are still underdeveloped and far away from facilitating collision avoidance capabilities even though 75-96% of marine accidents and causalities are caused by some types of human errors (Rothblum et al. 2002; Antão et al. 2008a,b). The implementation of intelligent decision-action making capabilities in navigation could reduce maritime accidents and its respective causalities and represent long-term economical benefits. The vessel domain determination and safe navigational trajectory formation are important aspects of the safe ocean navigation. The vessel domain is defined as the area bounded for dynamics of ocean vessel navigation. The vessel domain determination methods, based on, neural-classifiers is proposed by Lisowski et al. (2000) and fuzzy logic is proposed by Pietrzykowski and Uriasz (2009) in respective literature. The safe navigational trajectory formation based on mathematical models of manoeuvring theory by Sutulo et al. (2002), neural networks by Moreira and Guedes Soares (2003), evolutionary algorithm by Smierzchalski and Michalewicz (2000), genetic algorithms by Ito et al. (1999), analytical geometry and convex set theory by Hong et al.

2. COLLISION AVOIDANCE IN OCEAN NAVIGATION 2.1 Multi-vessel collision situation A multi-vessel collision situation is presented in Figure 1. The "Own vessel", i.e., the vessel equipped with the collision avoidance system, is located in point O(k). The "Target vessels" that should be avoided are located at points P1(k), P2(k), …, Pn(k) with the navigational trajectories of S1(k), S2(k), …, Sn(k) at the kth time instant. The Own vessel trajectory S0(k) intersects the trajectories S1(k), S2(k), …, Sn(k) at points C1(k), C2(k), …, Cn(k) at instants T1(k), T2(k), …, Tn(k) respectively. When considering the COLREGs rules and regulations, the vessel coming from the starboard side has higher priority for the navigation and is called the "Stand on" vessel, and the vessel coming from the port side has lower priority and is called the "Give way" vessel. These vessel conditions are considered in the formulation of the collision avoidance system.

will track each vessel separately. Finally, the collected tracking data will be used to predict each vessel’s trajectory in the Trajectory Prediction Unit. However, one must note that constant speed and course conditions are assumed for the Target vessels in this study.

Fig. 1. Multi-vessel Collision Situations 2.2 Collision Avoidance System A block diagram for complete Collision Avoidance System (CAS) is presented in Figure 2. The complete CAS consists of four modules: Vessel Tracking & Trajectory Prediction (VTTP) Module, Collision Risk Assessment (CRA) Module, Parallel Decision Making (PDM) Module, and Sequential Action Formulation (SAF) Module. The inputs to the VTTP module are the real-time position of the Own vessel (xo(k), yo (k)) that is measured/estimated by the GPS/Inertial navigational systems and the Range (Ri(k)) and Bearing (θi(k)) values of the ith Target vessel that could be measured by the Rader/Laser measurement systems on the kth time instant. The VTTP module consists of four units: Scan Unit, Data Classification Unit, Clustered Data Tracking Unit and Trajectory Prediction Unit. The Scan Unit uses the Radar/Laser measurement system to collect the real-time position data of each Target vessel. Then the Target vessels’ position data will be used in the Data Classification Unit to identify each vessel and the Clustered Data Tracking Unit Fig. 2. Block diagram for Collision Avoidance System The main objective of the CRA module is to evaluate the collision risk of each Target vessel with respect to the Own vessel conditions. This is achieved by the Relative Trajectory Formation Unit and Collision Time and Point Estimation Unit. The inputs into the CRA module are the position data of the Own vessel and the Target vessels. The outputs of the CRA module are the Range (Ri(k)), Bearing (θi(k)), Relative course (ψi,o(k)) and Relative speed (Vi,o(k)) of ith Target vessel. These outputs of CRA module will input into the PDM module at kth time instant. The Time until collision Ti(k) of the ith Target vessel will also input into the SAF module as shown in Figure 2. The PDM module consists of a Fuzzy-logic based decision making process that generates parallel collision avoidance decisions Di(k) with respect to each Target vessel. Finally the ith parallel decision of collision avoidance Di(k) will be forwarded from the PDM module to the SAF module. The main objective in the SAF module is to organize the

