electronics
Article
Four-Dimensional Trajectory Planning Algorithm for
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Formation Based on Improved
Hunter—Prey Optimization
Jianli Wei 1 , Hongjia Fan 1, *
Citation: Wei, J.; Fan, H.; Li, J.
Four-Dimensional Trajectory
Planning Algorithm for Fixed-Wing
Aircraft Formation Based on
Improved Hunter—Prey
Optimization. Electronics 2023, 12,
2820. https://doi.org/10.3390/
electronics12132820
Academic Editor: Mahmut
Reyhanoglu
Received: 13 May 2023
Revised: 18 June 2023
Accepted: 24 June 2023
Published: 26 June 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132820
and Jinghao Li 2
1 Unmanned System Research Institute, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
2 College of Astronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
* Correspondence: fanhongjianwpu@mail.nwpu.edu.cn
Abstract: The aircraft four-dimensional trajectory planning is an important technology for multiple
aircraft to achieve cooperation. However, the current four-dimensional trajectory planning technology
is mainly used for civil aviation and helicopters and is difficult to meet the requirements of fixed-
wing aircraft. This paper proposed a four-dimensional trajectory planning algorithm for a fixed-
wing aircraft formation, considering the speed range, turning radius and maximum overload. The
improved tau-J strategy (ITJS) is used to generate the four-dimensional trajectory of the aircraft.
This strategy is a bio-inspired trajectory planning algorithm that can generate a four-dimensional
trajectory with continuous acceleration. Furthermore, the improved hunter–prey optimization (IHPO)
algorithm is used to optimize the trajectory to make the generated trajectory meet the constraints and
speed up the algorithm convergence. This algorithm improves the updated strategy and initialization
strategy based on the hunter–prey optimization (HPO) algorithm, which prevents the algorithm
from falling into local optima. The results of the benchmark test function show that the optimization
result of the algorithm is improved by more than 10% compared with the original HPO algorithm.
The simulation results show that the proposed algorithm jumps out of local optima and generates a
trajectory that meets the constraints.
Keywords: IHPO; fixed-wing aircraft; improved hunter–prey optimization; four-dimensional trajec-
tory planning
1. Introduction
Fixed-wing aircraft with higher speed have been playing an important role in modern
warfare and emergency response [1]. However, the above environment is highly danger-
ous and unstable. A single aircraft often faces great challenges when performing tasks.
However, aircraft formations can enhance aircraft flexibility and reduce the risk of mission
failure [2]. Four-dimensional trajectory planning is a key technology for the aircraft forma-
tion and collaboration. It is composed of traditional three-dimensional (latitude, longitude
and altitude) trajectory planning and a required-time-of-arrival (RTA) constraint, which
requires the aircraft to arrive at required locations at required times [3]. Therefore, the
four-dimensional trajectory planning of aircraft is an important technology to realize the
aircraft formation and improve the efficiency of the aircraft formation’s task execution. It
plays an important role in realizing obstacle avoidance, situation awareness and precision
strike of the aircraft formation.
Many researchers have performed a great deal of work on four-dimensional trajectory
planning for aircraft. By investigating the historical trajectory data of civil aircraft and com-
prehensively considering constraints such as aircraft flight performance, fuel consumption
and atmospheric conditions, a multi-objective four-dimensional trajectory collaborative
optimization algorithm based on the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm and sim-
ulated annealing algorithm was proposed [4]. Comparing the trajectory obtained by this
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 2 of 21

algorithm with the historical trajectory data, the fuel consumption is reduced by 4.5%. It
can also meet the demand of real-time ballistic calculation. To keep the balance between the
demand and capacity in the four-dimensional trajectory planning task, a hybrid optimiza-
tion strategy was proposed [5]. The method combines a time-window-based sequential
decision-making architecture, a heuristic strategy (greedy strategy) and an optimization
algorithm to achieve fast trajectory planning for large-scale flights. By constructing a
matrix related to flight conflicts, the nonlinear model is converted into a linear model in
the optimization model based on continuous time, which greatly improves the speed of
model solving. The results show that this method can effectively reduce flight delay. Lucas
et al. used the genetic algorithm, non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) [6],
to solve a multi-objective optimization problem for glider mission planning that includes
multiple parameters such as longitude, latitude, depth and time. Through this method,
multiple Pareto optimal solutions can be quickly found in the case of a given fixed ob-
stacle. At the same time, this method has low requirements for computer performance
and can be effectively used in practical tasks. Based on the A* algorithm, Wu et al. [7]
proposed a multi-step four-dimensional trajectory planning search algorithm multi-step
A* (MSA*). The trajectory generated by the algorithm consists of a set of linear trajec-
tories and takes into account many decision criteria and constraints such as wind, fuel,
power constraints, turning radius and other flight requirements. The algorithm can meet
the needs of offline and online trajectory planning, and the average calculation time is
one-fourth of the vector-neighborhood-based A*. However, the above algorithms require
historical data and cannot cope with dynamic changes. Fixed-wing aircraft have complex
constraints, and their trajectories change frequently; therefore, these methods cannot meet
the requirements of four-dimensional trajectory planning for a fixed-wing aircraft formation
in high-dynamic environments.
Transforming the four-dimensional trajectory planning task for an aircraft formation
into a mathematical optimization problem is an effective way to generate the aircraft four-
dimensional trajectory. At present, the algorithms for transforming the aircraft trajectory
planning problems into mathematical optimization problems are mainly based on curve
fitting algorithms [8–11], graph search based algorithms [12–15]. However, the above
algorithm can only generate the trajectory but cannot control the speed of the aircraft.
Additional speed control strategy is required to generate the four-dimensional trajectory.
This leads to the complexity of the aircraft four-dimensional trajectory algorithm. To avoid
the above situation, this paper uses a biologically inspired trajectory planning algorithm
called the tau theory. This method is widely used in various tasks such as trajectory
planning and motion planning [16–20]. It can generate multiple trajectories with consistent
time and has the advantages of continuous smooth velocity curve and simple optimization
parameters. This makes the tau theory suitable for four-dimensional trajectory planning
for fixed-wing aircraft. In this paper, the fixed-wing aircraft use the ITJS to generate
the trajectory.
The parameter of the tau-J guidance strategy influences the quality of the generated
trajectory. To enable the application of the tau-J guidance strategy to all kinds of complex
situations, it is necessary to optimize the tau-J guidance strategy. HPO [21] is an opti-
mization algorithm that mimics the behavior of the predator and the prey. In nature, the
predator chases the prey, and the prey runs to the safest place. The HPO algorithm treats
the safest place as the optimal location. Therefore, all the predators run to the optimal
position, and the algorithm converges gradually. The algorithm has been verified on several
test functions and engineering problems. The results show that the HPO algorithm has the
advantages of the fast convergence speed and strong optimization ability. However, the
HPO algorithm also has the disadvantages of falling into local optima and uneven search
scope. Therefore, this paper proposes an improved HPO algorithm (IHPO) based on the
HPO algorithm. The feasibility and efficiency of IHPO is verified using test functions.
To solve the problems existing in the current four-dimensional trajectory planning
algorithm for fixed-wing aircraft, in this paper, the ITJS algorithm is used to generate the
Electronics 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

based on the HPO algorithm. The feasibility and efficiency of IHPO is verified using test
functions.
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 3 of 21
To solve the problems existing in the current four-dimensional trajectory planning
algorithm for fixed-wing aircraft, in this paper, the ITJS algorithm is used to generate the
four-dimensional trajectory, and the proposed IHPO algorithm is used to optimize the
four-dimensional
trajectory. trajectory,
In addition, andthe
to verify theeffectiveness
proposed IHPOof thealgorithm is used toitoptimize
IHPO algorithm, the
is validated
trajectory. In addition, to verify the effectiveness of the IHPO algorithm,
using the benchmark test function. The structure of this paper is as follows: the second it is validated
using the
chapter benchmark
describes the test function.
problem The structure
and establishes of this paper
a dynamic model is as
of follows:
fixed-wing theaircraft.
second
chapter describes the problem and establishes a dynamic model of fixed-wing
The third chapter introduces the ITJS and HPO algorithms and proposes the IHPO algo- aircraft. The
third chapter introduces the ITJS and HPO algorithms and proposes the
rithm. The IHPO is compared with other optimization algorithms to prove its feasibility IHPO algorithm.
The efficiency.
and IHPO is compared with
In the fourth other optimization
chapter, algorithms
a four-dimensional to prove
trajectory its feasibility
planning algorithmand for
a fixed-wing aircraft formation is proposed, and the validity of the algorithm is verified.a
efficiency. In the fourth chapter, a four-dimensional trajectory planning algorithm for
fixed-wing
The aircraftsummarizes
fifth chapter formation is the
proposed, and the validity
IHPO algorithm and theof the algorithm is verified.
four-dimensional The
trajectory
fifth chapter summarizes the IHPO algorithm and the four-dimensional
planning algorithm for fixed-wing aircraft and suggests future work. trajectory planning
algorithm for fixed-wing aircraft and suggests future work.
2. Background
2. Background
2.1.
2.1. Problem
Problem Statement
Statement
The
The problem is
problem as follows:
is as follows: aa formation
formation composed
composed of of two
two fixed-wing
fixed-wing aircraft passes
aircraft passes
through
through the navigation point in turn. The distance between the two aircraft is 3 km. The
the navigation point in turn. The distance between the two aircraft is 3 km. The
leader
leader is
is Aircraft
Aircraft 1.
1. The
The slave
slave is
is Aircraft
Aircraft 2,
2, which
which is
is located
located on
on the
the right
right side
side of
of the
the leader
leader
machine. The
The formation of the aircraft is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure Fixed-wing aircraft
1. Fixed-wing aircraft formation.
formation.

