Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Multiple Target Tracking Using a UAV Swarm in Maritime Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a fleet of camera drones can track drifting castaways by planning flight paths to minimize predicted position uncertainty, with simulations showing 0.18 m average error.

desk verdict Useful multi-agent MPC extension of the authors' own single-agent tracker, but the simulator ignores the paper's own probabilistic detection model, so the headline covariance reductions are likely optimistic. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18153 v1 pith:G2MCVXJV submitted 2025-04-25 eess.SY cs.SY

Andreas Anastasiou , Savvas Papaioannou , Panayiotis Kolios , Christos G. Panayiotou This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords SearchandRescueRobotsModelPredictiveControlMulti-agentSystemsTargetTrackingKalmanFilterUAVSwarmCastawayMaritimeEnvironment
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

This paper tries to establish that a small fleet of camera-equipped drones can keep precise track of several people drifting at sea by planning their flight paths several steps ahead instead of reacting to the latest measurement. The controller, a nonlinear mixed integer program solved in a receding horizon, chooses drone positions and altitudes that are predicted to minimize the Kalman-filter covariance of every castaway's estimated position. The authors argue that this collective, uncertainty-aware planning is what matters: simulated trials with two drones and three castaways produce an average root-mean-square position error of 0.18 meters, and adding a second drone already reduces average estimation covariance by 87 percent compared with a single drone. If the approach carries into real operations, it would let a rescue coordinator send a few drones to hold a drifting group in view with quantified confidence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the receding-horizon NMIP in Eqs. (9)-(14), whose objective is the sum over the horizon of the traces of the predicted Kalman covariance matrices of all targets in an agent's assigned cluster. It couples a linear drone dynamics model, a field-of-view model via binary variables, Kalman-filter prediction and update equations with pseudomeasurements and intermittent-observation gating, altitude-dependent measurement noise, and collision-avoidance constraints. This machinery lets the controller optimize not just where to look but what it expects to see, converting sensor placement into an explicit reduction of state uncertainty.

What would settle it

Run the same controller in a simulation where two castaways cross paths or come within a few meters, with detections generated by an actual detector rather than noise added to known identities, and compare RMSE and covariance to the paper's 0.18 m and 87 percent figures; if association errors dominate, the planned reductions will not materialize. More directly, an experiment with real cameras over water where targets swap positions would show whether the assumed distinguishability holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the tracking problem can be cast as a single optimization over predicted posterior covariance: at each planning cycle, each agent solves for its control sequence over a short horizon by simulating what Kalman updates would do if future camera measurements arrive, using pseudomeasurements and binary indicators of field-of-view coverage, and then minimizes the sum of covariance traces over the horizon. Because each agent plans sequentially with access to the others' planned trajectories and fuses shared estimates by covariance intersection, the fleet's motions are coordinated without a central optimizer. The paper reports that the resulting trajectories keep castaways inside the sensors' field of view at beneficial altitudes, and that in simulation the method consistently tracks three to five drifting castaways with one to ten agents, with the largest gains coming from the first few agents.