parallel decision made by the PDM module into sequential actions, course control Aδψi(k) and speed control Aδvi(k), actions (see Figure 2), that will be executed on the Own vessel navigation system. The formulation of the SAF module is the main objective in this study. 3. SEQUENTIAL ACTION FORMULATION MODULE 3.1 Navigational Decisions The collision avoidance decision space of the ocean navigation can be categorized into course and speed control decisions. Considering the Range (Ri(k)), Bearing (θi(k)), Relative course (ψi,o(k)) and Relative speed (Vi,o(k)) of the ith Target vessel, the PDM module makes collision avoidance decisions Di(k) regarding each Target vessel. Further details regarding the collision avoidance decisions of the navigation and PDM module can be found in Perera et al. (2010a) and Perera et al. (2010b). Since these multiple collision avoidance decisions are formatted in parallel with respect to each Target vessel, they cannot be implemented simultaneously by the Own vessel. Hence, the Sequential Action Formulation Module (SAF) has been proposed to sequence these parallel decisions. 3.2 Sequential Action Formation An illustration of a sequential action space, formulated by the decisions of course and speed changes, is presented in Figure 3.

3.3 Bayesian Network Figure 4 presents the structure of the continuous Bayesian Network proposed for formulation and update of the parallel collision avoidance decisions into the sequential action execution formation. As presented in the Figure, the Bayesian network consists of four nodes: Collision Time Estimation, Collision Risk, Action Delay and Collision Avoidance Actions. The Collision Decision Di(k) and Time until Collision Ti(k) that are the inputs to the Bayesian network that are originated from the PDM and CRA modules (see Figure 2) respectively.

Fig. 4. Bayesian Network Structure for Collision Avoidance. 3.3.1 Collision Risk Functions The Collision Risk node mainly consists of the Collision Risk Function (CRF). The CRF, ∆i(k), of the Own vessel navigation due to the ith Target vessel in the kth time instant is defined as a Gaussian distribution ∆i(k) ~ N (µ∆i(k), σ∆i2(k)), where mean µ∆i(k) is considered as the Time until collision Ti(k). Hence the CRF mean µ∆i(k) can be written as:

T i (k) = µ ∆i (k) = | OA i (k) | V i, o (k)

(1)

where |OAi(k)| is the Range and Vi,o(k) is the relative speed of the ith Target vessel at the kth time instant. However it is assumed that the CRF, ∆i(k), could be obtained from a noisy observation of Zi(k),

Z i (k) = ∆ i (k) + ω zi (k )

2

(2)

Fig. 3. Course and Speed change action space The main objective in the SAF module, formulation of the parallel collision avoidance decisions into a sequential actions, can be achieved by collecting the PDM module multiple collision avoidance decisions Di(k)≡(Dδψi(k), DδVi(k)) from the kth time instant in respect to each Target vessel, and arranging a sequential formation of actions Ai(k) ≡ (Aδψi(k), AδVi(k)) with respect to the action execution Time (Tδψi (k),TδVi(k)). When course change action is “starboard turn”, then δψo > 0; when is “port turn”, δψo < 0. Similarly, when the speed change action is “speed increase”, then δVo > 0, and when it is “speed decrease”, δVo < 0 as presented in Figure 3.

where ωzi(k) ~ N (0, σz (k)), is a white Gaussian observation noise. Hence the prior distribution of the CRF due to the ith Target vessel at kth time instant can be written as a Gaussian distribution:

P(∆ i (k)) = α i e

1

1

2 1 (∆ (k) − µ ∆i (k) ) − i 2 σ ∆i 2 (k)

,

(3)

where αi is the normalization constant. The transition model of the CRF is considered as a Gaussian perturbation of constant covariance σ∆2 to the current state of the CRF and can be written as:

P(∆ i (k) | ∆ i (k − 1)) = α i e

2

2 1 (∆ (k) − ∆ i (k −1) ) − i 2 σ∆2

,

(4)

where 2αi is the normalization constant. The conditional observation model for collision risk is assumed to be a

**Gaussian distribution with a constant covariance σz2 and can be written as:
**

P(Z i (k) | ∆ i (k)) = α i e

3

2 1 ( Z (k) − ∆ i (k) ) − i 2 σz2

V (∆ i (k) |

i

(k) ) = V (Γ(k) | = V(

i

i

(k)

)

(k) ) = σ Γ

(11)

,

(5)

**The conditional CRF with respect to the CAAF can be written as:
**

P(∆ i (k) |

3

where 3αi is the normalization constant. The one step predicted distribution of the CRF can be written as:

