Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that a UAV formation can follow a prescribed path, sense a moving obstacle to centimeter-level accuracy by reconfiguring its shape, and avoid collisions, with the three tasks scheduled conflict-free through a null-space pr

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A UAV formation follows a path, senses obstacles via ISAC signals, repositions on its virtual circle to lower the CRLB, and fuses avoidance with path-following through null-space priorities.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid integration with one genuinely new variable-formation sensing idea, but the 'conflict-free three-subtask scheduling' claim is not actually simulated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.21316 v1 pith:I7TOCBD5 submitted 2025-08-29 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Cooperative Sensing Enhanced UAV Path-Following and Obstacle Avoidance with Variable Formation

Changheng Wang , Zhiqing Wei , Wangjun Jiang , Haoyue Jiang , Zhiyong Feng This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY
keywords UAV formationpath-followingintegrated sensing and communicationCramér-Rao lower boundvariable formationobstacle avoidancenull-space-based fusiondeep reinforcement learning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to prove that three competing jobs in a UAV formation mission—staying on a path, estimating where a moving obstacle is, and steering clear of it—can be handled by one coordinated system instead of three separately retrained models. Its central idea is to reuse the same ISAC signals for communication and sensing, and to let the formation change shape exactly when the predicted Cramér-Rao lower bound on obstacle position exceeds a threshold. The variable-formation algorithm chooses new UAV positions on the virtual circle that minimize that bound, while a null-space-based hierarchy gives sensing and avoidance the highest priority and lets path-following continue in their null space. Simulations show obstacle-position error dropping from 2.05 m to 0.02 m and from 0.78 m to 0.03 m at the two reconfiguration instants, along with collision-free avoidance in both chasing and following phases. If right, the result is a path-following controller that needs no retraining after avoidances and gets sharper obstacle estimates exactly when they matter.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that formation geometry itself is a sensing resource. Starting from range and radial-velocity measurements obtained from ISAC signals, the authors derive the Cramér-Rao lower bound for the fused obstacle-position estimate and show that this bound depends on where the UAVs sit on the formation circle. The VFEO algorithm turns that bound into an objective: at time k, if the predicted next-step position error ε_P(k+1) exceeds the threshold ζ_CRLB, it solves a constrained optimization for new UAV positions, subject to staying on the virtual circle, keeping altitude, respecting speed limits, and maintaining safety distances. In simulation the reconfiguration reduces t

What carries the argument

CRLB-based reconfiguration and null-space fusion. The Cramér-Rao lower bound ε_P = sqrt(tr(CRLB_P)) from equations (42)-(51) converts formation geometry into a predicted sensing error, and the VFEO optimization (57) minimizes it over UAV positions on the virtual circle. The null-space-based fusion rule (61), v = k1 v1 + k2 v2 + (I − J†_1 J_1)v3, assigns obstacle avoidance and sensing the highest priority and projects the DRL path-following velocity into their null space, so path-following continues partially even while obstacles are being handled.

Load-bearing premise

The entire sensing gain rests on the obstacle's motion being smooth enough to be predicted by a linear Gaussian model, on strict clock synchronization between UAVs, and on treating averaged measurements as the true ranges in the error bound—if any of these fails, the reshaped formation may not actually deliver the reported accuracy.

