Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

CAT-ORA: Collision-Aware Time-Optimal Formation Reshaping for Efficient Robot Coordination in 3D Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CAT-ORA claims to solve the time-optimal, collision-free formation reshaping problem in 3D, with a proof of optimality under explicit assumptions.

desk verdict CAT-ORA is a real contribution to time-optimal formation reshaping with collision guarantees, but the written completeness proof has a backtracking gap in the branch-and-bound search that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00603 v2 pith:PT6V2DHD submitted 2024-11-30 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Vit Kratky , Robert Penicka , Jiri Horyna , Petr Stibinger , Tomas Baca , Matej Petrlik , Petr Stepan , Martin Saska This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords formationreshapingtime-optimalplanningcollisionavoidanceHungarianalgorithmbottleneckassignmentmulti-robotsystemsUAVswarmstrajectorygeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

CAT-ORA is an algorithm for the Time-Optimal Formation Reshaping Problem (TOFREP): given $n$ unlabeled robots and $n$ goal positions, find the robot-to-goal assignment and the trajectories that finish the whole reshape as fast as possible while keeping every pair of robots at least $\Delta$ apart. The paper argues that CAT-ORA is optimal for this problem under six explicit assumptions, the most restrictive being that the starting positions are separated from each other by at least $\sqrt{2}\cdot\Delta$ and the same for goals, and that the convex hull of starts and goals is obstacle-free. If that argument is right, CAT-ORA is the first complete approach to time-optimal collision-free formation reshaping in 3D, not just a heuristic. The practical payoff is battery time: in random scenarios the algorithm cut reshaping time by up to 49% and 12% on average compared to the common LSAP-based assignment, and it runs in a few milliseconds for formations up to 32 robots.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the collision-aware LBAP assignment: a Hungarian-type algorithm that alternates internal Hungarian searches, dynamic Hungarian dual updates, threshold increases, and depth-first branching on mutually exclusive robot-goal pairs, using an analytical collision check derived from an isosceles-trapezoid bound. A second piece is Theorem 2, the progress-ratio argument: if two trajectory parametrizations keep a constant ratio of distances traveled, their minimum mutual distance is identical, so the collision guarantees proved for constant-velocity trajectories transfer to the generated minimum-time trajectories. The closed-form bang-bang trajectory generator then realizes the makespan-minimizing time profile.

What would settle it

Run an exhaustive search over all robot-to-goal assignments for small instances ($n \le 8$) that satisfy assumptions A1--A6, generate the paper's minimum-time trajectories for each assignment, and check pairwise clearance $\ge \Delta$; if any assignment beats CAT-ORA's makespan, the optimality claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that minimizing the makespan of a collision-free formation reshape reduces to solving a Linear Bottleneck Assignment Problem (LBAP), which minimizes the longest assigned path, with hard constraints that forbid simultaneously selecting any two robot-goal pairs whose straight trajectories can come closer than $\Delta$, followed by a closed-form minimum-makespan trajectory set. The assignment step uses the Hungarian algorithm and its dynamic variant with branching on colliding edges; the trajectory step uses bang-bang time-optimal control for the longest path and rescales all other trajectories to share the same progress ratio, which preserves pairwise distances. The proof of optimality rests on a lower bound for the minimum mutual distance of two trajectories: under the stated separation assumptions, any pair of constant-velocity trajectories in an LBAP solution stays at distance at least $\sqrt{1-M^2}\,\delta_{ij}$, so collision checking can be done analytically. The paper concludes that CAT-ORA is an optimal algorithm for TOFREP under assumptions A1--A6, with the caveat that A3 restricts motion to straight paths with equivalent time parametrization.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the starts are at least $\sqrt{2}\cdot\Delta$ apart from one another and the goals are at least $\sqrt{2}\cdot\Delta$ apart from one another, and that the convex hull of all starts and goals is obstacle-free; if a scenario is denser or cluttered, the completeness and optimality guarantees in the paper no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CAT-ORA would be the first complete algorithm for the time-optimal, collision-free formation reshaping problem in 3D, with the assignment and trajectory generation solved together.
  • Users of the standard LSAP assignment would see the longest path shrink by about 11% on average, and makespan reductions of up to 49% in tested scenarios; the worst-case gap between the two assignment criteria grows as $\sqrt{N}$.
  • The algorithm stays collision-free on all 100,000 tested random instances, whereas LBAP without collision constraints collided in more than 6% of them, at a cost of only about 0.06% longer makespan than the LBAP lower bound.
  • The same assignment logic can be paired with a distributed planner, and in the paper's tests the full CAT-ORA trajectories were about 45% faster than the distributed planner using only the assignment component.
  • Moving formations can be handled by reshaping in relative coordinates, demonstrated with 19 UAVs reconfiguring between 2D and 3D shapes while the formation center moved.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The progress-ratio transfer in Theorem 2 suggests the collision guarantee should survive replacing the bang-bang time-optimal controller with any trajectory generator that keeps a constant ratio of distances traveled, so the assignment component could be reused for minimum-energy or smoothness-optimal reshaping.
  • In dense or cluttered environments that violate assumptions A5 or A6, CAT-ORA's optimality certificate lapses, but the collision-aware assignment it produces could still serve as a warm start for local repair such as time delays or path deformation.
  • Because the LSAP-versus-LBAP longest-path ratio can be as large as $\sqrt{N}$, the makespan benefit of the bottleneck formulation is expected to grow with formation size, making large drone shows and warehouse reconfigurations the most promising deployment regimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines the Time-Optimal Formation Reshaping Problem (TOFREP) for 3D multi-robot systems with collision-avoidance guarantees and proposes CAT-ORA, a centralized deterministic algorithm that decouples the problem into (i) a robot-to-goal assignment solved as a Linear Bottleneck Assignment Problem (LBAP) with additional mutual-collision constraints, and (ii) a minimum-makespan trajectory generation stage based on a closed-form bang-bang control policy. Under assumptions A1–A6 (including a separation condition on initial/goal configurations and an obstacle-free convex hull), the authors claim that CAT-ORA is complete and optimal for TOFREP. The paper provides theoretical proofs, statistical evaluation on 10^5 random instances, comparisons against LSAP- and LBAP-based baselines, and a real-world outdoor experiment with 19 UAVs.

Significance. If the central optimality claim holds, CAT-ORA is the first complete algorithm for time-optimal, collision-free formation reshaping in 3D under the stated assumptions. The theoretical lower bound on minimum mutual distance for LBAP assignments, the explicit branch-and-bound scheme for mutually exclusive robot-goal pairs, and the synchronized trajectory parametrization that preserves pairwise-distance guarantees are coherent and useful contributions. The paper is also unusually transparent: it releases open-source code, provides parameter-free derivations, and validates on a real 19-UAV flight, which strengthens confidence in the practical claims. The reported reductions in makespan (up to 49%, 12% on average versus LSAP) are practically significant for battery-constrained aerial robots, assuming the optimality proof can be completed.

major comments (3)
  1. [§VII-A, Algorithm 4 and §IX-B] The branch-and-bound search in Algorithm 4 is not written in a way that establishes the completeness claim in §IX-B. The procedure maintains a single global bounding matrix B and, when a node nc is dequeued, line 6 updates B with the newly restricted edge, but no restoration is shown when the LIFO search backtracks to a sibling. After one child of a collision pair fails, its restriction remains in B while the other child is processed, so the sibling is solved with both edges restricted rather than with only the restriction on its own branch. This can exclude valid collision-free perfect matchings and contradicts the proof statement that the binary split 'ensures no valid solution is missed.' The paper must specify a per-node copy of B or an explicit restoration-on-backtracking mechanism, and then prove that each sibling is solved with exactly the restrictions accumulated along its own path.
  2. [§V-A, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) states the collision constraints as sum_{e=1}^{|C_m|} x_{idx(C_m,e)} = 1 for each constraint set C_m. For a pair of mutually colliding edges, a perfect matching may contain neither edge (the corresponding robots and goals can be matched to other partners), so the valid condition is 'at most one' (≤ 1), not 'exactly one'. As written, the ILP formulation forces one edge from each colliding pair into the matching, which can make the problem infeasible or change the optimum. Algorithm 4 correctly implements the 'at most one' semantics by branching over excluded edges, so the formal constraint in Eq. (8) should be corrected to match the algorithm.
  3. [§IX-B, first paragraph] The sentence 'The proof of completeness follows directly from (B1) and (B2)' is not supported by the listed observations. Observations (B1) and (B2) state optimality properties of the Hungarian algorithm and its dynamic variant; they do not by themselves show that the branch tree in Algorithm 4 visits every relevant combination of edge restrictions at a given threshold. The completeness argument needs an explicit induction or search-tree argument, which is currently missing. This is closely tied to the previous comment about state restoration, but even with restoration assumed, the proof as written does not spell out why the DFS enumeration is exhaustive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§VI, Eq. (41)] The function name 'colide' in Eq. (41) is a typo and should be 'collide'.
  2. [§VII-A, Algorithm 4] The procedure 'updateRestrictedNodes(Md,B,nc)' invoked in line 6 of Algorithm 4 is never defined in the text. Please define its behavior (presumably marking the newly restricted edge in B) so the pseudocode is self-contained.
  3. [§VIII-B, progress ratio] In the definition of PR(T_i,T_j,t) in Eq. (48), the symbols p_i(t) and p_j(t) are introduced as distances traveled along the paths, whereas earlier in the paper p is used for position. This notational clash should be clarified, for example by using s_i(t), s_j(t) or explicitly saying 'traveled distance'.
  4. [§IX-B, item (B3)] The formula for the constant Q is confusing: it reads 'Q = sum_{m_ij in Md} [m_ij ≤ tc] m_ij for all elements m_ij > tc'. The indicator and the qualification 'for all elements m_ij > tc' appear inconsistent; please rephrase to state clearly that bounded elements are replaced by a sufficiently large constant.
  5. [Table II] The row 'LBAP + min. time' reports a success rate of 0.0% yet also reports a makespan PDB of 0.00. Please clarify whether the PDB statistics are computed only over successful instances or whether a placeholder value is used when no instance succeeds, since the current table may mislead readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimality proof is self-contained and the only self-citation, [33], is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

CAT-ORA's derivation chain is not circular. The collision lower bound (Theorem 1) and the collision-check condition (30) are derived in the paper from the stated geometry, not imported as the target result. The completeness and optimality argument in Section IX-B invokes the external Hungarian algorithm [13] and the external dynamic Hungarian variant [40] for the underlying assignment machinery, while assumption (A5) and the external LSAP guarantee [24] provide the terminal collision-free matching. The minimum-time trajectory component is stated from the point-mass model (43)-(45), and the only self-citation, [33] (Penicka and Scaramuzza), is used for the standard bang-bang closed-form solution, which is also attributed to external [27] and effectively re-derived in the paper's equations, so it is not load-bearing. The reported comparisons are against LSAP, LBAP, and MADER baselines, not against fitted values or self-defined metrics. One proof gap unrelated to circularity should be noted: Algorithm 4 updates a single global bounding matrix B in line 6 without showing restoration on backtracking, so the Section IX-B assertion that the binary split 'ensures no valid solution is missed' is not established as written; this is a correctness and completeness concern, not a self-referential reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted constants. The collision-check parameter M is derived from delta and Delta via Eq. (30), not fitted to data. The main axioms are standard combinatorial optimization results plus the stated domain assumptions A3, A5, and A6.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Hungarian algorithm and its dynamic variant are optimal for the assignment problems they solve.
    Invoked in Section IX-B observations (B1) and (B2), relying on refs [13] and [40].
  • domain assumption For LSAP with squared Euclidean costs, trajectories are collision-free when delta >= sqrt(2)*R, as proved in [24].
    Used in Section VI-A and as the fallback completeness argument in Section VII-A.
  • domain assumption Assumption (A3): straight paths with mutually equivalent time parametrization.
    Restricts the trajectory class, enabling separation of assignment and trajectory generation.
  • domain assumption Assumption (A5): the minimum distance between start positions and between goal positions satisfies delta >= eta*Delta with eta >= sqrt(2).
    Needed for existence of a collision-free LSAP fallback and for completeness of Algorithm 1.
  • domain assumption Assumption (A6): the convex hull of S union G is obstacle-free.
    Ensures straight-line paths are feasible and no external obstacles affect collision analysis.
  • domain assumption Point-mass dynamics with bounded acceleration and velocity describe the robots' motion.
    Used to derive the closed-form minimum-time trajectory in Section VIII.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CAT-ORA: Collision-Aware Time-Optimal Formation Reshaping for Efficient Robot Coordination in 3D Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PT6V2DHD

@misc{pith2026241200603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CAT-ORA: Collision-Aware Time-Optimal Formation Reshaping for Efficient Robot Coordination in 3D Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PT6V2DHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00603}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we introduce an algorithm designed to address the problem of time-optimal formation reshaping in three-dimensional environments while preventing collisions between agents. The utility of the proposed approach is particularly evident in mobile robotics, where agents benefit from being organized and navigated in formation for a variety of real-world applications requiring frequent alterations in formation shape for efficient navigation or task completion. Given the constrained operational time inherent to battery-powered mobile robots, the time needed to complete the formation reshaping process is crucial for their efficient operation, especially in case of multi-rotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). The proposed Collision-Aware Time-Optimal formation Reshaping Algorithm (CAT-ORA) builds upon the Hungarian algorithm for the solution of the robot-to-goal assignment implementing the inter-agent collision avoidance through direct constraints on mutually exclusive robot-goal pairs combined with a trajectory generation approach minimizing the duration of the reshaping process. Theoretical validations confirm the optimality of CAT-ORA, with its efficacy further showcased through simulations, and a real-world outdoor experiment involving 19 UAVs. Thorough numerical analysis shows the potential of CAT-ORA to decrease the time required to perform complex formation reshaping tasks by up to 49%, and 12% on average compared to commonly used methods in randomly generated scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Deployment of the introduced Collision-Aware Time-Optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Block diagram of the proposed Collision-Aware Time-Optimal formation Reshaping Algorithm (CAT-ORA). The colors of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example problem consisting of two initial positions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the general case of an assignment problem with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simplified diagram illustrating succession of individual steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Acceleration and velocity profiles and position progress along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The ratio between the maximum length of the set of paths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of computational demands of the LSAP approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A qualitative comparison of the formation reshaping process applying CAT-ORA and approach applying LSAP solution coupled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Snapshots from a real-world experiment showing the tran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Graphical illustration of the minimum distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    CERBERUS in the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,

    M. Tranzatto, T. Miki, M. Dharmadhikari, L. Bernreiter, M. Kulkarni, F. Mascarich, O. Andersson, S. Khattak, M. Hutter, R. Siegwart, and K. Alexis, “CERBERUS in the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabp9742, 2022. 18

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    UA Vs Beneath the Surface: Cooperative Autonomy for Subterranean Search and Rescue in DARPA SubT,

    M. Petrlik, P. Petracek, V . Kratky, T. Musil, Y . Stasinchuk, M. Vrba, T. Baca, D. Hert, M. Pecka, T. Svoboda, and M. Saska, “UA Vs Beneath the Surface: Cooperative Autonomy for Subterranean Search and Rescue in DARPA SubT,” Field Robotics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–68, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Multi- robot, multi-sensor exploration of multifarious environments with full mission aerial autonomy,

    G. Best, R. Garg, J. Keller, G. A. Hollinger, and S. Scherer, “Multi- robot, multi-sensor exploration of multifarious environments with full mission aerial autonomy,” The International Journal of Robotics Re- search, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 485–512, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A Virtual Force Interaction Scheme for Multi-Robot Environment Monitoring,

    K. Ji, Q. Zhang, Z. Yuan, H. Cheng, and D. Yu, “A Virtual Force Interaction Scheme for Multi-Robot Environment Monitoring,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 149, p. 103967, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Multi- robot 3d gas distribution mapping: Coordination, information sharing and environmental knowledge,

    C. Ercolani, S. M. Deshmukh, T. L. Peeters, and A. Martinoli, “Multi- robot 3d gas distribution mapping: Coordination, information sharing and environmental knowledge,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2023, pp. 11 418–11 424

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A review on multirobot systems in agriculture,

    C. Ju, J. Kim, J. Seol, and H. I. Son, “A review on multirobot systems in agriculture,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 202, p. 107336, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Robotized and Automated Warehouse Systems: Review and Recent Developments,

    K. Azadeh, R. De Koster, and D. Roy, “Robotized and Automated Warehouse Systems: Review and Recent Developments,”Transportation Science, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 917–945, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    New Era in Cultural Heritage Preservation: Cooperative Aerial Autonomy: Super- vised Autonomy for Fast Digitalization of Difficult-to-Access Interiors of Historical Monuments,

    P. Petracek, V . Kratky, T. Baca, M. Petrlik, and M. Saska, “New Era in Cultural Heritage Preservation: Cooperative Aerial Autonomy: Super- vised Autonomy for Fast Digitalization of Difficult-to-Access Interiors of Historical Monuments,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , pp. 2–19, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Wildfire Monitoring in Remote Areas Using Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

    F. Afghah, A. Razi, J. Chakareski, and J. Ashdown, “Wildfire Monitoring in Remote Areas Using Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” in IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communica- tions Workshops, 2019, pp. 835–840

    2019

  2. [10]

    Drone Shows: Creative Po- tential and Best Practices,

    M. Waibel, B. Keays, and F. Augugliaro, “Drone Shows: Creative Po- tential and Best Practices,” ETH Zurich, Tech. Rep., 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    A Survey of Drone Use for Entertainment and A VR (Augmented and Virtual Reality),

    S. J. Kim, Y . Jeong, S. Park, K. Ryu, and G. Oh, “A Survey of Drone Use for Entertainment and A VR (Augmented and Virtual Reality),” Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: Empowering Human, Place and Business, pp. 339–352, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    The Hungarian Method for the Assignment Problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The Hungarian Method for the Assignment Problem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly , vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955

    1955

  5. [13]

    Algorithms for the Assignment and Transportation Prob- lems,

    J. R. Munkres, “Algorithms for the Assignment and Transportation Prob- lems,” Journal of The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics , vol. 10, pp. 196–210, 1957

    1957

  6. [14]

    Multiple Mobile Robot Task and Motion Planning: A Survey,

    L. Antonyshyn, J. Silveira, S. Givigi, and J. Marshall, “Multiple Mobile Robot Task and Motion Planning: A Survey,” ACM Comput. Surv. , vol. 55, no. 10, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Task Assignment Algorithms for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,

    S. Poudel and S. Moh, “Task Assignment Algorithms for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Networks: A Comprehensive Survey,”Vehicular Commu- nications, vol. 35, p. 100469, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    A Survey of Task Al- location Techniques in MAS,

    G. M. Skaltsis, H.-S. Shin, and A. Tsourdos, “A Survey of Task Al- location Techniques in MAS,” in 2021 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems , 2021, pp. 488–497

    2021

  9. [17]

    Market Approaches to the Multi- Robot Task Allocation Problem: a Survey,

    F. Quinton, C. Grand, and C. Lesire, “Market Approaches to the Multi- Robot Task Allocation Problem: a Survey,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 107, no. 2, p. 29, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A Distributed Version of the Hungarian Method for Multirobot Assignment,

    S. Chopra, G. Notarstefano, M. Rice, and M. Egerstedt, “A Distributed Version of the Hungarian Method for Multirobot Assignment,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 932–947, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Assignment Problems,

    R. E. Burkard, M. dell’Amico, and S. Martello, “Assignment Problems,” in IFIP Congress: Fundamentals - Foundations of Computer Science , 1998

    1998

  12. [20]

    Algorithm for the Solution of the Bottleneck Assignment Problem,

    G. Carpaneto and P. Toth, “Algorithm for the Solution of the Bottleneck Assignment Problem,” Computing, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 179–187, 1981

    1981

  13. [21]

    Anonymous Hedonic Game for Task Allocation in a Large-Scale Multiple Agent System,

    I. Jang, H.-S. Shin, and A. Tsourdos, “Anonymous Hedonic Game for Task Allocation in a Large-Scale Multiple Agent System,” IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1534–1548, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    PSO-based Optimal Task Allocation for Cooperative Timing Missions,

    G. Oh, Y . Kim, J. Ahn, and H.-L. Choi, “PSO-based Optimal Task Allocation for Cooperative Timing Missions,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 17, pp. 314–319, 2016, 20th IFAC Symposium on Automatic Control in Aerospace 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Consensus-Based Decentralized Auctions for Robust Task Allocation,

    H.-L. Choi, L. Brunet, and J. P. How, “Consensus-Based Decentralized Auctions for Robust Task Allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 912–926, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    CAPT: Concurrent Assignment and Planning of Trajectories for Multiple Robots,

    M. Turpin, N. Michael, and V . Kumar, “CAPT: Concurrent Assignment and Planning of Trajectories for Multiple Robots,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 98–112, 2014, publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2014

  17. [25]

    Simultaneous Optimization of Assignments and Goal Formations for Multiple Robots,

    S. Agarwal and S. Akella, “Simultaneous Optimization of Assignments and Goal Formations for Multiple Robots,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2018, pp. 6708–6715

    2018

  18. [26]

    Path Planning for Permutation-Invariant Multirobot Formations,

    S. Kloder and S. Hutchinson, “Path Planning for Permutation-Invariant Multirobot Formations,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 650–665, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Centralized Collision-free Polynomial Trajectories and Goal Assignment for Aerial Swarms,

    B. Gravell and T. Summers, “Centralized Collision-free Polynomial Trajectories and Goal Assignment for Aerial Swarms,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 109, p. 104753, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Assignment Algorithms for Variable Robot Formations,

    S. Akella, “Assignment Algorithms for Variable Robot Formations,” in Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XII , K. Goldberg, P. Abbeel, K. Bekris, and L. Miller, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, vol. 13, pp. 912–927

    2020

  21. [29]

    SCRAM: Scalable Collision- avoiding Role Assignment with Minimal-Makespan for Formational Po- sitioning,

    P. MacAlpine, E. Price, and P. Stone, “SCRAM: Scalable Collision- avoiding Role Assignment with Minimal-Makespan for Formational Po- sitioning,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 29, no. 1, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Shape Formation in Homogeneous Swarms Using Local Task Swapping,

    H. Wang and M. Rubenstein, “Shape Formation in Homogeneous Swarms Using Local Task Swapping,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 597–612, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Learning Safe Unlabeled Multi-Robot Plan- ning with Motion Constraints,

    A. Khan, C. Zhang, S. Li, J. Wu, B. Schlotfeldt, S. Y . Tang, A. Ribeiro, O. Bastani, and V . Kumar, “Learning Safe Unlabeled Multi-Robot Plan- ning with Motion Constraints,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2019, pp. 7558–7565

    2019

  24. [32]

    Papadimitriou and K

    C. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz, Combinatorial Optimization: Algo- rithms and Complexity , 1982, vol. 32

    1982

  25. [33]

    Minimum-Time Quadrotor Waypoint Flight in Cluttered Environments,

    R. Penicka and D. Scaramuzza, “Minimum-Time Quadrotor Waypoint Flight in Cluttered Environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Let- ters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5719–5726, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Mader: Trajectory planner in multiagent and dynamic environments,

    J. Tordesillas and J. P. How, “Mader: Trajectory planner in multiagent and dynamic environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 463–476, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Multi-robot trajectory planning with feasibility guarantee and deadlock resolution: An obstacle-dense environment,

    Y . Chen, C. Wang, M. Guo, and Z. Li, “Multi-robot trajectory planning with feasibility guarantee and deadlock resolution: An obstacle-dense environment,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2197–2204, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Dlsc: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning in maze-like dynamic environments using linear safe corridor,

    J. Park, Y . Lee, I. Jang, and H. J. Kim, “Dlsc: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning in maze-like dynamic environments using linear safe corridor,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3739–3758, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Robust mader: Decentralized multiagent trajectory planner robust to communication delay in dynamic environments,

    K. Kondo, R. Figueroa, J. Rached, J. Tordesillas, P. C. Lusk, and J. P. How, “Robust mader: Decentralized multiagent trajectory planner robust to communication delay in dynamic environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1476–1483, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Fast Task Allocation for Heterogeneous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles through Reinforcement Learning,

    X. Zhao, Q. Zong, B. Tian, B. Zhang, and M. You, “Fast Task Allocation for Heterogeneous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles through Reinforcement Learning,” Aerospace Science and Technology , vol. 92, pp. 588–594, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    A Production-Line Assignment Problem,

    D. R. Fulkerson, I. L. Glicksberg, and O. A. Gross, “A Production-Line Assignment Problem,” RAND Corporation, Tech. Rep., 1953

    1953

  32. [40]

    The Dynamic Hungarian Algorithm for the Assignment Problem with Changing Costs,

    G. A. Mills-Tettey, A. Stentz, and M. B. Dias, “The Dynamic Hungarian Algorithm for the Assignment Problem with Changing Costs,” Robotics Insistute, Pittsburgh, Tech. Rep., 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    A Distributed Pipeline for Scalable, Deconflicted Formation Flying,

    P. C. Lusk, X. Cai, S. Wadhwania, A. Paris, K. Fathian, and J. P. How, “A Distributed Pipeline for Scalable, Deconflicted Formation Flying,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5213–5220, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Distributed Multi-Robot Formation Control in Dynamic Envi- ronments,

    J. Alonso-Mora, E. Montijano, T. N ¨ageli, O. Hilliges, M. Schwager, and D. Rus, “Distributed Multi-Robot Formation Control in Dynamic Envi- ronments,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1079–1100, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Robust and Efficient Trajectory Planning for Formation Flight in Dense Environments,

    L. Quan, L. Yin, T. Zhang, M. Wang, R. Wang, S. Zhong, X. Zhou, Y . Cao, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Robust and Efficient Trajectory Planning for Formation Flight in Dense Environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4785–4804, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    A Distributed Simplex Algorithm for Degenerate Linear Programs and Multi-agent Assignments,

    M. B ¨urger, G. Notarstefano, F. Bullo, and F. Allg ¨ower, “A Distributed Simplex Algorithm for Degenerate Linear Programs and Multi-agent Assignments,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 2298–2304, 2012

    2012

  37. [45]

    Trajectory Planning for Quadrotor Swarms,

    W. Honig, J. A. Preiss, T. K. S. Kumar, G. S. Sukhatme, and N. Ayanian, “Trajectory Planning for Quadrotor Swarms,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 856–869, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    MRS Drone: A Modular Platform for Real-world Deployment of Aerial Multi-robot Systems,

    D. Hert, T. Baca, P. Petracek, V . Kratky, R. Penicka, V . Spurny, M. Petrlik, M. Vrba, D. Zaitlik, P. Stoudek, V . Walter, P. Stepan, J. Horyna, V . Pritzl, M. Sramek, A. Ahmad, G. Silano, D. Bonilla Licea, P. Stibinger, T. Nascimento, and M. Saska, “MRS Drone: A Modular Plat...

    2023

  39. [47]

    MRS Modular UA V Hardware Platforms for Supporting Research in Real-World Outdoor and Indoor Environments,

    D. Hert, T. Baca, P. Petracek, V . Kratky, V . Spurny, M. Petrlik, M. Vrba, D. Zaitlik, P. Stoudek, V . Walter, P. Stepan, J. Horyna, V . Pritzl, 19 G. Silano, D. Bonilla Licea, P. Stibinger, R. Penicka, T. Nascimento, and M. Saska, “MRS Modular UA V Hardware Platforms for Sup...

    2022

  40. [48]

    The MRS UA V system: Pushing the frontiers of reproducible research, real-world deployment, and education with autonomous un- manned aerial vehicles,

    T. Baca, M. Petrlik, M. Vrba, V . Spurny, R. Penicka, D. Hert, and M. Saska, “The MRS UA V system: Pushing the frontiers of reproducible research, real-world deployment, and education with autonomous un- manned aerial vehicles,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. ...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Matej Petrlik received his Ph.D

    He was a member of CTU-UPenn-UoL and CTU-UPENN-NYU teams in the MBZIRC 2017 and MBZIRC 2020 robotic competitions in Abu Dhabi, and of the CTU-CRAS- NORLAB team in the DARPA SubT competition. Matej Petrlik received his Ph.D. in cybernetics and robotics from the Czech Technical ...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.