∞

i

(k) ) = β i e

3

1 (∆ (k) − (µ i (k) + µ Γ ))2 − i 2 σΓ2

,

(12)

P(∆ i (k)) =

∫ P(∆

i

(k) | ∆ i (k − 1)) P( ∆ i (k − 1))d ∆ i (k − 1)

−∞

where βi is the normalization constant. The prior distribution of the CAAF due to the ith Target vessel at kth time instant, as a Gaussian distribution, can be written as:

P(

i (k) ) = β i e 1 1 − 2

∞

=

∫

2

α ie

2 1 (∆ (k) − ∆ i (k −1) ) − i 2 σ∆2

(

i

(k) − µ σ

2 i

i

(k)

)2

(k)

,

(13)

−∞

2 1 ( ∆ (k −1) − µ ∆i (k −1) ) − i 2 σ ∆i 2 (k −1)

1

αie

(6)

d∆ i (k − 1)

= αi αi

∞

1

2

where βi is the normalization constant. The transition model of the CAAF is considered as a Gaussian perturbation with constant covariance σΩ2 to the current state of the CAAF and can be written as:

P( (k) |

2

1

∫e

2 (k − 1) ( ∆ i (k) − ∆ i (k −1) )2 + σ ∆ 2 (∆ i (k −1) − µ ∆i (k − 1) )2 1 σ − ∆i 2 σ∆2 σ ∆i 2 (k −1)

d∆ i (k − 1)

i

i

(k - 1)) = β i e

2

1 − 2

(

i

(k) − σ

i (k -1) 2

)2

(14)

−∞

2 1 (∆ (k) − µ ∆i (k − 1) ) − i 2 2 σ ∆ + σ ∆i 2 (k −1)

=1 α i 2 α ie

**where βi is the normalization constant. The one step prediction of the CAAF can be written as:
**

∞

**Considering the Bayesian Rule, the CRF update from the observations can be written as:
**

P(∆ i (k) | Z i (k)) = P(Z i (k) | ∆ i (k))P( ∆ i (k)) = 3 α ie

1 ( Z (k) − ∆ i (k) ) − i 1 2 σz2

2

P(

∞

i

(k)) =

1 ( − 2

∫ P(

i (k) −

i

(k) |

)2

2

i −1

(k)) P(

(

i −1

(k)) d

)2

i

(k - 1)

−∞

α i 2 α ie

1 ( ∆ i (k) − µ ∆i (k −1) ) − 2 σ ∆ 2 + σ ∆i 2 (k − 1)

2

(7)

= ∫ β ie

1 −∞ 1 2

σ

i (k -1) 2

β ie

σ

1 − 2

i (k -1) − µ i (k -1) σ i 2 (k -1)

d

i

(k - 1)

(15)

= α i α i α ie

1

2

3

2 2 Z i (k) σ ∆i (k −1) + σ 2 . + µ ∆i (k −1)σ 2 ∆ z ∆ i (k) − 2 2 σ ∆i (k − 1) + σ ∆ + σ 2 1 z − 2 2 σ ∆i (k − 1) + σ 2 σ 2 ∆ z 2 σ ∆i (k − 1) + σ 2 + σ 2 ∆ z

(

)

= βi βi ∫ e

−∞

∞

1 σ − 2

2 i

(k -1) (

i (k) −

i (k -1) 2

)2 + σ 2 (

σ

2 i

i (k -1) − µ i

(k -1)

(k -1) )2

d

i

(k - 1)

(

)

= β i β ie

1

2

1 ( i (k) − µ − 2 σ 2 +σ

i (k -1) 2 i

)2

(k -1)

**Hence the updated mean and covariance for the updated CRF can be written as:
**

µ ∆i (k) =

2 σ ∆i (k) =

**One can reorganize (15) as:
**

P( (k)) = β i β i e

1 2 1 (( − 2

i (k) + µ Γ 2

)− (µ

+σ

2 i

i

Z i (k) σ (k − 1) + σ . + µ ∆i (k − 1)σ 2 2 σ ∆i (k − 1) + σ ∆ + σ 2 z

(

2 ∆i

2 ∆

)

2 z

σ

(k -1)

(k -1) + µ Γ ) )2

i

(16)

(8)

(σ

2 ∆i

2 ∆i

2 (k − 1) + σ ∆ σ 2 z

)