What would settle it

Run the VFEO optimization in simulation or field tests with two obstacle trajectories: one matching the Gauss-Markov motion model (17) and one with an abrupt turn or acceleration burst. Measure the actual obstacle-position RMSE around the reconfiguration instants. If the maneuvering trajectory fails to reproduce the 0.02–0.03 m errors or breaks the collision-free guarantee, while the model-matched trajectory succeeds, the smooth-motion/Gaussian premise is the load-bearing assumption.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A formation can improve obstacle localization without adding sensors or retraining, simply by redistributing UAV positions on the same formation circle.
  • The DRL policy, trained for a single UAV and driven by master-assigned virtual following targets, scales naturally to different numbers of UAVs.
  • After an obstacle-avoidance episode, the formation's path-following error returns to its pre-avoidance level, indicating that avoidance does not permanently disturb the learned following behavior.
  • Using ISAC signals for both communication and sensing reduces communication overhead compared with systems that separate the two functions.
  • The CRLB threshold provides an online trigger for reconfiguration: the formation reshapes only when predicted sensing error exceeds a set bound.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same CRLB-minimizing reconfiguration idea could be applied to other cooperative localization tasks, such as tracking multiple maneuvering targets or ground users, wherever formation shape can be adjusted; the paper itself only treats a single obstacle.
  • The fixed threshold ζ_CRLB = 0.5 m could be made adaptive to mission phase or threat level, since the paper does not explore how the threshold choice trades sensing accuracy against formation stability.
  • A testable extension is to compare VFEO's optimized placements against random or equidistant formation placements under identical measurement noise, isolating how much of the error drop comes from the optimized geometry rather than from simply taking fresh measurements.
  • The nested null-space structure could be extended to additional subtasks, such as maintaining communication links or energy constraints, by stacking further projections; the paper stops at three subtasks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-UAV formation path-following, cooperative sensing, and obstacle avoidance architecture for 3D space. Three subtasks are addressed: (i) a DDPG-based path-following policy with an adaptive reward that weights distance and velocity errors (AWPF); (ii) an ISAC-signal-based obstacle position/velocity estimator whose Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) drives a variable formation optimization (VFEO) that repositions UAVs on a virtual circle to reduce the predicted position error; and (iii) an online, pre-training-free obstacle avoidance law. The subtask commands are fused by a null-space-based hierarchical strategy (N-HSF) that assigns top priority to obstacle avoidance and obstacle sensing and projects path-following into the null space of avoidance. Simulations with five UAVs and two dynamic obstacles demonstrate path-following accuracy, improved obstacle position estimates after two formation reconfigurations, and collision-free avoidance, and the paper concludes that the fusion strategy realizes conflict-free scheduling of the three subtasks.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the paper would offer a useful integration of DRL-based path-following, CRLB-optimized cooperative sensing, and null-space control for UAV formations. The AWPF design is a sensible extension of existing reward shaping, and the per-UAV trained policy with virtual-leader-based formation control is a practical scalability feature. The CRLB derivation for non-uniform DM-RS signals and the VFEO optimization are technically concrete, and the complexity analyses for AWPF and VFEO are a valuable addition. The strongest advertised claim, however, is the conflict-free fusion of all three subtasks. That claim is currently not supported by the evidence because the three subtasks are never exercised simultaneously, and the fusion law lacks an arbitration rule between the two equal-priority commands. The paper's single-scenario simulations also leave the quantitative improvements vulnerable to tuning artifacts. With additional validation, the architecture could be a solid contribution; in its present form, the central scheduling claim remains unproven.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V, Eq. (61); §VI-C] The central claim that N-HSF 'possesses the ability to realize conflict-free scheduling of the three subtasks' (conclusion, Section VII; also asserted in Section VI-C) is not supported by the evidence. In the simulation, sensing+path-following (276/278 s) and avoidance+path-following (281–330 s) are tested separately; the three subtasks are never active simultaneously. The fusion law (61) gives v1 (avoidance) and v2 (sensing) equal highest priority and projects only v3 into the null space of v1. No projection, null-space ordering, or arbitration is defined between v1 and v2, and k1, k2 are not reported. Because the final command is a weighted sum, v1 and v2 can in principle point in conflicting directions and partially cancel; the safety margin implied by constraint (57e) in the VFEO optimization is not preserved in the fused command. A simulation with all three subtasks active, includin
  2. [§VI, Figs. 10–18] All quantitative conclusions rest on a single simulated scenario: five UAVs, two obstacles, one trajectory per phase. The reported 21–124% AWPF accuracy improvement and the reductions of obstacle position error from 2.05 m to 0.02 m and from 0.78 m to 0.03 m at 276 s and 278 s are single-run values. No Monte Carlo trials, confidence intervals, or sensitivity analyses are provided with respect to the hand-tuned quantities that drive the algorithm: the distance threshold 3 m and constant 40 in (62)–(63), and the positioning accuracy threshold ζP_CRLB = 0.5 m in Table I. Since the AWPF reward schedule and the VFEO trigger are both governed by these parameters, statistical or sensitivity evidence is necessary to establish that the improvements are not artifacts of a particular tuning.
  3. [§III-D, Eqs. (46)–(47)] The CRLB used in the VFEO objective replaces the true ranges r_o^i with the arithmetic mean of multiple measurements, and the predicted obstacle position at k+1 is obtained from the linear Gauss-Markov model (17) with Gaussian driving noise. If the obstacle motion deviates from (17), or if the strict clock synchronization and Gaussian noise assumptions stated in Section III-C fail, the computed CRLB is not the actual error lower bound. Consequently, the optimized formation from (57) can be suboptimal and the trigger εP(k+1) > ζP_CRLB can be unreliable. This assumption is structural because it underlies both the sensing objective and the reconfiguration condition. A robustness test with model mismatch and imperfect synchronization would clarify the domain of validity of the claimed decimeter-level sensing improvement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV-A, Eq. (52)] The text states ω2 ∝ 1/ed,ie, but the explicit schedule in (62)–(63) is not a direct proportionality: ω2 = 40/(ed,ie+40) for ed,ie > 3 and 0.95 otherwise. Please reconcile the description with the formula, and use a proper summation notation in ∑ ωo = 1.
  2. [§III-A, Eqs. (23)–(24)] The peak indices L_{s_i,w} and L_{s_i,q} are used before being explicitly defined. Define them or state clearly that they follow the peak-search procedure of [24].
  3. [Fig. 11] The legend entry 'VAV3 VF' appears to be a typo for 'UAV3 VF'.
  4. [Section V] The statement that sensing is equivalently completed by changing VFTs is not fully consistent with v2 being a control velocity in the fusion law (61). Clarify whether the sensing subtask contributes a velocity command or only a VFT update.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the sensing and control derivations are anchored in external estimation theory and independent simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The single-UAV ISAC range/Doppler CRLB is adapted from the published framework of [24] (a self-citation, but an external, falsifiable prior result), and the formation-level CRLB follows the standard Fisher-information/TWLS structure of [32]–[35]. The VFEO optimization minimizes the CRLB (57), while the reported 'decimeter-level' improvement is measured as actual TWLS error against the true obstacle trajectory in Fig. 13, not against the optimized CRLB itself, so the claim is not a renamed fit. The AWPF reward (52),(62)–(63) is a hand-designed adaptive schedule; comparing it to fixed-weight baselines is a standard ablation, not a fitted-input-called-prediction. The N-HSF fusion law (61) is a weighted NSB combination with external provenance [38]; the conclusion that it achieves conflict-free scheduling is under-supported because all three subtasks are never active simultaneously in Section VI and k1,k2 are unspecified, but that is an evidentiary gap, not a circular reduction. Self-citations [10],[24],[27],[30] appear in the related-work and signal-model setup, but none is used to forbid alternatives or to assert uniqueness, and the results they provide are external and independently checkable. One internal approximation—true ranges replaced by measurement means in (46)–(47)—is a modeling approximation, not a circular step. Overall circularity score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The main free parameters are the hand-tuned reward schedule, the CRLB trigger threshold, and the unreported fusion gains. The axioms are mostly standard domain models from the cited literature, plus the strong assumptions of clock synchronization and the Markov obstacle model. The only invented entity is the virtual-leader construct, which is a controller abstraction rather than a physical postulate.

free parameters (3)
  • Adaptive reward weight constants (3 m threshold and constant 40) = 3, 40
    Equations (62)-(63) set omega1 and omega2 with a switching threshold at ed,ie = 3 m and use the constant 40 in the adaptive schedule. These values are hand-tuned to produce fast chasing and smooth following, and they directly influence the claimed 21-124% accuracy comparison.
  • CRLB positioning accuracy threshold zeta_CRLB = 0.5 m
    Table I sets the threshold that triggers VFEO reconfiguration. No sensitivity analysis is given, and the threshold determines how often the formation changes shape.
  • Null-space fusion weights k1, k2 and avoidance gain lambda1 = not reported
    Equation (61) requires weights k1 and k2, and (59) requires the gain lambda1, but their values are never stated. They control the blended velocity and therefore the simulated trajectories.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption UAV motion follows the fixed-wing kinetic model (1)-(6) with control mapping (7)-(9)
    Invoked in Section II-A; all path-following, sensing reconfiguration, and avoidance rely on this model and on acceleration controls being available.
  • domain assumption Obstacle state evolves as the linear Gauss-Markov model (17) with known Phi, Gamma, and Gaussian acceleration noise
    Section II-C; VFEO propagates the obstacle position to time k+1 using this model. Real dynamic obstacles need not obey this linear model.
  • domain assumption Strict clock synchronization among UAVs and zero-mean Gaussian measurement errors with covariance Q
    Section III-C assumes strict clock synchronization, and (43)-(49) assume Gaussian noise. Without synchronization, the range and radial-velocity differences in TWLS are biased.
  • domain assumption The CRLB is a faithful proxy for the actual estimation error, and true ranges ro_i can be replaced by arithmetic means of measurements
    Section III-D states that true ranges are unavailable and the arithmetic mean of multiple measurements is used instead. The VFEO objective (57) minimizes this CRLB, so this substitution is load-bearing.
  • standard math The TWLS algebraic solution from [34] is unbiased under the small-noise assumption
    Used in Section III-C to compute obstacle position and velocity from range and radial velocity differences; TWLS accuracy degrades under large noise or poor geometry.
  • ad hoc to paper Formation reconfiguration is restricted to the virtual circle at the virtual-leader height, as in (57a)-(57b)
    The optimization minimizes CRLB only over positions on a virtual circle with center pl and radius rf at the same height zl. This is a design constraint that may not be globally optimal for sensing.
invented entities (1)
  • Virtual-leader (VL) and virtual following targets (VFTs) no independent evidence
    purpose: Central reference points that define formation positions for path-following and VFEO reconfiguration
    Introduced in Section II-B as virtual reference points. They organize the controller architecture but have no independent physical handle outside the paper.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooperative Sensing Enhanced UAV Path-Following and Obstacle Avoidance with Variable Formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7TOCBD5