The leader and the slave need to generate their own four-dimensional trajectory
The leader and the slave need to generate their own four-dimensional trajectory ac-
according to the given navigation point. The four-dimensional trajectory is required to
cording to the given navigation point. The four-dimensional trajectory is required to reach
reach the given navigation point simultaneously. The aircraft only maintain the formation
the given navigation point simultaneously. The aircraft only maintain the formation near
near each navigation point. The trajectory needs to meet the constraints of fixed-wing
each navigation point. The trajectory needs to meet the constraints of fixed-wing aircraft.
aircraft. The formation of aircraft flying in a straight line is often difficult to conflict.
The formation of aircraft flying in a straight line is often difficult to conflict. Therefore, to
Therefore, to verify the performance of the algorithm, the selection of navigation points
verify the performance of the algorithm, the selection of navigation points takes turning
takes turning situation into account. Taking the first navigation point as the origin of the
situation intothe
coordinates, account. Taking
coordinates of the
the first navigation
navigation pointspoint as leader
of the the origin of the coordinates,
are shown in Table 1.
the coordinates of the navigation points of the leader are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Navigation points of the fixed-wing aircraft formation.
Table 1. Navigation points of the fixed-wing aircraft formation.
Index of Navigation Point Coordinates/Unit
Index of Navigation Point Coordinates/Unit
11 (0, 8.09,
(0, 8.09, 0)/km
0)/km
2 (50, 8.1, 50)/km
23 (50, 8.1,100)/km
(70, 8.1, 50)/km
34 (70, 8.1, 100)/km
(100, 8.08, 150)/km
45 (170,8.08,
(100, 8.1, 50)/km
150)/km
56 (170, 8.1,−50)/km
(180, 8.09, 50)/km
7 (170, 8.1, −100)/km
6 (180, 8.09, −50)/km

The top view of the navigation points is shown in Figure 2.

 The top view7of the navigation points is shown in Figure
(170, 2.
8.1, −100)/km

Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 4 of 21

The top view of the navigation points is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Top view of the navigation points.

In addition, the speed, acceleration and turning radius of aircraft are within a
range. They are shown in Table 2. The speed is kept within a certain range. If the
Figuretoo
2. low, the aircraft cannot provide enough lift and overload, and the aircraft’s fli
Figure 2. Top view of the navigation points.
Top view of the navigation points.
formance will suffer. If the speed is too
In addition, the speed, acceleration and turning high,radius
aircraft resistance
of aircraft will aincrease
are within certain signi
the fuel
range. Theyconsumption
arethe
shown rate 2.will
in Table Thealso
speedgreatly
is kept increase.
within Duerange.
aradius
certain to engine limitations,
If the speed
In addition, speed, acceleration and turning of aircraft are within
acceleration
is shouldcannot
too low, the aircraft be less thanenough
provide the given value.
lift and The and
overload, gapthe between
aircraft’sthe aircraft i
flight
range. They arewill
performance shown
suffer. inthe
If Table
speed 2.
is The
too speed
high, aircraftisresistance
kept within
will a certain
increase range. If the
significantly,
than the given value to avoid collision.
too low, the
the fuel aircraft cannot
consumption rate willprovide enough
also greatly increase.
The task process of this study is shown in Figure 3.
liftDue
andtooverload, and the
engine limitations, aircraft’s f
aircraft
acceleration should be less than the given value. The gap between the aircraft is larger than
formance will suffer. If the speed is too high, aircraft resistance will increase sign
the given value to avoid collision.
the fuel
Tableconsumption
2. Constraints ofrate
the will also greatly increase. Due to engine limitations
aircraft.
acceleration shouldofbe
Table 2. Constraints less than the given value. The gap between the aircraft
the aircraft.
Constraint Range/Unit
than the given value to avoid collision.
 
Constraint Range/Unit
The task process Speed
Speed of
Range
this
Range study is shown in Figure
[180,3.
180,230 / m/s
230]/m/s

0,5 / m/s2
Acceleration Range [0, 5]/m/s2
Acceleration
Safety Gap Range >1000/m
Table 2. Constraints of the aircraft.
Turning Radius >9680/m
Safety Gap  1000 / m
Constraint Range/Unit
Turning
of thisRadius  9680 / m
180,230 / m/s
The task process study is shown in Figure 3.
Speed Range

Start
Acceleration
The aircraft
receives
RangeAircraft formation
communicate with each
Performs a four-
dimensional trajectory0,5 / m/s2
End

 1000 / m
navigation point other and generate four- and passes through each
Safety Gap
information dimensional trajectory navigation point in turn

Turning Radius  9680 / m

Figure3.3.Flowchart
Figure Flowchart oftask
of the theprocess.
task process.

2.2. Fixed-Wing
The aircraftAircraft Dynamic Model
Aircraft formation Performs a four-
receives communicate with each dimensional trajectory
Start End
Tonavigation
simulate point and check the
other and generated
generate four- trajectory, the dynamic
and passes through each model of the fixe
information dimensional trajectory navigation point in turn
aircraft is established as follows:

Figure 3. Flowchart of the task process.

Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 5 of 21

2.2. Fixed-Wing Aircraft Dynamic Model

To simulate and check the generated trajectory, the dynamic model of the fixed-wing
aircraft is established as follows:


 m dV
dt = P cos α cos β − X − mg sin θ
dθ




 mV dt = P (sin α cos γv + cos α sin β cos γv )+
Y cos γv − Z sin γv − mg cos θ




 −mV dψv = P(sin α sin γv − cos α sin β cos γv )+



 dt
Y sin γv + Z cos γv




dω
Mx = Jx dω

− Jxy dty + Jx − Jy ωz ωy + Jxy ωz ωx
 x




 dt
dω
My = Jy dty − Jxy dω

x
dt + ( Jx − Jz )ω
z ω x + Jxy ωz ωy


dωz (1)
Mz = Jz dt + Jy − Jz ωx ωy + Jxy ωy2 ωx2





 dx
dt = V cos θ cos ψv



dy


dt = V sin θ



dz

dt = −V cos θ sin ψv




dϑ
dt = ωy sin γ + ωz cos γ




dψ
= cos1 ϑ ωy cos γ − ωz sin γ





 dt
 dγ

dt = ω x − tan ϑ ωy cos γ − ωz sin γ


The meaning of some variables in Equation (1) is shown in the Table 3.

Table 3. Table of variable meanings.

Variable Meaning Variable Meaning

V Velocity ρ Density of Air
m Mass α Attack Angle
P Thrust β Sideslip Angle
X, Y, Z Drag Force, Lift Force and Lateral Force M x , My , Mz Torque
x, y, z Position Jx , Jy , Jz Moment of Inertia
ϑ Pitch Angle ω x , ωy , ωz Angular Velocity
θ Ballistic Inclination ψ Yaw Angle
ψv Ballistic Declination γ Roll Angle

3. Four-Dimensional Trajectory Planning Algorithm for Fixed-Wing Formation

3.1. Tau Theory and Improved Tau-J Guidance Strategic
The tau theory is a widely used bio-inspired trajectory planning algorithm. It is a
bio-inspired algorithm proposed by Lee et al. [22]. Researchers use time-to-collision (TTC)
to describe the movement of organisms and define TTC as the tau variable. TTC refers
to an estimate of arrival time when an actor approaches the target. To solve other kinds
of problems, Lee et al. extended this type of process into the generalized tau theory. The
definition of the tau variable in the generalized tau theory is as follows:

M(t)
τ (t) = . (2)
M(t)
.
where M (t) is the distance between the target and the actor, and M (t) is the speed of
the actor.
In the process of real movement, it is often necessary for two actors to reach their
designated positions at the same time. Based on this, the tau-coupling strategy was
proposed [23]. The tau variables of two actors τ1 (t), τ2 (t) satisfy the following expression:

τ2 (t) = kτ1 (t) (3)

Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 6 of 21

where k is the rate of (0, 0.5). Based on the tau-coupling strategy, Zhang et al. [24] proposed
the tau-J guidance strategy, using constant jerk motion J (t) as the coupled motion. The tau
variable expression of this motion is as follows:

J (t) = 16 j T 3 − t3
(

(4)

J (t) 1 T3
τJ (t) = . = 3 t− t2
J (t)

where j is the constant jerk, T is the expected arrival time, and t is the current time. The
expression of the movement coupled with the jerk motion is as follows:
 M (0)
1/k

 M(t) = T 3/k
T 3 − t3
 .
−3M(0)t2
1/k−1
M(t) = kT 3/k
T 3 − t3 (5)
 .. 3M (0)t 3−k 3

1/k−2

 M (t) = t − 2T 3 T3 − t3
kT 3/k k

where k ∈ (0, 0.5). This strategy is called the tau-J guidance strategy. The tau-j guid-
ance strategy solves the problem of acceleration discontinuity in other tau guidance
strategies [24,25] and reduces the errors of tau guidance strategy in practical application.
However, the start and end velocity and acceleration of tau-J guidance strategy are always
zero. It is impossible for fixed-wing aircraft.
To avoid zero velocity and zero acceleration, the tau-J guidance strategy needs to be
improved. The improved method is similar to that described in the literature [25]. The
improved tau variable expression of coupled motion is as follows:
1 3 1 2

 J. p (t) = − 6 jt + 2 a J t + VJ t + J0

1 2
J p (t) = − 2 jt + a J t + VJ (6)
 ..