**Considering the Bayesian rule, the CAAF update from the CRF can be written as:
**

P(

3 i

2 σ (k − 1) + σ ∆ + σ 2 z

(k) | ∆ i (k)) = P(∆ i (k) |

1 (∆ (k) − (µ i (k) + µ Γ ))2 − i 2 σΓ2 1 − 2 ( 1 2

i

(k))P(

1 − 2

i

(k))

i 2 i 2

((

i (k) + µ Γ )− (µ

3.3.2 Collision Avoidance Action Function The Own vessel Collision Avoidance Action Function (CAAF) is modelled as a Gaussian distribution, Ωi(k) ~ N (µΩi(k), σΩi2(k)). The CAAF function with respect to the CRF can be written as:

∆ i (k) =

i (k) + Γ i (k)

= β ie

β i β ie

2

σ

2

+σ

(k -1)

(k -1) + µ Γ ))2

2 2

(17)

i (k) + µ Γ

µ )− ∆ i ( k ) (σ Ω i ( k −1) + σ Ω ).+ (2 Ω i (2k −1) + µ Γ )σ Γ 2

(σ

σ Ω i ( k −1 ) + σ Ω + σ Γ

2 2 Ω i ( k −1 ) + σ Ω

)σ

2 Γ

= β i β i β ie

1

2

3

2 2 2 σ Ω i ( k −1 ) + σ Ω + σ Γ

(9)

**Hence, the updated mean and covariance for the updated CAAF can be written as:
**

µ i (k) = σ 2 i (k) = ∆ i (k) σ 2 i (k − 1) + σ 2 . + (µ i (k − 1) + µ Γ )σ 2 Γ − µΓ σ 2 i (k − 1) + σ 2 + σ 2 Γ (k − 1) + σ 2 σ 2 Γ σ 2 i (k − 1) + σ 2 + σ 2 Γ

i

where Γi(k) ~ N (µΓ, σΓ2), is the time delay function approximated by a Gaussian distribution with constant mean µΓ and covariance σΓ2. The conditional mean and covariance of the CRF with respect to the CAAF can be written as:

E (∆ i (k) |

i

(

)

(σ

2

)

(k) ) = µ i (k) + E (Γ i (k) | = µ i (k) + µ Γ

i

(k) )

(10)

(18)

3.3.3 Implementation of CAAF The implementation of the accumulated CAAF Ai(k) can be divided into two sections of Course Control (Aδψi(k)) and Speed Control (AδVi(k)) actions, as presented in Figure 3. However, the CAAF states are generated with respect to the collision avoidance decision Di(k) from PDM module, of Course Control (Dδψi(k)) and Speed Control (DδVi(k)) decisions. Hence, the accumulated Course and Speed Control CAAF can be written as:

A δψ (k) = Σ D δψi (k) P (

i =1 n n ψi

situations. Further, this method is capable of avoiding multiple vessels under various collision conditions in ocean navigation.

(k) | ∆ ψi (k) ) (k) | ∆ Vi (k) )

(19)

A δV (k) = Σ D δVi (k) P (

i =1

Vi

These functions are implemented on the computational simulations and the simulation results are presented in following section. 4. COMPUTATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION A computational simulation for 4 vessels collision situation is used as an example for the analysis of this study. As presented in Figure 6, the Own vessel starts navigation at the origin (0 (m), 0 (m)) and the Target vessels 1, 2 and 3 start from positions (6000 (m), -6000 (m)), (8800 (m), 10000 (m)), and (-13200 (m), 12000 (m)) respectively. It is assumed that the Target vessels are moving in constant speed and course conditions and don’t honour any navigational laws of the sea. The Bayesian network based CRF is presented in the x =12000 (m) axis. The CAAF of course and speed control actions are presented in x = -9000 (m) and x = -6000 (m) axis respectively. Furthermore the scaled time axis (Actual Time × 5 (s)) with respect to the CRF and CAAFs is presented in the y axis. The avoidance of the 1st Target vessel is presented in Figure 5. The CRF was detected and appropriate action was taken to avoid the Target vessel that was not honouring the COLREGs rules and regulations. The same figure, shows the Own vessel detecting the 2nd target vessel, and presents the CRF and course and speed control actions of CAAFs. The CAAFs are course to the starboard and speed reduction. The avoidance of the 2nd Target vessel is presented in Figure 6. Further the Own vessel detected the 3rd Target vessel and course to port and speed reduction of CAAFs are presented in the respective axis. Finally the avoidance of the 3rd Target vessel is presented in Figure 7. After executing the control actions proposed in the previous section, the Own vessel is crossing the Target vessel trajectory safely at the back of the vessel. 5. CONCLUSIONS This paper introduces a novel method to formulate the parallel decisions made by the Fuzzy-logic based system into sequential actions execution using a Bayesian network approach in a collisions avoidance system in ocean navigation. As presented in the results, the Bayesian network based action execution process could be used for complex navigational conditions as well as complicated collision Fig. 5. Avoidance of the 1st Target Vessel