@misc{pith2026250821316,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooperative Sensing Enhanced UAV Path-Following and Obstacle Avoidance with Variable Formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7TOCBD5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21316}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The high mobility of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) enables them to be used in various civilian fields, such as rescue and cargo transport. Path-following is a crucial way to perform these tasks while sensing and collision avoidance are essential for safe flight. In this paper, we investigate how to efficiently and accurately achieve path-following, obstacle sensing and avoidance subtasks, as well as their conflict-free fusion scheduling. Firstly, a high precision deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based UAV formation path-following model is developed, and the reward function with adaptive weights is designed from the perspective of distance and velocity errors. Then, we use integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) signals to detect the obstacle and derive the Cramer-Rao lower bound (CRLB) for obstacle sensing by information-level fusion, based on which we propose the variable formation enhanced obstacle position estimation (VFEO) algorithm. In addition, an online obstacle avoidance scheme without pretraining is designed to solve the sparse reward. Finally, with the aid of null space based (NSB) behavioral method, we present a hierarchical subtasks fusion strategy. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of the subtask algorithms and the hierarchical fusion strategy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21316 by Changheng Wang, Haoyue Jiang, Wangjun Jiang, Zhiqing Wei, Zhiyong Feng.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: UAV kinetics in the inertial coordinate system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: UAV formation model. B. UAV Formation The virtual-leader is introduced to calibrate the reference position of each UAV path-following in the formation, and the virtual-leader is located at the center of the formation. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hierarchical subtasks fusion strategy. NSB method is to project low-priority subtasks to the null space of high-priority subtasks and use the fused subtasks output as the final task output, offering real-time performance and no conflict between subtasks [38]. Set the priority of subtasks as obstacle avoidance = obstacle sensing > path-following. NSB method can ensure partial completion of the path-followin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: VFEO algorithm flowchart. E. Online Obstacle Avoidance When the UAV formation performs the path-following task, an obstacle appears randomly in the space. Designing the obstacle avoidance process as the reward function is a sparse reward problem, which is inefficient for directly joining the DRL path-following model for training, and it can easily cause obstacle avoidance failure. Therefore, this paper con… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Path-following trajectory using AWPF algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Path-following error using AWPF algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Path-following velocity using AWPF algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reward. error ev,ie. At this time, the UAV formation chases the virtual￾leader at maximum velocity. As ed,ie decreases, ω2 increases gradually, causing the UAVs to decelerate in preparation for accurate following. The velocity of the UAV formation from rapid descent to a smoother pattern at 9 s, indicating the end of the chasing phase and the commencement of the following phase. In this instance, ω2 reache… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Obstacle positioning error. 130 140 150 160 170 180 X (m) 120 130 140 150 Y (m) VL Obstacle UAV1 FF UAV2 FF UAV3 FF UAV4 FF UAV5 FF UAV1 VF UAV2 VF UAV3 VF UAV4 VF UAV5 VF (a) 276 s 130 140 150 160 170 180 X (m) 120 130 140 150 Y (m) (b) 278 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: VFEO position estimation in the time range of 274 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Position of UAVs at 276 s and 278 s. as s1(270) = [172, 113, 94]T, with a velocity of s˙ 1(270) = [−3, 3, 1]T, and the observation time of 20 s. The actual trajectory of the obstacle is shown as the black triangular line in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Obstacle avoidance trajectory in chasing phase. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Formation following error of obstacle avoidance in following phase. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. GDPR-Aware Trajectory Sharing for ISAC-Assisted Robot Navigation: A Case Study on FID-Constrained Collision Prediction

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    FID-controlled trajectory perturbation yields lower reconstruction leakage and shorter continuous exposure than fixed-error noise at matched missed-conflict rates on real pedestrian traces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cooperative control between multi-UA Vs for maximum coverage in disaster management: Review and proposed model,

    A. Khan, S. Gupta, and S. K. Gupta, “Cooperative control between multi-UA Vs for maximum coverage in disaster management: Review and proposed model,” in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Comput. Inf. Technol. , 2022, pp. 271–277

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Communication and control in collaborative UA Vs: Recent advances and future trends,

    S. Javaid, N. Saeed, Z. Qadir, H. Fahim, B. He, H. Song, and M. Bilal, “Communication and control in collaborative UA Vs: Recent advances and future trends,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 5719–5739, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Information-rich formation tracking: a unified scheme of cooperative control and localization,

    A. Sen, M. Kothari, and S. R. Sahoo, “Information-rich formation tracking: a unified scheme of cooperative control and localization,” J. Aerosp. Inf. Syst. , vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 390–406, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Coordinated path- following control of fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles,

    H. Chen, Y . Cong, X. Wang, X. Xu, and L. Shen, “Coordinated path- following control of fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Syst. , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 2540–2554, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Concentrated coverage path planning algorithm of UA V formation for aerial photography,

    Y . Cao, X. Cheng, and J. Mu, “Concentrated coverage path planning algorithm of UA V formation for aerial photography,” IEEE Sensors J. , vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 11 098–11 111, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Multi-UA V cooperative target tracking based on swarm intelligence,

    Z. Xia, J. Du, C. Jiang, J. Wang, Y . Ren, and G. Li, “Multi-UA V cooperative target tracking based on swarm intelligence,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. , 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    USV formation and path-following control via deep reinforcement learning with random braking,

    Y . Zhao, Y . Ma, and S. Hu, “USV formation and path-following control via deep reinforcement learning with random braking,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. , vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 5468–5478, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Leader-follower formation control for fixed-wing UA Vs using deep reinforcement learn- ing,

    Y . Shi, J. Song, Y . Hua, J. Yu, X. Dong, and Z. Ren, “Leader-follower formation control for fixed-wing UA Vs using deep reinforcement learn- ing,” in Proc. 41st Chin. Contr . Conf. , 2022, pp. 3456–3461

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    3U: Joint design of UA V-USV-UUV networks for cooperative target hunting,

    W. Wei, J. Wang, Z. Fang, J. Chen, Y . Ren, and Y . Dong, “3U: Joint design of UA V-USV-UUV networks for cooperative target hunting,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 4085–4090, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Anti-collision technologies for unmanned aerial vehicles: Recent advances and future trends,

    Z. Wei, Z. Meng, M. Lai, H. Wu, J. Han, and Z. Feng, “Anti-collision technologies for unmanned aerial vehicles: Recent advances and future trends,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 7619–7638, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Sense and avoid technol- ogy in unmanned aerial vehicles: A review,

    B. N. Chand, P. Mahalakshmi, and V . Naidu, “Sense and avoid technol- ogy in unmanned aerial vehicles: A review,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Electr ., Electron., Commun., Comput. Technol. Optim. Techn. , 2017, pp. 512– 517

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Feasibility study of UA V-assisted anti-jamming positioning,

    Z. Wang, R. Liu, Q. Liu, L. Han, and J. S. Thompson, “Feasibility study of UA V-assisted anti-jamming positioning,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 7718–7733, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Three passive TDOA- AOA receivers-based flying-UA V positioning in extreme environments,

    C. Xu, Z. Wang, Y . Wang, Z. Wang, and L. Yu, “Three passive TDOA- AOA receivers-based flying-UA V positioning in extreme environments,” IEEE Sensors J. , vol. 20, no. 16, pp. 9589–9595, 2020

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    UA V position estimation and collision avoidance using the extended Kalman filter,

    C. Luo, S. I. McClean, G. Parr, L. Teacy, and R. De Nardi, “UA V position estimation and collision avoidance using the extended Kalman filter,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 2749–2762, 2013

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Optimal TDOA sensor-pair placement with uncertainty in source location,

    W. Meng, L. Xie, and W. Xiao, “Optimal TDOA sensor-pair placement with uncertainty in source location,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 9260–9271, 2016

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    Three dimensional collision avoidance for multi unmanned aerial vehicles using velocity obstacle,

    C. Y . Tan, S. Huang, K. K. Tan, and R. S. H. Teo, “Three dimensional collision avoidance for multi unmanned aerial vehicles using velocity obstacle,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. , vol. 97, pp. 227–248, 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Quantitative evaluation of Voronoi graph search algorithm in UA V path planning,

    C. Zhang, H. Liu, and Y . Tang, “Quantitative evaluation of Voronoi graph search algorithm in UA V path planning,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Software Eng. Serv. Sci. , 2018, pp. 563–567

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Formation control and collision avoidance for multi-UA V systems based on Voronoi partition,

    J. Hu, M. Wang, C. Zhao, Q. Pan, and C. Du, “Formation control and collision avoidance for multi-UA V systems based on Voronoi partition,” Sci. China Technol. Sci. , vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    An energy efficient IoD static and dynamic collision avoidance approach based on gradient optimization,

    G. Ahmed, T. Sheltami, M. Deriche, and A. Yasar, “An energy efficient IoD static and dynamic collision avoidance approach based on gradient optimization,” Ad Hoc Netw. , vol. 118, p. 102519, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Collision-aware UA V trajectories for data collection via reinforcement learning,

    X. Wang, M. C. Gursoy, T. Erpek, and Y . E. Sagduyu, “Collision-aware UA V trajectories for data collection via reinforcement learning,” inProc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf. , 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    A UA V navigation approach based on deep reinforcement learning in large cluttered 3D environments,

    Y . Xue and W. Chen, “A UA V navigation approach based on deep reinforcement learning in large cluttered 3D environments,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3001–3014, 2023. 16

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Multi-UA V automatic dynamic obstacle avoidance with experience-shared A2C,

    X. Han, J. Wang, Q. Zhang, X. Qin, and M. Sun, “Multi-UA V automatic dynamic obstacle avoidance with experience-shared A2C,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Wirel. Mob. Comput. Netw. Commun. , 2019, pp. 330–335

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    UA V communications for 5G and beyond: Recent advances and future trends,

    B. Li, Z. Fei, and Y . Zhang, “UA V communications for 5G and beyond: Recent advances and future trends,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2241–2263, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    5G PRS-based sensing: A sensing reference signal approach for joint sensing and communication system,

    Z. Wei, Y . Wang, L. Ma, S. Yang, Z. Feng, C. Pan, Q. Zhang, Y . Wang, H. Wu, and P. Zhang, “5G PRS-based sensing: A sensing reference signal approach for joint sensing and communication system,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3250–3263, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Joint radar and communication: A survey,

    Z. Feng, Z. Fang, Z. Wei, X. Chen, Z. Quan, and D. Ji, “Joint radar and communication: A survey,” China Commun. , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2020

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    UA V-enabled integrated sensing and communication: Opportunities and challenges,

    K. Meng, Q. Wu, J. Xu, W. Chen, Z. Feng, R. Schober, and A. L. Swindlehurst, “UA V-enabled integrated sensing and communication: Opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Wirel. Commun. , pp. 1–9, 2023

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Improve sensing and communication performance of UA V via integrated sensing and communication,

    W. Jiang, A. Wang, Z. Wei, M. Lai, C. Pan, Z. Feng, and J. Liu, “Improve sensing and communication performance of UA V via integrated sensing and communication,” in Proc. IEEE 21st Int. Conf. Commun. Technol. , 2021, pp. 644–648

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    A novel 3D non-stationary localization-assisted ISAC channel model,

    R. Yang, Y . Wu, J. Huang, and C.-X. Wang, “A novel 3D non-stationary localization-assisted ISAC channel model,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. Networking Conf. , 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Deep rein- forcement learning based resource allocation and trajectory planning in integrated sensing and communications UA V network,

    Y . Qin, Z. Zhang, X. Li, W. Huangfu, and H. Zhang, “Deep rein- forcement learning based resource allocation and trajectory planning in integrated sensing and communications UA V network,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., 2023

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Performance of joint sensing-communication cooperative sensing UA V network,

    X. Chen, Z. Feng, Z. Wei, F. Gao, and X. Yuan, “Performance of joint sensing-communication cooperative sensing UA V network,”IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 15 545–15 556, 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Leader-follower interactive potential for target enclosing of perception-limited UA V groups,

    D. Zhang, H. Duan, and Z. Zeng, “Leader-follower interactive potential for target enclosing of perception-limited UA V groups,” IEEE Syst. J. , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 856–867, 2021

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Coordinated CRLB-based control for tracking multiple first responders in 3D en- vironments,

    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 en- vironments,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Unmanned Aircr . Syst., 2020, pp. 1475– 1484

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Joint TDOA and FDOA estimation: A conditional bound and its use for optimally weighted localization,

    A. Yeredor and E. Angel, “Joint TDOA and FDOA estimation: A conditional bound and its use for optimally weighted localization,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. , vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 1612–1623, 2010

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    An accurate algebraic solution for moving source location using TDOA and FDOA measurements,

    K. Ho and W. Xu, “An accurate algebraic solution for moving source location using TDOA and FDOA measurements,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 2453–2463, 2004

    work page 2004

  35. [35]

    Achievable localization accuracy of the posi- tioning reference signal of 3GPP LTE,

    J. A. del Peral-Rosado, J. A. L ´opez-Salcedo, G. Seco-Granados, F. Zanier, and M. Crisci, “Achievable localization accuracy of the posi- tioning reference signal of 3GPP LTE,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Localization GNSS, 2012, pp. 1–6

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    Dynamic power allocation in high throughput satellite communications: A two-stage advanced heuristic learning approach,

    X. Hu, Y . Wang, Z. Liu, X. Du, W. Wang, and F. M. Ghannouchi, “Dynamic power allocation in high throughput satellite communications: A two-stage advanced heuristic learning approach,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Technol., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3502–3516, 2023

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Solving non-linear equation based on steepest descent method,

    T. Zhang, “Solving non-linear equation based on steepest descent method,” in Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Inf. Comput. , 2011, pp. 216–218

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    A novel null-space-based UA V trajectory tracking controller with collision avoidance,

    M. C. P. Santos, C. D. Rosales, M. Sarcinelli-Filho, and R. Carelli, “A novel null-space-based UA V trajectory tracking controller with collision avoidance,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 2543– 2553, 2017

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    NR; Physical Channels and Modulation,

    3GPP, “NR; Physical Channels and Modulation,” Tech. Rep. 38.211 , 2020

    work page 2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.