J p (t) = − jt + a J

where J0 is the initial position, VJ is the initial velocity, a J is the initial acceleration, and j is
the constant jerk. Based on the tau-coupling strategy, the coupled motion strategy can be
obtained as follows:
. ..
X (t) = XT + X T (t − T ) + 12 X T (t − T )2 − 1/k
 ρ0 1/k
 Jp

 . J0
. .. ρ0 . 1/k −1

X (t) = X T + X T (t − T ) − 1/k J p J p (7)
 ..

 .. hkJ0  . .. i
ρ0 1/k − 2 1− k 2
 X (t) = X T − kJ 1/k J k J p + J p Jp
0

. ..
where XT , X T , X T are the target position, target velocity and target acceleration, respec-
. ..
tively. J p , J p , J p are the coupled motion, their expression is equivalent to Equation (6). The
expression for ρ0 is as follows:
. 1 ..
ρ 0 = X T − X0 − X T T − X T T 2 (8)
2
Let t = 0 and put the coupled motion back into Equation (7), then we can obtain
the following: .
 .. . 
 k X T − X T T − X 0 J0
 VJ =

ρ0
 .. ..  . .. . 2 (9)
 X T − X 0 kJ0 (k−1) X T − X T T − X 0 kJ0
 aJ =
 +
ρ0 ρ2 0
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 7 of 21

We assume the following:

 . .. . 
k X T −X T T −X0
 VDJ = VJ J =


0 ρ0
 .. ..  . .. . 2 (10)
 aJ X T −X0 k ( k −1) X T − X T T − X 0 k
 a DJ =
 = +
J0 ρ0 ρ20

By substituting Equation (9) into the first formula of Equation (6), we can obtain
the following:
jT 3
J0 =
(11)
6 + 3a DJ T 2 + 6VDJ T
Therefore, parameters J0 , VJ , a J of the coupled motion can be given the initial values
. ..
X (0), X (0), X (0). This strategy is called the ITJS.
The aircraft trajectory can be described by using the ITJS on the three axes X, Y and Z,
respectively. The four-dimensional flight trajectory planning algorithm for the fixed-wing
aircraft is as Equation (12).
. ..
X (t) = XT + X T (t − T ) + 12 X T (t − T )2 − 1/k
ρ x0 1/k x

 J
x xp

 J x0
 . .. 1/k y
Y (t) = YT + Y T (t − T ) + 12 Y T (t − T )2 − 1/k
 ρ y0
J
y yp (12)
Jy0
. ..


 Z (t) = ZT + Z T (t − T ) + 1 Z T (t − T )2 − ρ1/k J 1/kz

 z0
2 z zp Jz0

3.2. Original HPO Algorithm

The ITJS simplifies the aircraft trajectory into a mathematical problem determined by
parameters k x , k y , k z and expected arrival time T. Therefore, the aircraft four-dimensional
flight trajectory can be optimized to obtain the optimal trajectory.
The HPO algorithm is a new type of population-based optimization algorithm pro-
posed by Naruei in 2022 [21]. The algorithm is created by mimicking the behavior of the
predator and the prey during the hunt in nature. During the hunt, the hunter chases the
prey. The prey consistently adjusts its position to the safest spot in the entire population.
The authors consider the safest location as the optimal location. The HPO algorithm has
fast convergence speed and strong optimization ability, which is suitable for optimizing the
four-dimensional trajectory.
The HPO algorithm for population initialization is as follows:

x = rand(dim, 1). ∗ (ub − lb) + lb (13)

where x denotes the position of the hunter or the prey. It also represents the position of
the search agents in the field of the optimization algorithm. Value x is a random vector
with all elements in the range (ub, lb). Value dim denotes the dimension of x. Values
ub, lb represent the upper and lower ranges of the search areas in each dimension of x,
respectively. Value rand(dim, 1) represents a random vector with all elements in the range
(0, 1). The hunter’s position update algorithm is as follows:
→
 
→
x (t + 1) = x (t) + 0.5 2CZ P pos − x (t) + 2(1 − C ) Z µ − x (t) (14)

where x (t + 1), x (t) are the positions of the agents of the next time and the current time,
respectively; Ppos denotes the position of the prey’ Z is an adaptive parameter. The adaptive
parameter’s expression is as follows:
→
I ND = ( r 1 < C )
→ (15)
Z = r2 ⊗ I ND + r 3 ⊗ ( ∼ I ND )
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 8 of 21

where r2 is the random number of (0, 1), r1 , r3 are random vectors in dimension dim of
(0, 1). ⊗ is the dot product. The value of Z continues to change as the number of iterations
changes. C is an adaptive parameter used to balance wide-area searches with careful
searches of specific areas. When C is larger, the particles search the results in a larger search
range, and the search is more random; when C is smaller, the particles search the area
more carefully.
The expression of C is shown in Equation (16). As the number of iterations increases,
the value of C decreases continuously, and the search agents search the area more carefully.
 
0.98
C = 1 − it (16)
itmax
where it, itmax represent the current iterations and the maximum iterations, respectively.
Value µ represents the average position of all search agents, and its equation is as follows:

→ 1 n →
n i∑
µ = x (17)
=1

The distance between each search agent and µ is as follows:

!1
d 2

∑

2
Deuc(i) = xi,j − µi,j (18)
j =1

The search agents that have the farthest distance from the average distance are re-
→
garded as the location of the prey ( P pos ):
→ →
P pos = x imax (19)

where imax is the index of the maximum value of Deuc . However, the above selection
strategy reduces the population search efficiency and leads to slow convergence. Mean-
while, according to the convergence scenario, the hunter gradually catches up with the prey
as time goes by. Therefore, to solve the problem of slow convergence, the prey selection
strategy is as follows:
→ →
P pos = x i i is sorted Deuc(kbest)
(20)
kbest = round(C ∗ N )
→
where N is the number of search agents. This expression indicates that P pos is the i-th
closest to the average position.
During the hunt, the prey moves away from its current location to improve the
probability of survival; the prey’s position is updated by the following equation:
→ →
 
x (t + 1) = T pos + CZ cos(2πr4 ) × T pos − x (t) (21)

→
where T pos is the global optimal position, and r4 is a random number of (−1, 1). When the
prey is attacked, it runs to the safest location, i.e., near the global optimal location, to avoid
the attack.
Combining Equation (14) and Equation (21), the updated equation of search agents is
as follows:

→
 
→
 x (t) + 0.5 2CZ P pos − x (t) + 2(1 − C ) Z µ − x (t) , r5 < β ( a)


x ( t + 1) = →

→
 (22)
 T pos + CZ cos(2πr4 ) × T pos − x (t) , r5 > β (b)


  
x(t + 1) =  (22)
( )
 Tpos + CZ cos ( 2 r4 )  Tpos − x(t ) , r5   (b )

r
where 5 is the random number of
( 0,1) , and  is the adjustment parameter set to
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820
r  9 of 21
0.1. When 5 , the search agent is treated as the hunter, and the position is updated
r 
5
using Equation
where (22a).
r5 is the When
random number of , the
(0, 1search
), and agent
β is theisadjustment
treated as the prey, and
parameter set the posi-
to 0.1. When
tionris <updated using agent
β, the search Equation (22b).as the hunter, and the position is updated using Equation
is treated
5
However,
(22a). Whenthe r5 > HPO algorithm
β, the only is
search agent uses the global
treated as the optimal
prey, andposition for iteration
the position is updated
when performing iterations.
using Equation (22b). As the number of iteration rounds increases, more search
agents concentrate on searching for the optimal value in a specific region,
However, the HPO algorithm only uses the global optimal position for iteration which affects
the when
convergence
performingspeediterations.
of the HPO Asalgorithm
the number andofalso makesrounds
iteration the HPO algorithm
increases, more more
search
likely to fall into local optima. In addition, the HPO algorithm also has an uneven
agents concentrate on searching for the optimal value in a specific region, which affects the search
area, which leadsspeed
convergence to theofinstability
the HPO of convergence
algorithm speed
and also of thethe
makes HPO
HPOalgorithm.
algorithm more likely
to fall into local optima. In addition, the HPO algorithm also has an uneven search area,
3.3. which
IHPO Algorithm
leads to the instability of convergence speed of the HPO algorithm.
To solve the above problems, the improved HPO algorithm is proposed in this sec-
tion.3.3.
TheIHPO Algorithm strategy is as follows:
improvement
To solve the above problems, the improved HPO algorithm is proposed in this section.
3.3.1.
TheGood Point Set strategy is as follows:
improvement
The HPO algorithm initializes the search agents’ position vector using a random
3.3.1. Good Point Set
method. The search agents’ position vector generated by this method often cannot fully
express allThetheHPO algorithm
features initializes
in the entire space,the search in
resulting agents’ position
unstable vector speed.
convergence using There-
a random
fore, it is better to use the good point set strategy to make the search agents evenly fully
method. The search agents’ position vector generated by this method often cannot dis- ex-
press all the
tributed in space. features in the entire space, resulting in unstable convergence speed. Therefore,
itThe
is better
goodto use the
point good
set is point set in
constructed strategy to make the search
an s -dimensional agents
space with n evenly
points distributed
distrib-
in space.
The good point
uted as follows:
(
pn (k ) = r1  k  , r2  k  , , rs  k  ,1  k  n
set
(n) (n) (n)

o n in anos-dimensional
is constructed ) 
The nexpression
space .with opoints distributed
for r
k) = 
nn n o
follows: rp= k 
jr1(/n)p·),1 jr2(n)s·}k. (n)
is asasfollows: n ({2cos(2 , , . . . , p ·isk the, 1smallest
Value rs≤ k ≤ n prime
. Thenumber
expression
for r is as follows: r = { 2 cos ( 2πj/p ) , 1 ≤ j ≤ s } . Value p is the smallest
that satisfies the condition. The point sets generated by the good point set and randomly prime number
generated point set methods in a space with s = 2, n = 300 are shown in Figure 4.
that satisfies the condition. The point sets generated by the good point set and randomly
generated point set methods in a space with s = 2, n = 300 are shown in Figure 4.

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Point
Figure sets sets
4. Point generated in different
generated ways:
in different (a) good
ways: point
(a) good set set
point andand
(b)(b)
randomly generated
randomly generated point
point
setset methods.
methods.

Applying
Applying the the good
good point
point setsetmethod
methodtotothe
the HPO, the the initialization
initializationmethod
methodofof
thethe
IHPO
algorithm
IHPO cancan
algorithm be be
obtained
obtainedas follows:
as follows:

x j x=j =ubub
j −( )
j j  ·rj rjk· k + + 


lblb
j− lblb
j j (23)(23)

where j denotes the j component value of x The initial position vector generated by the good
point set method has a more evenly distributed and stable rate of convergence compared to
the random vector [26].

3.3.2. Improved Prey Position Update Algorithm

The HPO algorithm updates the prey’s position using the globally optimal position.
The HPO can be trapped in local optima, which affects the convergence speed of the
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 10 of 21

algorithm. Therefore, the local optimum position is introduced for updating the prey
position. The update algorithm for the improved prey position is as follows:
→
xi (t + 1) =T pos + CZ cos(2πr4 )×
→ (24)

rate ∗ T pos + (1 − rate) ∗ PBest (i) pos − xi (t)

where i denotes the local optima of the i-th search agent, and PBest (i) denotes the local
optima of the i-th search agents. Value rate is the scale factor of (0,1). Depending on the
scale between PBest(i) and Tpos , it is calculated as follows:
 
Tpos
rate = 2 ∗ 1 −   − 1 (25)
Tpos + PBest(i)

It should be noted that in this paper, the goal of the optimization is to minimize the
output result, so when Tpos is smaller, rate is larger; the prey prefers to update its position
using the global optima. Combining it with Equation (22), the update equation for the
search agents of the IHPO algorithm is as follows:
→
 
→



 x (t) + 0.5 2CZ P pos − x (t) + 2(1 − C ) Z µ − x (t) , r5 < β( a)

 →
x ( t + 1) = T pos + CZ cos(2πr4 )× (26)
→
 
 

 rate ∗ T + (1 − rate) ∗ P

pos − x (t) , r > β(b) Best (i ) pos i 5
Electronics 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23
The flowchart of the improved IHPO algorithm is shown in Figure 5.

Start

Initialize the optimization function

parameters with Good point set policy

Calculate Fitness Value

Find Tpos

Calculate C、Z with Equation (15，

16)

r5   Yes Calculate Ppos with Equation (17-20)

No

No Update agent position Update agent position

With Equation (26.a) With Equation(26.b)

Calculate Fitness Value

Find Tpos

Meet the criteria?

Yes

Output the optimal solution

End

Figure 5. Flowchart
Figure of the
5. Flowchart ofimproved IHPO IHPO
the improved algorithm.
algorithm.

3.4. IHPO Performance Evaluation and Analysis of the Results

In this section, 13 benchmark test functions are selected to verify the effectiveness of
the IHPO algorithm. The 13 benchmark test functions are widely used for testing various
types of optimization functions [27,28]. The IHPO algorithm is compared with the (i) orig-
inal HPO algorithm [21], (ii) PSO [29], (iii) ALO [30], (iv) GWO [31], (v) TSA [32] and (vi)
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 11 of 21

3.4. IHPO Performance Evaluation and Analysis of the Results

In this section, 13 benchmark test functions are selected to verify the effectiveness of
the IHPO algorithm. The 13 benchmark test functions are widely used for testing various
types of optimization functions [27,28]. The IHPO algorithm is compared with the (i)
original HPO algorithm [21], (ii) PSO [29], (iii) ALO [30], (iv) GWO [31], (v) TSA [32] and
(vi) WOA [33].
The expressions of benchmark functions are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Functions F1~F7
are unimodal test functions. Unimodal test functions have only global optimal results and
are suitable for detecting the convergence speed of the optimization algorithm. Functions
F8~F13 are multimodal test functions. Multimodal test function has multiple local optimum
solutions, which is suitable for detecting the ability of algorithms to jump out of the local
optima. In the tables below, “Dim” represents the dimension of the test function, “Range”
represents the value range of the test function’s independent variable, and “ f min ” is the
optimal value. To simplify the equation, n is used to represent dimensions in the equations
in Tables 4 and 5. All the test function dimensions are set to 30, the number of search agents
is 50, and the maximum number of iterations is 500. To obtain statistically significant data,
each test function is solved 30 times.

Table 4. Unimodal test functions.

Function Dim Range fmin

n
F1 ( x ) = ∑ xi2 30 [−100, 100] 0
i =1
n n
F2 ( x ) = ∑ | xi | + ∏ | xi | 30 [−10, 10] 0
i =1 i=
!12
n i 30 [−100, 100] 0
F3 ( x ) = ∑ ∑ xj
i =1 j −1
F4 ( x ) = max {| xi |, 1 ≤ i ≤ n} 30 [−100, 100] 0
n −1 h
2 i
F5 ( x ) = ∑ 100 xi+1 − xi2 + ( xi − 1)2 30 [−30, 30] 0
i =1
n
F6 ( x ) = ∑ ([ xi + 0.5])2 30 [−100, 100] 0
i =1
F7 ( x ) = max {| xi |, 1 ≤ i ≤ n} 30 [−1.28, 1.28] 0

Table 5. Multimodal test functions.

Function Dim Range fmin

n p 
F8 ( x ) = ∑ − xi sin | xi | 30 [−500, 500] −418.9825 * 5
i =1
n 
F9 ( x ) = ∑ xi2 − 10 cos(2πxi ) + 10 30 [−5.12, 5.12] 0

i =1 s !
n
F10 ( x ) = −20 exp −0.2 n1 ∑ xi2 − 30 [−32, 32] 0
i =1
 
n
exp n1 ∑ cos(2πxi ) + 20 + e
i =1
n n  
1 x 30 [−600, 600] 0
F11 ( x ) = 4000 ∑ xi2 − ∏ cos √i + 1
i
i =1 i =1
F12 ( x ) = πn {10 sin(πy1 )+ (yn − 1)2 +
n −1

n
2
∑ (yi − 1) 1 + 10 sin2 (πyi+1 ) + ∑ u( xi , 10, 100, 4)

30 [−50, 50] 0
i =1 i =1
n
x +1
+ ∑ u( xi , 10, 100, 4) yi = 1 + i 4
i =1 
m 
 k ( xi − a ) xi > a 
u( xi , a, k, m) = 0 − a < xi < a
m
 k(− xi − a) xi < − a
 
n
F13 ( x ) = 0.1 sin2 (3πx1 ) + ∑ ( xi − 1)2 1 + sin2 (3πxi + 1)
 
30 [−50, 50] 0
i= 1
o n
+( xn − 1)2 1 + sin2 (2πxn ) + ∑ u( xi , 5, 100, 4)

i =1
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 12 of 21

The above benchmark functions were tested using the IHPO algorithm and the other
algorithms. Some of the convergence curves are shown in Figure 6, where the horizontal
axis is the number of iterations, and the vertical axis is the average value of 30 rounds.
Each plot is a semi-logarithmic convergence plot. Table 6 shows the minimum value, the
maximum value, the average value and the variance of the results of different optimization
algorithms verified using different test functions. The bolded data represent the best results
under this benchmark function. It can be seen from the results that in all unimodal test
functions, the convergence speed of the IHPO and HPO algorithms is much faster than
that of the other algorithms. The convergence speed and results of the IHPO algorithm
are greatly improved compared with the HPO algorithm. In the multimodal test function,
the IHPO algorithm performs best on F9, F10, F11 and F12. On F8 and F13, although the
results of the IHPO are not as good as those of WOA, the convergence speed and the final
results are improved compared with the original HPO algorithm. The IHPO is also more
stable than the HPO and WOA. Moreover, the stability of the IHPO algorithm is improved
compared with HPO algorithm in most test functions.

Table 6. Comparison results for benchmarking functions.

Function PSO ALO GWO TSA WOA HPO IHPO

F1 Min 0.735959 2.89 ×10−5 1.45 ×10−38 4.63 ×10−26 3.81 ×10−96 0 0
Max 3.696292 0.000406 9.46 × 10−36 8.42 × 10−23 8.09 × 10−85 0 0
Avg 1.538743 0.000136 1.17 × 10−36 9.47 × 10−24 5.52 × 10−86 0 0
Std 0.726456 8.48 × 10−5 2.35 × 10−36 1.9 × 10−23 1.77 × 10−85 0 0
F2 Min 0.505629 4.102615 1.04 × 10−22 2.74 × 10−16 1.75 × 10−59 0 0
Max 7.334057 136.2959 4.43 × 10−21 3.32 × 10−14 1.2 × 10−52 3.9 × 10−299 0
Avg 2.750852 50.7212 9.41 × 10−22 5.8 × 10−15 6.87 × 10−54 2.3 × 10−300 0
Std 2.089441 46.71624 8.99 × 10−22 6.34 × 10−15 2.41 × 10−53 0 0
F3 Min 4.150569 392.902 1.19 × 10−10 1.02 × 10−10 11,329.37 0 0
Max 23.75996 3033.444 1.61 × 10−6 5.59 × 10−5 67,139.76 0 0
Avg 12.059 1615.409 1.12 × 10−7 2.07 × 10−6 28,537.78 0 0
Std 4.94186 721.8693 2.9 × 10−7 1 × 10−5 12,785.49 0 0
F4 Min 0.946614 4.622906 1.17 × 10−9 0.001164 0.000627 7.8 × 10−272 7.1 × 10−303
Max 15.51543 21.56396 4.65 × 10−7 0.447515 82.44428 2.5 × 10−253 3.3 × 10−285
Avg 6.289478 11.73729 6 × 10−8 0.089326 36.16453 8.4 × 10−255 1.3 × 10−286
Std 4.338685 3.38342 8.91 × 10−8 0.103862 28.23141 0 0
F5 Min 34.1883 5.082163 25.42878 27.12241 26.91943 20.14847 19.52495
Max 301.9513 1373.745 28.73775 28.90275 28.53038 24.16472 21.17915
Avg 115.3122 128.4232 26.78848 28.43383 27.42457 21.41817 20.4386
Std 73.63469 245.4885 0.732867 0.584376 0.370858 1.004628 0.370193
F6 Min 0.824377 2.96 × 10−5 9.95 × 10−7 0.122444 0.001233 3.32 × 10−18 2.78 × 10−17
Max 4.085392 0.000213 0.030333 0.211506 0.026571 0.009999 2.64 × 10−14
Avg 1.938282 0.000106 0.016579 0.160994 0.009973 0.000333 2.21 × 10−15
Std 0.899895 5.2× 10−5 0.010054 0.024823 0.006268 0.001795 4.95 × 10−15
F7 Min 0.014302 0.010791 0.000434 0.00074 6.04× 10−5 7.23 × 10−6 1.28 × 10−6
Max 0.141476 0.137476 0.002289 0.007175 0.014234 0.000598 0.000809
Avg 0.049371 0.052769 0.000929 0.003716 0.002815 0.000136 0.000136
Std 0.031664 0.026242 0.000426 0.001681 0.00308 0.000155 0.000175
F8 Min −10,905.3 −12,569.4 −7974.12 −7345.03 −12,569.2 −8462.99 −8917.65
Max −6582.45 −5417.67 −5625.65 −4860.38 −8123.81 −6369.35 −7461.27
Avg −8464.46 −5787.51 −6777.26 −6039.8 −11,274.7 −7415.14 −8040.41
Std 980.7863 1318.79 609.3698 570.5786 1410.565 704.8123 464.25
F9 Min 33.34937 39.79837 0 106.0835 0 0 0
Max 150.6205 141.2836 23.79284 280.0721 0 0 0
Avg 66.63293 76.64964 9.230506 178.1704 0 0 0
Std 26.21836 23.67553 7.766249 38.44448 0 0 0
F10 Min 6.880052 0.931343 3.29 × 10−14 1.93 × 10−13 8.88 × 10−16 8.88 × 10−16 8.88 × 10−16
Max 12.24613 3.885776 4.35 × 10−14 3.660763 7.99 × 10−15 8.88 × 10−16 8.88 × 10−16
Avg 10.20611 2.397031 3.91 × 10−14 2.314967 4.91 × 10−15 8.88 × 10−16 8.88 × 10−16
Std 1.451209 0.668457 2.54 × 10−15 1.408125 2.38 × 10−15 0 0
F11 Min 0.560561 0.004095 0 0 0 0 0
Max 0.982951 0.061275 0.037284 0.030828 0.096388 0 0
Avg 0.848833 0.023623 0.005102 0.006036 0.003213 0 0
Std 0.098769 0.014485 0.010013 0.008379 0.017302 0 0
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 13 of 21

Table 6. Cont.

Function PSO ALO GWO TSA WOA HPO IHPO

F12 Min 2.978176 4.427664 0.012233 2.841487 0.001574 2.45 × 10−17 0
Max 18.29589 23.63953 0.052492 17.95252 0.159504 1.08 × 10−11 0
Avg 9.247929 10.54308 0.031104 8.39487 0.010748 4.32 × 10−13 0
Std 3.983268 4.666686 0.010859 3.410731 0.027921 1.95 × 10−12 0
F13 Min 15.50733 5.6 × 10−5 0.095756 1.679004 0.029248 0.064783 0.109919
Max 61.65713 48.31666 0.688728 5.453582 0.488421 2.86538 2.796923
Avg 41.12046 7.057643 0.381324 2.906343 0.20174 1.310092 0.791166
Std2023, 12, x12.39199
Electronics FOR PEER REVIEW 13.0496 0.177102 0.755225 0.134676 0.99245
14 of 23 0.769479
Bold indicates the optimal result under this test function.

Figure 6. Cont.
Electronics 2023, 12,
Electronics 2023,2820
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23 14 of 21

Figure 6.6.
Figure Convergence curvescurves
Convergence for different algorithms.
for different algorithms.
Table 6. Comparison results for benchmarking functions.
3.5. Implementation of Four-Dimensional Trajectory Planning Algorithm
Function PSOTo optimize
ALO the trajectory,
GWO anTSAoptimization WOAfunction HPO
needs to IHPO be designed. Considering
F1 Min 0.735959 2.89 × 10−5 1.45 × 10−38 4.63 × 10−26 3.81 × 10−96 0 0
the constraints and optimization objectives of the aircraft, the optimization function is
Max 3.696292 0.000406 9.46 × 10−36 8.42 × 10−23 8.09 × 10−85 0 0
Avg
given
1.538743
as follows:
0.000136 1.17 × 10 −36 9.47 × 10 −24 5.52 × 10 −86 0 0
Std 0.726456 8.48 × 10−5 2.35 × 10−36 1.9 × 10−23 1.77 × 10−85 0 0
F2 Min 0.505629 4.102615 1.04 × 10−22 2.74 × 10−16 minimize 1.75 × 10−59: 0 0
Max 7.334057 136.2959 4.43 × 10−21 3.32 × 10−14 1.2 × 10−52 3.9 ×2 10−299 0
J = ∑ l−300
Avg 2.750852 50.7212 9.41 × 10−22 5.8 × 10−15 6.87 × 10−54 2.3i = × 110i 0
Std 2.089441 46.71624 8.99 × 10−22 6.34 × 10−15 subject 2.41 × 10to−53
: 0 0
F3 Min 4.150569 392.902 1.19 × 10−10 1.02 × 10−10 11329.37 0 0 (27)
Dist(1, 2) > 1000
Max 23.75996 3033.444 1.61 × 10 −6 5.59 × 10 −5 67139.76 0 0
Avg 12.059 1615.409 1.12 × 10−7 2.07 × 10−6
variable range : 0
28537.78 0
Std 4.94186 721.8693 2.9 × 10−7 1 × 10−5 12785.49 vmin0 < vi < vmax 0 ,
F4 Min 0.946614 4.622906 1.17 × 10 −9 0.001164 0.000627 a
7.8 < a
i × 10 max (
−272 , i =
7.1 ×101,−303
2)
Max 15.51543 21.56396 4.65 × 10−7 0.447515 82.44428 2.5 × 10−253 3.3 ×10−285
Avg where the11.73729
6.289478 optimization 6 × 10objective
−8 J is used
0.089326 to find8.4
36.16453 the× 10minimum
−255 1.3 ×10length
−286 of the aircraft
Std 4.338685
formation; 3.38342
li denotes8.91the×trajectory
10−8 0.103862
length of 28.23141
the i-th aircraft;0 Dist(1,0 2) denotes the relative
F5 Min 34.1883 5.082163 the25.42878
distance between first and second27.12241 aircraft;
26.91943 20.14847 the19.52495
ai , vi denote acceleration and speed of
Max 301.9513 1373.745 28.73775 28.90275 28.53038 24.16472 21.17915
the i-th aircraft; amax , vmin , vmax denote the maximum acceleration, minimum speed and
Avg 115.3122 128.4232 26.78848 28.43383 27.42457 21.41817 20.4386
Std
maximum245.4885
73.63469
speed of the aircraft, 0.584376
0.732867
respectively. From Equation
0.370858 1.004628
(27),0.370193
the cost function is given
F6 Min as follows:2.96 × 10−5 9.95 × 10−7 0.122444
0.824377 0.001233 3.32 × 10−18 2.78 ×10−17
2
Max 4.085392 0.000213 0.030333
J = ω1 ∗ ∑0.211506 li + ω2 ∗ 0.026571
(min(0, Dist 0.009999
(1, 2) − 10002.64 ×))
10−14
Avg 1.938282 0.000106 0.016579 i =0.160994
1 0.009973 0.000333 2.21 ×10−15
(28)
Std 0.899895 5.2× 10−5 0.010054 2 0.024823 0.006268 2 0.001795 4.95 ×10−15
F7 Min 0.014302 0.010791 ω
0.0004343 ∗ ∑ std ( v
0.00074i ) + ω ∗
4 10−5
6.04× ∑ std ( a ) + ω ∗ T
7.23i × 10−6 5 1.28 ×10−6
i =1 i =1
Max 0.141476 0.137476 0.002289 0.007175 0.014234 0.000598 0.000809
Avg where ω1 ,0.052769
0.049371 ω2 , ω3 , ω4 ,0.000929
ω5 , ω6 represent0.003716 the0.002815
weight. Value 0.000136 0, Dist(1, 2) − 1000) repre-
min(0.000136
Std sents the penalty term of relative distance. When relative distance is less than 1000 m, the
0.031664 0.026242 0.000426 0.001681 0.00308 0.000155 0.000175
F8 Min −10905.3 −12569.4 increases.
penalty gradually −7974.12 Values −7345.03
std(vi )−12569.2
, std( ai ) are−8462.99
the standard −8917.65
deviation of speed and
Max −6582.45
acceleration of the i-th aircraft. Their purpose is to limit the range−7461.27
−5417.67 −5625.65 −4860.38 −8123.81 −6369.35
of speed and acceleration.
Avg −8464.46 −5787.51 −6777.26 −6039.8 −11274.7 −7415.14 −8040.41
Std
T is the expected
980.7863 1318.79
arrival time. 570.5786
609.3698 1410.565 704.8123 464.25
F9 Min The ITJS
33.34937 generates 0the trajectory
39.79837 106.0835between 0 two navigation 0 points,
0 and the IHPO opti-
Max mizes the generated
150.6205 141.2836 trajectory
23.79284 by Equation (27).
280.0721 0 The steps0 of the four-dimensional
0 trajectory
Avg planning algorithm
66.63293 76.64964 are as follows:
9.230506 178.1704 0 0 0
Std 26.21836 23.67553 7.766249 38.44448 0 0 0
1. The aircraft receives a set of navigation points and selects navigation points 1 and 2 as
the start and end points, respectively.
2. The aircraft uses the ITJS to generate the trajectory.
3. The IHPO algorithm is used to optimize the parameter of the ITJS until the end
condition is satisfied.
4. The aircraft updates the start and end navigation points and goes back to step two
until the last navigation point becomes the end point.
The flowchart of the algorithm is shown in Figure 7.
 as the start and end points, respectively.
2. The aircraft uses the ITJS to generate the trajectory.
3. The IHPO algorithm is used to optimize the parameter of the ITJS until the end con-
dition is satisfied.
4. The aircraft updates the start and end navigation points and goes back to step two
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 15 of 21
until the last navigation point becomes the end point.
The flowchart of the algorithm is shown in Figure 7.

Start

Initialize the improve Tau-J Strategy,

select navigation point 1 and 2 as the
start and the end point, respectively..

Use the good point set policy to

initialize the parameters of improve
Tau-J strategy

Use the IHPO algorithm to optimize

the parameters
No

The optimization end

condition is satisfied

Yes

Output the trajectory with

the smallest fitness value

The trajectory reached its end No Update the start and end point

Yes

Output aircraft four-dimensional

trajectory, optimization ends

End

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Flowchart of
of the
the four-dimensional
four-dimensional trajectory
trajectory planning
planning algorithm.
algorithm.

4.
4. Simulation
Simulation and and Results
Results
This
This section
section describes
describes simulations performed to
simulations performed to verify
verify thethe effectiveness
effectiveness of of the
the pro-
pro-
posed
posed four-dimensional trajectory planning algorithm. All simulations were tested in the
four-dimensional trajectory planning algorithm. All simulations were tested in the
Electronics 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Matlab2022b
Matlab2022b v9.13 v9.13 environment
environment on on aa PC
PC with
with CPU
CPU i5-12500H
i5-12500H 2.50GHz.
2.50GHz. The 18 simulation
The of 23
simulation
results
results are
are as
as follows.
follows.
A three-dimensional trajectory of
A three-dimensional trajectory ofthe
theaircraft
aircraftisisshown
showninin Figure
Figure 8. 8.
TheThe markers
markers are
are
the the navigation
navigation points.
points. The The trajectory
trajectory is is
smooth smooth
and and
passes passes
throughthrough
the the designated
designated navi-
The gap in the aircraft formation is shown in Figure 9. The results show that the dis-
navigation
gation points
points in sequence.
in sequence. The The arrival
arrival timetime
ofthe of aircraft
the the aircraft is the
is safety
the same.
same. ThisThis proves
proves thatthat
the
tance is always greater than 2 km, which exceeds minimum distance. The ve-
the
ITJSITJS
can can generate
generate the the four-dimensional
four-dimensional trajectory
trajectory of of the
the aircraft.
aircraft. The
The arrival
arrival time
time of the
of the
locity aircraft
and acceleration
formationofisthe aircraft
shown formation
in Table are shown
7. It should in Figures
be noted that the10timeandto 11.reach
Theythe aresecond
aircraft
all within formation
the required is shown in Table 7. It should be noted that the time to reach the second
navigation pointrange.
and the The whole
third simulation
navigation timeisisthe
point 16.929
given s, time.
whichTheis a time
shorttoplan-
reach the
navigation
ning time and can point
meet and
the the thirdofnavigation
demand the online point is theplanning.
trajectory given time. The time to reach the
other navigation points is optimized by the IHPO algorithm. The time setting is flexible.
other navigation points is optimized by the IHPO algorithm. The time setting is flexible.

Figure 8. Three-dimensional view of the aircraft trajectory.

Figure 8. Three-dimensional view of the aircraft trajectory.
 The gap in the aircraft formation is shown in Figure 9. The results show that the dis-
tance is always greater than 2 km, which exceeds the minimum safety distance. The ve-
tance is always greater than 2 km, which exceeds the minimum safety distance. The ve-
locity and acceleration of the aircraft formation are shown in Figures 10 and 11. They are
locity and acceleration of the aircraft formation are shown in Figures 10 and 11. They are
all within the required range. The whole simulation time is 16.929 s, which is a short plan-
all within the required range. The whole simulation time is 16.929 s, which is a short plan-
ning time and can meet the demand of the online trajectory planning.
ning time and can meet the demand of the online trajectory planning.
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 16 of 21

Table 7. Arrival time of the aircraft formation.

Index of Navigation Points Time/s

1 0
2 385
3 645
4 987.46716
5 1639.85352
6 2156.48321
7 2417.27828

The gap in the aircraft formation is shown in Figure 9. The results show that the
distance is always greater than 2 km, which exceeds the minimum safety distance. The
velocity and acceleration of the aircraft formation are shown in Figures 10 and 11. They
are all within the required range. The whole simulation time is 16.929 s, which is a short
Figure 8. Three-dimensional view of the aircraft trajectory.
planning time and canview
Figure 8. Three-dimensional meetofthe
the demand of the online trajectory planning.
aircraft trajectory.

Figure 9. Relative distance of the aircraft formation.

Figure 9. Relative
Figure distance
9. Relative of theofaircraft
distance formation.
the aircraft formation.

Electronics 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

Figure Figure 10. Acceleration

10. Acceleration of the aircraft
of the aircraft formation.
formation.
Figure 10. Acceleration of the aircraft formation.

FigureFigure 11. Velocity

11. Velocity of theof the aircraft
aircraft formation.
formation.

Table 7. Arrival time of the aircraft formation.

Index of Navigation Points Time/s

1 0
 2 385
3 645
4 987.46716
5 1639.85352
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 6 2156.48321 17 of 21
7 2417.27828

AtAt present,
present,a variety
a varietyof algorithms
of algorithms have have
been applied to four-dimensional
been applied to four-dimensional track plan- track
ning. This paper compares the proposed algorithm with the
planning. This paper compares the proposed algorithm with the improved tau-G-PSO improved tau-G-PSO (ITG-
(ITG-
PSO)
PSO) algorithm
algorithm [34], improved
[34], improved tau-H-PSO
tau-H-PSO (ITH-PSO)
(ITH-PSO) algorithm
algorithm [25], MPC
[25], MPC algorithm
algorithm [35]
[35]
andandunoptimized
unoptimizedresults.
results.Under
Underthe thesame
same simulation conditions, the
simulation conditions, thesimulation
simulationresults resultsare
areshown
shownasasfollows.
follows.TheThe arrival
arrival time setting
settingof ofunoptimized
unoptimizedresultsresultsisisthe
thesame
same asas in in
Table
Table7; 7;
thethe
coupling
coupling raterate
is set to 0.3
is set to [36]. The first
0.3 [36]. The and
first second
and secondarrivalarrival
times times
of the ofimproved
the improvedtau-
G-PSO algorithm
tau-G-PSO and improved
algorithm and improved tau-H-PSO
tau-H-PSOalgorithm
algorithmare set
are assetin
asTable
in Table 7. The
7. The time
timeto to
reach
reachthethe
other
othernavigation
navigation points
points is is
optimized
optimized bybythethe
PSOPSOalgorithm.
algorithm. TheTheexpected
expected arrival
arrival
time
timeandandthethe
expected
expected trajectory
trajectory of of
thethe
MPC
MPC algorithm
algorithm are
arecalculated
calculated asasinin[35].
[35].
Figure
Figure 1212shows
showsthe theconvergence
convergencespeed speed of of each algorithm.
algorithm. Due Due to tothe
thedifference
differenceininthe
thecost
costfunctions,
functions, allall
thethecosts areare
costs normalized
normalized to to
present
present thethe
results
resultsclearly. It can
clearly. be seen
It can be seenfrom
the the
from results thatthat
results the the
proposed
proposed algorithm
algorithmhas has
the the
fastest convergence
fastest convergence speed,
speed,andand the the
MPC
MPCalgorithm
algorithmhas has
the the
slowest convergence
slowest convergence rate.rate.

Figure 12. Converge curve of each algorithm.

Figure 12. Converge curve of each algorithm.
The simulation results of the improved tau-G-PSO algorithm, improved tau-H-PSO
The simulation results of the improved tau-G-PSO algorithm, improved tau-H-PSO
algorithm, MPC algorithm, unoptimized results and the proposed algorithm are shown
algorithm, MPC algorithm, unoptimized results and the proposed algorithm are shown
in Table 8. It can be seen from the results that the velocity generated by the improved
tau-G-PSO algorithm and improved tau-H-PSO algorithm meet the given constraints.
However, their maximum acceleration exceeds the constraint condition, and the acceleration
discontinuity exists at the navigation point (Figure 13). This is because the acceleration
is not controlled by the two algorithms. This leads to serious errors in the application of
the algorithm.

Table 8. Results of different optimization algorithms.

Optimization Algorithm Trajectory Lengths/m vmin /m/s vmax /m/s amax /m/s Simulation Time/s
Proposed
947,812 183.5 223.4 3.875 16.929
algorithm
ITG-PSO 939,359 180.0 219.9 13.793 15.051
ITH-PSO 947,355 182.4 219.9 8.714 15.012
MPC 924,506 180 240 1 55.497
None 964,298 128.3 244.5 2.736 8.139

The expected trajectory designed in the MPC algorithm is directed from the starting
point to the end point, so the generated trajectory length is minimal. The speed and
acceleration of the MPC algorithm are also within the given range. However, the control
parameter of the MPC algorithm is discontinuous (Figure 14), which greatly limits the
application of the MPC algorithm. Moreover, the MPC algorithm needs to find the optimal
control amount in each step, which greatly increases the calculation time of the MPC
algorithm. Therefore, the application of the MPC algorithm is limited.
 G-PSO algorithm and improved tau-H-PSO algorithm meet the given constraints. How-
ever, their maximum acceleration exceeds the constraint condition, and the acceleration
discontinuity exists at the navigation point (Figure 13). This is because the acceleration is
not controlled by the two algorithms. This leads to serious errors in the application of the
algorithm.
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 18 of 21

Figure 13. ITG-PSO algorithm and ITH-PSO algorithm have discontinuous acceleration.

The expected trajectory designed in the MPC algorithm is directed from the starting
point to the end point, so the generated trajectory length is minimal. The speed and accel-
eration of the MPC algorithm are also within the given range. However, the control pa-
rameter of the MPC algorithm is discontinuous (Figure 14), which greatly limits the ap-
plication of the MPC algorithm. Moreover, the MPC algorithm needs to find the optimal
control amount in each step, which greatly increases the calculation time of the MPC al-
gorithm. Therefore, the application of the MPC algorithm is limited.

FigureFigure
13. ITG-PSO algorithm
13. ITG-PSO and ITH-PSO
algorithm algorithm
and ITH-PSO have discontinuous
algorithm acceleration.
have discontinuous acceleration.

The expected trajectory designed in the MPC algorithm is directed from the starting
point to the end point, so the generated trajectory length is minimal. The speed and accel-
eration of the MPC algorithm are also within the given range. However, the control pa-
rameter of the MPC algorithm is discontinuous (Figure 14), which greatly limits the ap-
plication of the MPC algorithm. Moreover, the MPC algorithm needs to find the optimal
control amount in each step, which greatly increases the calculation time of the MPC al-
gorithm. Therefore, the application of the MPC algorithm is limited.

FigureFigure
14. MPC
14.algorithm also has
MPC algorithm discontinuous
also controlcontrol
has discontinuous parameter.
parameter.

Through
Table 8. Results the above
of different experiments,
optimization it can be proved that the proposed algorithm can solve
algorithms.
the problem of the four-dimensional trajectory planning for a fixed-wing aircraft formation.
Optimization Trajectory
The position, velocity and acceleration of vthe generated Simulation
vmin /m/s max
/m/s afour-dimensional
max
/m/s2 trajectory are
Algorithm Lengths/m
continuous and smooth, which is necessary for the application of the algorithm Time/s to real
Proposed
problems. The flight time of each flight trajectory of the two aircraft is consistent and
947,812 183.5 223.4 3.875 16.929
algorithm
can be generated by the algorithm or set in advance. The flexible time adjustment option
can extend the
ITG-PSO application scope
939,359 180.0 of the algorithm.
219.9 Compared
13.793 to the other
15.051algorithms,
can IHPO can947,355
ITH-PSO avoid falling into
182.4local optima to generate the
219.9 8.714trajectory that satisfies the
15.012
constraints. The
MPC time consumed
924,506 180is within a short
240 range, which 1 makes the 55.497
online trajectory
Figureplanning
14. MPC algorithm
possible. also has discontinuous control parameter.

Table 5.
8. Results of different optimization algorithms.
Conclusions
This paper
Optimization proposes a four-dimensional trajectory planning algorithm
Trajectory for fixed-wing
Simulation
aircraft in complex vmin /m/s
environment. vmax /m/sthe bio-inspired
In this algorithm, amax /m/s2 ITJS algorithm is used
Algorithm Lengths/m Time/s
to generate the four-dimensional trajectory, and the IHPO algorithm is used to optimize
Proposed
the generated947,812
four-dimensional183.5
trajectory to223.4 3.875
meet the constraints. 16.929
algorithm
The IHPO algorithm is proposed based on the HPO algorithm. It is compared with
ITG-PSO 939,359 180.0 219.9 13.793 15.051
the other algorithms using benchmark functions, and the comparison results show that
ITH-PSO 947,355 182.4 219.9 8.714 15.012
the IHPO algorithm has obvious improvements compared with the original HPO algo-
MPC
rithm and the other algorithms. The final simulation results also show55.497
924,506 180 240 1 that, compared
with the other optimization algorithms, the IHPO algorithm can find better results under
restrictive conditions.
The calculation time of the four-dimensional trajectory planning algorithm for fixed-
wing aircraft proposed in this paper only depends on the number of navigation points and
the optimization times. It is not affected by the length of the flight trajectory. Compared
with the flight time of the aircraft, the calculation time of this algorithm only takes 16.929 s.
The short calculation time can make the algorithm meet the requirements of the online
long-range trajectory generation for fixed-wing aircraft.
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 19 of 21

This paper also introduces the tau theory and the ITJS algorithm. The ITJS transforms
the four-dimensional trajectory planning algorithm into a mathematical optimization
problem. The ITJS solves the case in which the start and end velocity of tau-J guidance
strategy is always zero. Moreover, compared with the improved tau-G and improved tau-H
guidance strategies [25,37], the ITJS acceleration is continuous. It is more in line with actual
requirements and reduces the error of the aircraft trajectory execution.
In summary, the proposed four-dimensional flight path planning algorithm can meet
the requirements of fixed-wing aircraft in real world: the short calculation time and flexible
time adjustment strategy make the algorithm applicable to various complex scenarios; the
speed and acceleration within a given range enable the aircraft to correctly execute the
given command.
However, the proposed algorithm also has some shortcomings. It can be seen from the
results that the length of the trajectory generated by the proposed algorithm is longer than
other algorithms. This may affect the performance of the generated trajectory and consume
more computing resources. Moreover, in the real world, the acceleration of the aircraft is
usually generated by the maneuvering of the aircraft and the engine, which are usually
continuous and delayed. However, the jerk of the proposed algorithm is discontinuous,
which may lead to errors in some cases. In the next stage, the IHPO algorithm will be
further improved to enhance the optimization performance of the algorithm and speed up
the optimization. An algorithm for jerk continuity is also necessary to be proposed to solve
the problem of jerk discontinuity.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.F. and J.W.; methodology, H.F.; software, H.F.; valida-
tion, H.F., J.W. and J.L.; formal analysis, H.F.; investigation, H.F.; resources, J.W.; data curation, H.F.;
writing—original draft preparation, H.F.; writing—review and editing, H.F. and J.L.; visualization,
H.F.; supervision, J.W.; project administration, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Han for their guidance through each stage of
the process.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Terzi, M.; Kolios, P.; Panayiotou, C.; Theocharides, T. A Unified Framework for Reliable Multi-Drone Tasking in Emergency
Response Missions. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), IEEE, Atlanta,
GA, USA, 11–14 June 2019; pp. 819–827.
2. Huang, T.; Wang, Y.; Cao, X.; Xu, D. Multi-UAV Mission Planning Method. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference
on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), Harbin, China, 27–28 November 2020; pp. 325–330.
3. Murrieta-Mendoza, A.; Hamy, A.; Botez, R.M. Four- and Three-Dimensional Aircraft Reference Trajectory Optimization Inspired
by Ant Colony Optimization. J. Aerosp. Inf. Syst. 2017, 14, 597–616. [CrossRef]
4. Zhou, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhong, G.; Liu, H. Multiobjective Four-Dimensional Trajectory Synergetic Optimization Based on
Congestion Prediction and NSGA3-SA. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 71986–72005. [CrossRef]
5. Chen, Y.; Xu, Y.; Hu, M.; Huang, F.; Nie, Q. A 4D-Trajectory Planning Method Based on Hybrid Optimization Strategy for Demand
and Capacity Balancing. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/AIAA 40th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), San Antonio,
TX, USA, 3–7 October 2021; pp. 1–9.
6. Lucas, C.; Hernadez-Sosa, D.; Caldeira, R. Multi-Objective Four-Dimensional Glider Path Planning Using NSGA-II. In Proceedings
of the 2018 IEEE/OES Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Workshop (AUV), Porto, Portugal, 6–9 November 2018; pp. 1–5.
7. Wu, P.P.-Y.; Campbell, D.; Merz, T. Multi-Objective Four-Dimensional Vehicle Motion Planning in Large Dynamic Environments.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B 2011, 41, 621–634. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Sudhakara, P.; Ganapathy, V.; Sundaran, K. Mobile Robot Trajectory Planning Using Enhanced Artificial Bee Colony Optimization
Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Power, Control, Signals and Instrumentation Engineering
(ICPCSI), Chennai, India, 21–22 September 2017; pp. 363–367.
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 20 of 21

9. Bäuml, B.; Wimböck, T.; Hirzinger, G. Kinematically Optimal Catching a Flying Ball with a Hand-Arm-System. In Proceedings of
the 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, 18–22 October 2010; pp. 2592–2599.
10. Dong, K.; Huang, C.; Tang, S.; Zhang, Z. 4-Dimensional Trajectory Online Rolling Optimization Design for Unmanned Combat
Aerial Vehicle with Multi-Constraints. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Chinese Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference
(CGNCC), Nanjing, China, 12–14 August 2016; pp. 567–573.
11. Hove, B.; Slotine, J.-J.E. Experiments in Robotic Catching. In Proceedings of the 1991 American Control Conference, Boston, MA,
USA, 26–28 June 1991; pp. 380–386.
12. Kesswani, N.; Satapathy, S.C.; Bhateja, V.; Joshi, A. Performance Evaluation of Shortest Path Routing Algorithms in Real Road
Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering and Communication Technology: ICDECT 2016, Volume 2;
Springer-Verlag Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2017; Volume 469, pp. 77–83.
13. Zhu, Z.; Li, L.; Wu, W.; Jiao, Y. Application of Improved Dijkstra Algorithm in Intelligent Ship Path Planning. In Proceedings of
the 2021 33rd Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Kunming, China, 22–24 May 2021; pp. 4926–4931.
14. Lampariello, R.; Nguyen-Tuong, D.; Castellini, C.; Hirzinger, G.; Peters, J. Trajectory Planning for Optimal Robot Catching in
Real-Time. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Shanghai, China, 9–13 May
2011; pp. 3719–3726.
15. Kumar, V.; Jangir, S.; Patanvariya, D.G. Traffic Load Balancing in SDN Using Round-Robin and Dijkstra Based Methodology. In
Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference for Advancement in Technology (ICONAT), Goa, India, 21–23 January 2022;
pp. 1–4.
16. Wang, Z.; Peng, J.; Ding, S. Bio-Inspired Trajectory Generation for Robotic Manipulators Based on Intrinsic Tau Exponential Guidance
Strategy. In Proceedings of the 2021 China Automation Congress (CAC), Beijing, China, 22–24 October 2021; pp. 2247–2252.
17. Zhang, H.; Cheng, B.; Zhao, J. Extended Tau Theory for Robot Motion Control. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Marina Bay Sands, Singapore, 29 May–3 June 2017; pp. 5321–5326.
18. Zhang, J.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Z. Bionic Motion Planning for Robot Arm Catching Based on Tau Guidance Theory. In Proceedings of
the 2019 IEEE 8th Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Conference (ITAIC), Chongqing, China,
24–26 May 2019; pp. 764–767.
19. Valenzuela Najera, R.; Everett, L.; Ortega, A.G.; Choudhuri, A.; Flores-Abad, A. Bio-Inspired Guidance Method for a Soft Landing
on a Near-Earth Asteroid. Adv. Space Res. 2020, 66, 2402–2415. [CrossRef]
20. Lin, H.; Wang, B.; Tang, C.; Xu, G. Autonomous Landing of a VTOL UAV on a Ship Based on Tau Theory. In Proceedings of the
2022 34th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Hefei, China, 21–23 May 2022; pp. 2785–2790.
21. Naruei, I.; Keynia, F.; Sabbagh Molahosseini, A. Hunter–Prey Optimization: Algorithm and Applications. Soft Comput. 2022, 26,
1279–1314. [CrossRef]
22. Lee, D.N. A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision. Perception 1976, 5, 437–459.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Lee, D. Guiding Movement by Coupling Taus. Ecol. Psych. 1998, 10, 221–250. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, S.; Xie, P.; Ma, O. Bioinspired 4D Trajectory Generation for a UAS Rapid Point-to-Point Movement. J. Bionic.
Eng. 2014, 11, 72–81. [CrossRef]
25. Ding, Q.; Tao, W.-M. Improved Tau-H strategy for four-dimensional cooperative route planning of multi-UAVs. J. Zhejiang Univ.
2018, 52, 1398–1405+1422.
26. Li, Y.; Ni, Z.; Jin, F.; Li, J.; Li, F. Research on Clustering Method of Improved Glowworm Algorithm Based on Good-Point Set.
Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, e8724084. [CrossRef]
27. Naruei, I.; Keynia, F. Wild Horse Optimizer: A New Meta-Heuristic Algorithm for Solving Engineering Optimization Problems.
Eng. Comput. 2022, 38, 3025–3056. [CrossRef]
28. Braik, M.S. Chameleon Swarm Algorithm: A Bio-Inspired Optimizer for Solving Engineering Design Problems. Expert Syst. Appl.
2021, 174, 114685. [CrossRef]
29. Eberhart, R.; Kennedy, J. A New Optimizer Using Particle Swarm Theory. In Proceedings of the MHS’95, Sixth International
Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, Nagoya, Japan, 4–6 October 1995; pp. 39–43.
30. Mirjalili, S. The Ant Lion Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2015, 83, 80–98. [CrossRef]
31. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
32. Kaur, S.; Awasthi, L.K.; Sangal, A.L.; Dhiman, G. Tunicate Swarm Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Based Metaheuristic Paradigm
for Global Optimization. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 90, 103541. [CrossRef]
33. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The Whale Optimization Algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
34. Yang, Z.; Fang, Z.; Li, P. Bio-Inspired Collision-Free 4D Trajectory Generation for UAVs Using Tau Strategy. J. Bionic. Eng. 2016,
13, 84–97. [CrossRef]
35. Zhang, Y.; Gao, X.; Wei, X. Simulation of Dynamic Path Planning for UAV in 4D Space. J. Syst. Simul. 2009, 21, 7838–7841.
Electronics 2023, 12, 2820 21 of 21

36. Zhang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Qian, J. Bio-inspired Trajectory Planning for Robot Catching Movements Based on Tau theory. J. Mech. Eng.
2014, 50, 42–51. [CrossRef]
37. Yang, Z.; Fang, Z.; Li, P. Decentralized 4D Trajectory Generation for UAVs Based on Improved Intrinsic Tau Guidance Strategy.
Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2016, 13, 88. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.