Fig. 6. Avoidance of the 2nd Target Vessel

Fig. 7. Avoidance of the 3rd Target Vessel

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been made within the project ”Methodology for ships maneuverability tests with self-propelled models”, which is being funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia) under contract PTDC/TRA/74332/2006. The research work of the first author has been supported by a Doctoral Fellowship of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia) under contract SFRH/BD/46270/2008. REFERENCES Antão, P. and Guedes Soares, C. (2008). Causal factors in accidents of high speed craft and conventional oceangoing vessels. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93, 1292-1304. Antão, P., Grande, O., Trucco, P., and Guedes Soares, C. (2008b). Analysis of Maritime Accident Data with BBN Models. Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications. Martorell, S, Guedes Soares C and Barnet J (eds), London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group; pp. 3265-3273. Benjamin, M.R., Curcio, J.A., and Newman, P.M. (2006). Navigation of unmanned marine vehicles in accordance with the rules of the road. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 3581-3587. Chauvin, C. and Lardjane, S. (2008). Decision making and strategies in an interaction situation: Collision avoidance at sea. Transportation Research, Part F(11), 259-262. Hasegawa, K., (1987). Automatic collision avoidance system for ship using fuzzy control. Proceedings of 8th Ship Control System Symposium, 234–258. Hong, X., Harris, C.J., and Wilson, P.A. (1999). Autonomous ship collision free trajectory navigation and control algorithms. In Proceedings of 7th IEEE Int. Conf. on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, Barcelona, Spain, 923-929. IMO (1972). Convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea (COLREGs). URL http://www.imo.org/conventions/. Ito, M., Zhang, F., and Yoshida, N. (1999). Collision avoidance control of ship with genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Int. Conf. on Control Applications, 1791-1796. Kwik, K.H. (1989). Calculations of ship collision avoidance manoeuvres: A simplified approach, Ocean Engineering, 16 (5/6), 475-491. Lee, S., Kwon, K., and Joh, J. (2004). A fuzzy logic for autonomous navigation of marine vehicles satisfying COLREG guidelines. International Journal of Control Automation and Systems, 2(2), 171-181. Lisowski, J., Rak, A., and Czechowicz, W. (2000). Neural network classifier for ship domain assessment. Mathematics and Computers in Simulations, 51, 399406. Liu, Y. and Liu, H. (2006). Case learning base on evaluation system for vessel collision avoidance. In Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Dalian, China 2064-2069.

Moreira, L. and Guedes Soares, C. (2003). Dynamic model of maneuvrability using recursive neural net-works. Ocean Engineering, 30(13), 1669-1697. Perera, L.P., Carvalho, J. P., and Guedes Soares, C. (2010a). Smooth transition between fuzzy regions to overcome failures in fuzzy membership functions of decisions in collision avoidance of ocean navigation, In Proc. 25th Mini-EURO Conference on Uncertainty and Robustness in Planning and Decision Making, Coimbra, Portugal, 18. Perera, L.P., Carvalho, J. P., and Guedes Soares, C. (2010b), Fuzzy-logic based parallel collisions avoidance decision formulation for an Ocean Navigational System, In Proc.8th IFAC Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems, Rostock, Germany. (In Print) Pietrzykowski, Z. and Uriasz, J. (2009). The ship domain a criterion of navigational safety assessment in an open sea area. The Journal of Navigation, 63, 93-108. Rothblum, A.M., Wheal, D., Withington, S., Shappell, S.A., Wiegmann, D.A., Boehm, W., and Chaderjian, M. (2002). Key to successful incident inquiry. In 2nd International Workshop on Human Factors in Offshore Operations (HFW), Houston, Texas, 1-6. Smeaton, G.P. and Coenen, F.P. (1990). Developing an intelligent marine navigation system. Computing & Control Engineering Journal, 95-103. Smierzchalski, R. and Michalewicz, Z. (2000). Modelling of ship trajectory in collision situations by an evolutionary algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 4(3), 227-241. Statheros, T., Howells, G., and McDonald-Maier, K. (2008). Autonomous ship collision avoidance navigation concepts, technologies and techniques. The Journal of Navigation, 61, 129-142. Sutulo, S., Moreira, L., and Guedes Soares, C. (2002). Mathematical models of ship path prediction in manoeuvring simulation systems. Ocean Engineering, 29, 1-19. Xue, Y., Lee, B.S., and Han, D. (2009). Automatic collision avoidance of ships. Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 223(1), 33-46. Yang, S., Li, L., Suo, Y., and Chen, G. (2007). Study on construction of simulation platform for vessel automatic anti-collision and its test methods. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Automation and Logistics, 2414-2419. Yavin, Y., Frangos, C., Zilman, G., and Miloh, T. (1995). Computation of feasible command strategies for the navigation of a ship in a narrow zigzag channel. Computers Math. Applic., 30(10), 79-101. Zeng, X., Ito, M., and Shimizu, E. (2001). Building an automatic control system of maneuvering ship in collision situation with genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Arlington, VA, USA, 2852-2853. Zhuo, Y. and Hearn, G.E. (2008). A ship based intelligent anti-collision decision-making support system utilizing trial manoeuvres. In Chinese Control and Decision Conference, Yantai, China, 3982-3987.