Load-bearing premise

The whole estimator assumes that whenever a camera detects a person, the drone knows which castaway that person is, so every measurement is fed to the correct Kalman filter; in a real scene with several people, clutter, and missed detections, mis-assigned measurements would corrupt the very covariance reductions the controller plans.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With two agents, average estimation covariance drops by 87 percent relative to one agent, and a third agent gives a further 10 percent decrease; beyond a certain fleet size for five targets, additional drones add little.
  • Agents maintain the prescribed safety distance in all simulated fleet sizes from two to ten, so the collaborative planning does not sacrifice collision avoidance.
  • The controller adapts group assignments: it lets one agent shadow a split-off castaway while another keeps the remaining castaways in view, balancing altitude for coverage versus precision.
  • Quantified uncertainty from the Kalman filter gives a mission coordinator a predicted confidence measure for where survivors are, not just a point estimate.
  • Intermittent observations are handled inside the planner itself, so the control law is designed for the reality that castaways will periodically leave the camera's field of view.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its 0.18 m RMSE should be read as an upper bound on achievable precision: real detections would include association errors, which would feed wrong innovations into the same Kalman equations and likely worsen the reported numbers.
  • Minimizing covariance trace is a natural proxy for search-and-rescue success, but it is not identical to minimizing expected search time or maximizing survival probability; weighting targets by urgency or detection priority would be a direct extension of the same objective.
  • Because the planner is built on a Stokes-drift model of castaway motion, its promised reductions are only as good as that drift model; coupling the planner with online drift estimation or measured current data could make the non-myopic plans robust to model mismatch.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a collaborative NMIP-based MPC framework for a UAV swarm tracking multiple castaways in maritime environments. Each UAV runs local Kalman filters for the targets, fuses estimates via covariance intersection, and solves a receding-horizon nonlinear mixed-integer program that minimizes the sum of predicted posterior covariance traces over a finite horizon. Binary variables encode whether each target is inside a UAV's field of view, and the KF correction is applied accordingly, with pseudomeasurements generated for in-field targets. A deterministic clustering scheme groups targets and assigns UAVs greedily. The numerical section reports Monte Carlo simulations with up to 10 UAVs and 3-5 castaways, an 87% covariance reduction for a two-UAV fleet relative to the one-UAV case, an empirical CDF of inter-agent distances satisfying the safety constraint, and an illustrative three-target/two-UAV scenario with an average RMSE of 0.18 m. The paper concludes that the method consistently and accurately tracks castaways under realistic conditions.

Significance. If the validation gaps were closed, the framework would be a useful contribution to multi-UAV maritime search-and-track: it couples non-myopic planning with KF covariance minimization, explicitly handles limited sensor field of view through mixed-integer constraints, and uses a physically motivated Stokes-drift target model. The formulation is coherent and the simulation effort, including Monte Carlo fleet-size sweeps and collision-avoidance checks, is commendable. However, the paper's central performance claims rest on the controller's own covariance prediction rather than on independent tracking-error evaluation, and the simulation does not exercise the paper's own probabilistic detection model. The acknowledged idealization of data association further limits the claim of 'realistic conditions.' The work is a plausible stepping stone, but the evidence presented is not yet sufficient to support the headline quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eqs. (10)-(12) vs. Section II-D, Eq. (5)] The MPC formulation assumes a detection is guaranteed whenever a target is geometrically inside the FoV. Specifically, constraints (10c)-(10e) set b_{ij}=1 based solely on geometry, and constraints (11c)-(11g) apply a full Kalman correction whenever b=1. The probabilistic detection model of Eq. (5), and the possibly empty random set H_i^tau of Section II-C, do not appear anywhere in the optimization or in the pseudomeasurement generation of Eq. (12c). Under the paper's own sensor model, the expected posterior covariance is p_i P_update + (1-p_i) P_prior, which is strictly larger than the deterministic P_update used in Eq. (8). Section IV-A states only that Gaussian noise is added to ground truth and gives no indication that the Bernoulli detection draw is executed. Thus both the controller and the simulator appear to solve a different problem from the one defined by the sensing model, and the reported 87% covariance reduction and 0.18 m RMSE may be optimistic whenever the UAV flies at altitudes where p_i<1. The authors should either incorporate the detection probability into the planning (e.g., as a probabilistic correction or chance constraint) or justify, with evidence, that p_i=1 throughout the simulated flight envelope.
  2. [Section IV-A, data association assumption] The statement 'Data association was not considered, assuming agents can differentiate between targets' is explicitly acknowledged but is load-bearing for the central claim. Every KF update in Eqs. (11d)-(11g) and every pseudomeasurement in Eq. (12c) presupposes that an incoming measurement is assigned to the correct castaway. In a maritime scene with multiple people, clutter, and intermittent detections, association errors produce wrong innovations that can drastically inflate true tracking error, even if the planned covariance is low. The paper's conclusion that tracking is 'under realistic conditions' is therefore not supported by the current experiments. I recommend adding a data-association module (e.g., nearest-neighbor or JPDA) to the simulation, or at minimum a sensitivity analysis with misassociation rates, before the multiple-target tracking claim can be accepted.
  3. [Section IV-B, Fig. 4 and Eq. (8)] The primary scalability result (Fig. 4) plots the average target covariance against fleet size, but this is the same covariance that the MPC minimizes in Eq. (8). Consequently, the reported 87% reduction partly reflects the internal consistency of the planner's own model rather than an independently measured improvement in tracking accuracy. The paper reports a ground-truth-based RMSE only for a single scenario (C=3, N=2), and no comparison is made with a myopic planner, a greedy baseline, a single-agent sweep, or an existing tracking controller. Without such baselines and without RMSE curves across the fleet-size and target-count grid, the 'significant benefits from the multi-agent approach' are not demonstrated. I ask the authors to report RMSE (or another ground-truth error metric) for the full simulation grid and to include at least one baseline controller.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The displayed matrices in Eq. (2) are inconsistent with the declared dimensions: A is stated to be in R^{6x6} and B in R^{6x3}, but the printed blocks imply A in R^{3x12} and B in R^{3x6}. Please correct the block-matrix notation or the dimension statement.
  2. [Eq. (13) and Eq. (14b)] The text says constraint (13) ensures the inter-agent distance is 'at most d_t', while Eq. (14b) enforces d_i >= d_t. The correct inequality should be 'at least d_t'; please fix the wording.
  3. [Eq. (12a) and Eq. (5)] The function r(z_i) in Eq. (12a) is never explicitly defined, and its link to the piecewise observation probability of Eq. (5) is only described as 'mimicking.' A concrete definition (or a statement that r(z) is a calibrated approximation with its own parameters) is needed for reproducibility.
  4. [References [5] and [25]] References [5] and [25] appear to be the same publication ('Model Predictive Control For Multiple Castaway Tracking with an Autonomous Aerial Agent,' ECC 2023). Please consolidate the duplicate citation and clarify in the text which results come from that prior paper versus the present manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Covariance-reduction headline is the optimized objective; RMSE against ground truth is independent.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (8), Sec. III-B; Sec. IV-B, Fig. 4]
    "The objective, as outlined in Eq. (8), is to minimize the trace of the covariance matrix Pτ+k|τ for every castaway throughout all time steps in the planning horizon. ... Results show significant benefits from the multi-agent approach, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Even with two agents, there is an 87% reduction in average covariance ... Fig. 4. Average target estimation covariance based on fleet size."

    J_a in Eq. (8) is defined as the sum over the horizon of tr(P^j_{τ+k|τ}), and P is propagated by the same KF covariance recursion (11f)-(11g) that is used to produce the 'average target estimation covariance' reported in Fig. 4. Because the KF covariance update depends on measurement availability and R but not on the measurement values, and because the Sec. IV-A setup describes measurements only as Gaussian noise added to ground truth without executing the Bernoulli detection draw of Sec. II-C, the simulated covariance is the same object the NMIP minimizes. The reported 87% reduction is therefore the optimized cost itself, not an independent prediction of tracking performance. The RMSE against the Stokes ground-truth trajectories in Fig.

full rationale

The derivable circular step is limited to the covariance metric: the MPC objective (8) is the trace of the KF posterior covariance, and Fig. 4 reports that same covariance as the main benefit figure. This makes the 87% reduction partly a cost-consistency result rather than an external validation. I did not treat the stochastic-detection and data-association gaps as circularity: they are realism/correctness limitations, not definitional reductions of the claimed result. The central tracking claim also has independent content: the 0.18 m RMSE in Fig. 6 compares estimated positions against the Stokes-drift ground truth, which is generated independently of the KF constant-velocity model used in Eq. (11a). The derivation of the NMIP itself is self-contained (agent dynamics, FoV constraints, KF recursion, pseudomeasurements, and collision constraints), and the self-citation [25] for sensing-model validation is not the load-bearing step of the MPC derivation. The score is therefore 3 rather than higher: one headline metric reduces to the objective by construction, but the ground-truth RMSE and the overall controller derivation remain independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a chain of simplified models: linear UAV dynamics, deterministic FoV geometry, altitude-dependent noise with unreported constants, a Stokes-drift ground truth, and the assumption that measurements are already associated. The paper does not supply code or complete parameter values, so the reported covariance and RMSE numbers rest on choices that the reader cannot inspect.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (altitude-noise scaling)
    Introduced in Eq. (12a) to map altitude to measurement noise std; no value or tuning procedure is given.
  • zeta (sensing noise scaling)
    From Eq. (4b); the measurement noise variance is p_i^-1 zeta I, but zeta is not specified.
  • r(z) altitude-to-noise function
    Eq. (12a) defines sigma_i = lambda r(z_i) with r(z_i) in [0,1], but the function is not explicitly given; it is only said to 'mimic' the piecewise observation probability.
  • alpha1, alpha2, beta1, beta2, pmin (observation probability parameters)
    These define the piecewise p_i in Eq. (5); the paper cites [25] for validation but does not report the values used in simulation.
  • d_g (clustering distance threshold)
    Section III-A uses target displacement threshold d_g to separate or merge groups; its value is never stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Target-conditioned observations are available; data association is assumed solved.
    Section IV-A states 'Data association was not considered, assuming agents can differentiate between targets.' The KF updates in Eqs. (11d)-(11g) and the MPC constraints require each measurement to be correctly matched to a target.
  • domain assumption The Stokes-drift model with small amplitude, deep water, and no wave reflections generates realistic castaway motion.
    Eq. (6) is used as ground truth for all simulations; deviations from these idealized wave conditions would change target dynamics and could invalidate the reported tracking error.
  • ad hoc to paper A deterministic FoV geometry and Gaussian pseudomeasurements describe what a camera detector will observe in the future.
    Eqs. (10) and (12c) replace the probabilistic observation model with deterministic binarized FoV checks and noise centered on the predicted state; no evidence is provided that this matches the CNN-based detector behavior mentioned in the introduction.
  • domain assumption The UAV follows a linear double-integrator model with constant mass and constant air-resistance coefficient.
    Eq. (1)-(2) are used in both planning and simulation; real UAVs have nonlinear aerodynamics and attitude dynamics, so control feasibility on actual hardware is not established.
  • standard math Kalman filter and covariance intersection fusion are valid for the state-space model.
    The paper uses standard KF equations (Eq. 11) and fusion weights (Eq. 7) without proof; these are textbook results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple Target Tracking Using a UAV Swarm in Maritime Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2MCVXJV

@misc{pith2026250418153,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple Target Tracking Using a UAV Swarm in Maritime Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2MCVXJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18153}
}
read the original abstract

Nowadays, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly utilized in search and rescue missions, a trend driven by technological advancements, including enhancements in automation, avionics, and the reduced cost of electronics. In this work, we introduce a collaborative model predictive control (MPC) framework aimed at addressing the joint problem of guidance and state estimation for tracking multiple castaway targets with a fleet of autonomous UAV agents. We assume that each UAV agent is equipped with a camera sensor, which has a limited sensing range and is utilized for receiving noisy observations from multiple moving castaways adrift in maritime conditions. We derive a nonlinear mixed integer programming (NMIP) -based controller that facilitates the guidance of the UAVs by generating non-myopic trajectories within a receding planning horizon. These trajectories are designed to minimize the tracking error across multiple targets by directing the UAV fleet to locations expected to yield targets measurements, thereby minimizing the uncertainty of the estimated target states. Extensive simulation experiments validate the effectiveness of our proposed method in tracking multiple castaways in maritime environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18153 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scenario illustration of the proposed system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Drift paths of three castaways induced rough sea conditions over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flow diagram of the proposed approach showing the flow of exchanged information between agents and the sequence of steps that each agent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average target estimation covariance based on fleet size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: V. CONCLUSIONS This research presents an MPC scheme for tracking mul￾tiple castaways by calculating UAV control inputs over a receding horizon to minimize position estimation error. Results demonstrate that the method consistently and accu￾rately tracks castaways under…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Intermediate steps of the proposed multi-agent approach: dotted rectangles indicate the onboard cameras’ sensing range, blue and red squares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Altitude of the two agents during the simulation. Lowest altitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Towards automated 3D search planning for emer- gency response missions,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, T. Theocharides, C. G. Panayiotou, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Towards automated 3D search planning for emer- gency response missions,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 103, no. 1, p. 2, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Coordinated crlb-based control for tracking multiple first responders in 3d envi- ronments,

    S. Papaioannou, S. Kim, C. Laoudias, P. Kolios, S. Kim, T. Theocharides, C. Panayiotou, and M. Polycarpou, “Coordinated crlb-based control for tracking multiple first responders in 3d envi- ronments,” in 2020 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2020, pp. 1475–1484

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Swarm path planning for the deployment of drones in emergency response missions,

    A. Anastasiou, P. Kolios, C. Panayiotou, and K. Papadaki, “Swarm path planning for the deployment of drones in emergency response missions,” in 2020 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 456–465. Castaway Covariance Castaway Paths Agent Paths Agent Future Plans Agent FoVs Fig. 7. Intermediate steps of the proposed ...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Hype- rion: A robust drone-based target tracking system,

    A. Anastasiou, R. Makrigiorgis, P. Kolios, and C. Panayiotou, “Hype- rion: A robust drone-based target tracking system,” in 2021 Interna- tional Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , 2021, pp. 927–933

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Model Predictive Control For Multiple Castaway Tracking with an Autonomous Aerial Agent,

    A. Anastasiou, S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, and C. G. Panayiotou, “Model Predictive Control For Multiple Castaway Tracking with an Autonomous Aerial Agent,” in 2023 European Control Conference (ECC), 2023, pp. 1–8

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Cooperative simultaneous tracking and jamming for disabling a rogue drone,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, C. G. Panayiotou, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Cooperative simultaneous tracking and jamming for disabling a rogue drone,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 7919–7926

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Downing a rogue drone with a team of aerial radio signal jammers,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, and G. Ellinas, “Downing a rogue drone with a team of aerial radio signal jammers,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2021, pp. 2555–2562

    2021

  8. [8]

    ICARUS: automatic autonomous power infrastructure inspection with UA Vs,

    A. Savva, A. Zacharia, R. Makrigiorgis, A. Anastasiou, C. Kyrkou, P. Kolios, C. Panayiotou, and T. Theocharides, “ICARUS: automatic autonomous power infrastructure inspection with UA Vs,” in 2021 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 918–926

    work page 2021

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Dis- tributed control for 3D inspection using multi-UA V systems,

    A. Zacharia, S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, and C. Panayiotou, “Dis- tributed control for 3D inspection using multi-UA V systems,” in 2023 31st Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 164–169

    2023

  2. [10]

    Integrated guidance and gimbal control for coverage planning with visibility constraints,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, T. Theocharides, C. G. Panayiotou, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Integrated guidance and gimbal control for coverage planning with visibility constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 1276–1291, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Automated Real-Time Inspection in Indoor and Outdoor 3D Environments with Cooperative Aerial Robots,

    A. Anastasiou, A. Zacharia, S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, C. G. Panayiotou, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Automated Real-Time Inspection in Indoor and Outdoor 3D Environments with Cooperative Aerial Robots,” in 2024 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2024, pp...

    2024

  4. [12]

    SWIFTERS: A multi-UA V platform for disaster management,

    M. Terzi, A. Anastasiou, P. Kolios, C. Panayiotou, and T. Theocharides, “SWIFTERS: A multi-UA V platform for disaster management,” in 2019 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Disaster Management (ICT-DM) , 2019, pp. 1–7

    2019

  5. [13]

    Synergising human-like responses and machine intelligence for plan- ning in disaster response,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, C. G. Panayiotou, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Synergising human-like responses and machine intelligence for plan- ning in disaster response,” in 2024 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  6. [14]

    Safety and Shipping Review 2023,

    A. Group, “Safety and Shipping Review 2023,” https: //commercial.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/commercial/ commercial/reports/AGCS-Safety-Shipping-Review-2023.pdf, May 2023, accessed on March 11th, 2024

    2023

  7. [15]

    Mediterranean situation,

    UNHCR, “Mediterranean situation,” https://data2.unhcr.org/en/ situations/mediterranean, 2024, accessed on March 4th, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    A Survey on Man Overboard Accident Search and Rescue Technology by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,

    S. Liu and X. Li, “A Survey on Man Overboard Accident Search and Rescue Technology by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,” in 2023 35th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC) , 2023, pp. 1062– 1067

    2023

  9. [17]

    Towards an Au- tonomous UA V-based System to Assist Search and Rescue Operations in Man Overboard Incidents,

    V . A. Feraru, R. E. Andersen, and E. Boukas, “Towards an Au- tonomous UA V-based System to Assist Search and Rescue Operations in Man Overboard Incidents,” in 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) , 2020, pp. 57–64

    2020

  10. [18]

    Coordinated sea rescue system based on unmanned air vehicles and surface vessels,

    F. F. Ramírez, D. S. Benitez, E. B. Portas, and J. A. L. Orozco, “Coordinated sea rescue system based on unmanned air vehicles and surface vessels,” in OCEANS 2011 IEEE-Spain . IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–10

    2011

  11. [19]

    LSAR: Multi-UA V Collaboration for Search and Rescue Missions,

    E. T. Alotaibi, S. S. Alqefari, and A. Koubaa, “LSAR: Multi-UA V Collaboration for Search and Rescue Missions,” IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 55 817–55 832, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Decentralized Search and Track with Multiple Autonomous Agents,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, T. Theocharides, C. G. Panayiotou, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Decentralized Search and Track with Multiple Autonomous Agents,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2019, pp. 909–915

    2019

  13. [21]

    Moving Path Follow- ing for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles With Applications to Single and Multiple Target Tracking Problems,

    T. Oliveira, A. P. Aguiar, and P. Encarnação, “Moving Path Follow- ing for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles With Applications to Single and Multiple Target Tracking Problems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1062–1078, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Multi-UA V Coop- erative Target Tracking Method using sparse A search and Standoff tracking algorithms,

    R. Song, T. Long, Z. Wang, Y . Cao, and G. Xu, “Multi-UA V Coop- erative Target Tracking Method using sparse A search and Standoff tracking algorithms,” in 2018 IEEE CSAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference (CGNCC) , 2018, pp. 1–6

    2018

  15. [23]

    Theoretical study of drift of small rigid floating objects in wave fields,

    H. H. Shen and Y . Zhong, “Theoretical study of drift of small rigid floating objects in wave fields,” Journal of waterway, port, coastal, and ocean engineering , vol. 127, no. 6, pp. 343–351, 2001

    2001

  16. [24]

    An introduction to the kalman filter,

    G. Bishop, G. Welch et al. , “An introduction to the kalman filter,” Proc of SIGGRAPH, Course , vol. 8, no. 27599-23175, p. 41, 2001

    2001

  17. [25]

    Model predictive control for multiple castaway tracking with an autonomous aerial agent,

    A. Anastasiou, S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, and C. G. Panayiotou, “Model predictive control for multiple castaway tracking with an autonomous aerial agent,” in 2023 European Control Conference (ECC), 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  18. [26]

    Robust distributed model predictive control,

    A. Richards and J. P. How, “Robust distributed model predictive control,” International Journal of control , vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 1517– 1531, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    General decentralized data fusion with covariance intersection,

    S. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “General decentralized data fusion with covariance intersection,” in Handbook of multisensor data fusion . CRC Press, 2017, pp. 339–364

    2017

  20. [28]

    Matzka and R

    S. Matzka and R. Altendorfer, A Comparison of Track-to-Track Fusion Algorithms for Automotive Sensor Fusion . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 69–81. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89859-7_6

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    Kalman filtering with intermittent observations,

    B. Sinopoli, L. Schenato, M. Franceschetti, K. Poolla, M. I. Jordan, and S. S. Sastry, “Kalman filtering with intermittent observations,” IEEE transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1453– 1464, 2004

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.