- Probability 01
- ch64
- ECE 565 - Estimation, Filtering, And Detection
- Bayesian Networks analysis
- Normal Distribution
- Artificial Intelligence
- CV Packet 2013.pdf
- Navigational Terms
- 29. M.E. CSE.
- Baxter - A Brief Intro to Financial Engineering via MATLAB
- 10.1.1.96
- Navigation 3
- Improving RFID-Based Indoor Positioning
- SL P2 Paper IB
- Lesson 5_ Probability Distributions
- The Normal Distribution Estimation Correlation (1)
- 1-s2.0-089396599390138D-main
- AdPredictor - Large Scale Bayesian Click-Through Rate Prediction in Microsoft's Bing Search Engine
- Chapter 7:Sampling and Sampling Distributions
- Introduction to Basic Statistics
- BayesCube Manual v31
- 3. 2009 Central Limit Theorem
- 2010 TPJC Prelim Paper 2
- 10-srfce
- Http Www.maib.Gov.uk Cms Resources.cfm File= Maersk Kendal Report
- Implemented
- Import and Export
- SixsigmaIntroduction YB Ver2.0
- The Evolution of Wayfinding
- John P. Nolan - Stable Distributions

- Solutions to the Failures and Limitations of Mamdani Fuzzy Inference in Ship Navigation
- A Navigation and Control Platform for Real-Time Manoeuvring of Autonomous Ship Models
- Detections of potential collision situations by relative motions of vessels under parameter uncertainties
- Mamdani type fuzzy inference failures in navigation
- Vector-product based Collision Estimation and Detection in e-Navigation.
- Experimental Evaluations on Ship Autonomous Navigation and Collision Avoidance by Intelligent Guidance
- Sliding Mode Controls in Partial Feedback Linearization applied to Unstable Ship Steering
- Development of an onboard decision support system for ship navigation under rough weather conditions
- Intelligent Ocean Navigation and Fuzzy-Bayesian Decision/Action Formulation
- Maritime Traffic Monitoring Based on Vessel Detection, Tracking, State Estimation, and Trajectory Prediction
- Autonomous Guidance and Navigation Based on the COLREGs Rules and Regulations of Collision Avoidance
- Fuzzy-logic based parallel collisions avoidance decision formulation for an Ocean Navigational System
- Smooth Transition Between Fuzzy Regions to Overcome Failures in Fuzzy Membership Functions of Decisions in Collision Avoidance of Ocean Navigation
- Collaborated and Constrained Neural-EKF Algorithm for the Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information System
- Dynamic Parameter Estimation of a Nonlinear Vessel Steering Model of Ocean Navigation
- Laser Measurement System based maneuvering Target tracking formulated by Adaptive Competitive Neural Networks
- Ocean Vessel Trajectory Estimation and Prediction Based on Extended Kalman Filter
- Decision making system for the collision avoidance of marine vessel navigation based on COLREGs rules and regulations
- Fuzzy logic based decision making system for collision avoidance of ocean navigation under critical collision conditions

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading