Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Drone Carrier: An Integrated Unmanned Surface Vehicle for Autonomous Inspection and Intervention in GNSS-Denied Maritime Environment

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a modular electric catamaran carrying four quadrotor drones and a manipulator can autonomously approach, dock with, and retrieve objects from a non-cooperative vessel in a sea-state-3 environment without GNSS, and…

desk verdict Real field integration with a headline claim that outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12869 v1 pith:DNISTE7R submitted 2025-01-22 cs.RO cs.AI

Yihao Dong , Muhayyu Ud Din , Francesco Lagala , Hailiang Kuang , Jianjun Sun , Siyuan Yang , Irfan Hussain , Shaoming He This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords dronecarrierunmannedsurfacevehicleaerialheterogeneousmaritimesystemGNSS-deniedenvironmentautonomousdockingUWBlocalizationinspectionandintervention
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 claims that a single modular unmanned surface vehicle (USV), carrying several quadrotor drones and a robotic manipulator, can carry out a full inspection-and-intervention sequence in an area where satellite navigation (GNSS) is unavailable. The sequence is approach, autonomous docking with a non-cooperative vessel, drone takeoff and precision landing, object pickup, and return transport. The authors report a field demonstration in open water with wave heights around 1.25 meters and all GPS antennas removed, and they state their entry was the only one to complete the whole intervention task in that GNSS-denied, sea-state-3 setting. A sympathetic reader would care because port security and offshore rescue are exactly the settings where GNSS jamming or loss of signal is likely, and a single ship that can deploy and recover multiple aerial robots would extend human reach without putting crew at risk.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a progressive navigation handoff, in which no single sensor has to solve the whole GNSS-free localization problem. Each stage trusts the sensor with the best accuracy at that range: the onshore gimbal camera, paired with a neural detector and an extended Kalman filter, supplies distances and bearings over a 3 $km^{2}$ area; the onboard gimbal camera and LiDAR refine this to target lock at up to 500 meters; LiDAR point-cloud segmentation with L-shape fitting estimates the target vessel's pose, dimensions, and a docking side; a Dubins curve with variable turning radii plans the final docking approach; and, after mechanical hookup, six UWB transceivers define a local coordinate frame on the deck, with QR codes providing the last visual anchor for drone landing. The manipulator's handoff is the same idea in miniature: a stereo camera on the arm's end reports the object pose in the arm's frame, and a rotation matrix transfers it into the drone carrier frame so a drone can be sent to the right place.

What would settle it

Repeat the sea-state-3 trial with the onshore camera occluded or removed and with no prior target coordinates or photos, leaving all other conditions identical. If the carrier can no longer locate, approach, and dock with the target vessel, the central claim is bounded to shore-aided operation rather than self-contained GNSS-denied autonomy; if it still completes the mission, the shore link is not actually load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that GNSS can be replaced, end to end, by a chain of handoffs between sensing modalities on and off the carrier. An onshore gimbal camera provides coarse bearing to the carrier and target; the carrier's own gimbal camera and LiDAR take over for mid-range approach; LiDAR-based L-shape fitting and a Dubins-curve path handle final docking; once docked, six ultra-wideband (UWB) transceivers on the deck establish a local positioning frame for the drones, QR codes on the deck correct the final centimeters of each landing, and a gripper-equipped drone retrieves an object and returns it. The paper reports that this full loop ran automatically in a real sea environment with wave heights around 1.25 meters and wind up to 8 meters per second, with the maritime trials covering approach, docking, and small-object transport, while the manipulator and two-drone collaborative transport were validated separately.

Load-bearing premise

The chain starts from an onshore gimbal camera that must have clear line of sight to both the carrier and the target, plus a rough target location within 50 meters and a few target photos supplied in advance; if that external aid is unavailable, the system has no way to begin its GNSS-denied navigation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the demonstration holds, a single modular ship can serve as a mobile airbase: it extends search range far beyond the USV's own sensors by launching drones from a stable, docked platform in an area with no GNSS.
  • The modular catamaran hull and deck can be assembled in different sizes, from roughly 2 meters by 1.5 meters with one drone up to 8 meters by 7 meters with twelve, so the architecture scales to different port, offshore, and rescue area requirements without changing the core software.
  • Autonomous docking with non-cooperative vessels means inspection and intervention can be done on vessels that do not cooperate, are unmanned, or are not broadcasting their position.
  • The combination of UWB local positioning and QR-code visual landing gives a repeated, precise recovery loop for drones landing on a pitching deck, which is the step that most often breaks USV-UAV systems.
  • A sea-state-3, GNSS-denied field completion establishes a public baseline against which later systems can be measured.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The navigation chain is only as good as its first link: if the shore camera loses line of sight or the target's rough location and photos are not available, the paper provides no alternative. A natural extension is to replace the fixed shore camera with a camera carried by the carrier itself, such as a tall mast gimbal or a tethered hovering drone, which would push the system toward deep-water ope
  • The two-drone tether transport and the manipulator grasping are described and validated separately, but they were not part of the maritime field test; a reader should treat the at-sea demonstration as covering approach, docking, and single-drone retrieval only.
  • The stated assumptions, including target no more than twice the carrier's size, well-defined vessel edges for the docking hook, and waves below sea state 3, define an operating envelope. A testable next step would be mapping success rate as a function of wave height, target size, and shore-camera distance to see where the handoff chain starts to fail.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes a modular USV-based 'drone carrier' carrying four DJI M300 UAVs and a manipulator, intended for autonomous inspection and intervention in GNSS-denied maritime environments. The system uses an onshore gimbal camera for initial localization, onboard LiDAR/DVL/IMU for approach and docking, UWB and QR codes for UAV local positioning, and a gripper-equipped UAV for small-object transport. Field tests at MBZIRC2024 in sea state 3 are reported, with data on heading/position during approach, LiDAR-based target modeling, and single-UAV takeoff, grasping, transport, and landing. The paper's central claim, however, is broader than the field data: the abstract and contribution list assert demonstrated manipulator-based intervention and multi-UAV large-object transport, while Section V explicitly states that maritime testing did not include operation of the robotic arm or multi-UAV transport of large objects. The paper also claims to be the only team to complete inspection and intervention tasks at MBZIRC2024 without providing comparative evidence.

Significance. If the narrower claims are taken as the contribution, the paper reports a rare integrated field demonstration of a heterogeneous USV-UAV system operating without GNSS: autonomous approach, docking with a non-cooperative vessel, and single-UAV object retrieval and landing in sea state 3. The hardware design with modular catamaran, UWB localization, QR-code landing, and the software architecture spanning perception, recognition, decision, and action is a useful systems integration data point. The authors also provide field-measured trajectories and point-cloud-based target modeling, which are valuable. However, the headline capability of manipulator-based intervention and multi-UAV collaborative transport is unsupported by the paper's own experimental section, and the 'only team' claim lacks citation. The verified contribution is an autonomous approach/docking and single-UAV transport demonstration, not the full inspection-and-intervention system claimed in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section I (Contributions), Section V (final paragraph), Section VI] There is a direct internal contradiction. The abstract states that the drone carrier 'automatically accomplished the intervention tasks' with one manipulator; Contribution 3 claims 'performing intervention tasks using a manipulator'; and the Conclusion states the system can 'perform intervention tasks using manipulators'. Yet Section V, final paragraph, states: 'Maritime testing does not include the operation of a robotic arm or the transportation of large objects using multiple drones; hence, these aspects are not highlighted here.' This means the experimental evidence does not support the claimed manipulator-based intervention or multi-UAV large-object transport. The authors must either present the missing experimental data or explicitly revise the abstract, contributions, and conclusion to scope the claims to the actually demonstrated capabilities (approach, docking, single-UAV small-object transport).
  2. [Section I, first paragraph] The sentence 'The proposed drone carrier is the only team to successfully complete inspection and intervention tasks in a sea-level-3, GNSS-denied sea environment during the MBZIRC2024 demonstrations' is unsupported by any citation, comparison table, or official result. As stated, this is an unverifiable competitive claim. The authors should provide a verifiable source (e.g., official MBZIRC2024 results, a public scoreboard) or remove the claim.
  3. [Section V] The field-test section reports only what appears to be a single run or demonstration. No trial counts, success rates, or quantitative error statistics are given for docking, UAV landing, or object grasping. For example, Fig. 10 shows one path and one set of heading/position plots, and Fig. 12 shows one transport trajectory. The claim that the system 'successfully demonstrated' these capabilities is therefore anecdotal. The authors should provide the number of attempts, success/failure counts, and error metrics (e.g., docking position error, landing error, grasp success rate) to substantiate the empirical claims.
  4. [Section IV-B and Section III-A] The GNSS-denied localization chain depends on an onshore gimbal camera with line-of-sight to both the USV and the target, and on prior target location with 50 m accuracy plus a limited number of target photographs. The paper does not demonstrate a self-contained localization fallback for deep-water or beyond-line-of-sight operation. The claim of operation in a 'GNSS-denied maritime environment' should therefore be qualified: the system operates without GNSS but with shore-based infrastructure and prior target information. The 200 m figure ('achieves an accuracy of up to 200 meters within a 3 km offshore range') should be clarified, since it is ambiguous whether 200 m is a localization accuracy or a range.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV title] The title contains a typo: 'GNSS-Denied Sea EXNVIRONMENT' should be 'GNSS-Denied Sea ENVIRONMENT'.
  2. [Table II] The caption says 'Tabal II' instead of 'Table II'.
  3. [Section V-A, Fig. 12] The text says 'The path and positional trajectory of the drone during the transportation process are illustrated in Figure 1.' This should refer to Fig. 12, not Figure 1 (which is the system concept figure).
  4. [Section IV-D] The sentence 'While this step has been thoroughly described elsewhere' does not specify where; the reference appears to be the authors' prior work [36] or [37], but no explicit pointer is given in that sentence. Please add a citation.
  5. [Eq. (4)] The expression for B in Eq. (4) appears to have a missing bracket or misplaced transpose; the matrix dimensions do not clearly match the multiplication with (T1, T2). Please check and correct the notation.
  6. [Table I] Many cells in Table I are empty; clarify with a footnote whether blanks mean 'not specified' or 'not used' to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No fit-to-data circularity; the core demonstration is an empirical integration, but the offshore-navigation accuracy metric is imported from a same-author preprint, so the paper is not fully self-contained on that point.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section IV-B, 'Step 1: Offshore Navigation and Approaching']
    "While the detailed methodology is discussed in a previous study [32], this work integrates the entire localization process, linking the onshore camera to the target vessel. ... This navigation process achieves an accuracy of up to 200 meters within a 3 km offshore range."

    The quantitative navigation-accuracy claim ('up to 200 meters within a 3 km offshore range') is not derived from the equations or field data presented in this paper; it is carried over from reference [32], whose author list overlaps with the present paper. Section V reports heading and position trajectories for the approach and docking phases, but it does not independently benchmark this specific 200 m accuracy figure. Thus, for that metric, the argument reduces to a same-author citation rather than an in-paper derivation or external validation. This is a supporting component rather than a complete circular collapse: the integrated approach/docking demonstration has direct field evidence, so the central claim does not reduce to the citation alone.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical system demonstration (approach, docking, single-UAV transport in GNSS-denied conditions), not a derived prediction, so there is no fit-to-data circularity. Most algorithmic blocks are standard or externally cited: YOLOv5 [33], L-shape fitting [34], Dubins curves [35], trilateration [39], Kalman filtering [40], and coverage path planning [43]. The only notable self-citation chain is the offshore-navigation accuracy figure and the UWB search/transport pipeline, which are outsourced to [32], [36], and [37] from the same group; these do not reduce the reported field trajectories to their inputs. Separately, the manuscript contains an internal overclaim that is a correctness/evidence concern rather than a circularity concern: the abstract and conclusions state that manipulator intervention and multi-drone large-object transport were demonstrated, while Section V says 'Maritime testing does not include the operation of a robotic arm or the transportation of large objects using multiple drones; hence, these aspects are not highlighted here.' That limitation should be weighed in the overall verdict, but it does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central claim rests on a declared operational envelope (sea state 3, visibility, target prior, target size and edge conditions) and on outsourced algorithms from prior self-cited papers. No fitted numerical parameters are reported, so the ledger is dominated by domain assumptions rather than free parameters.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Operational environment is not higher than sea state 3, with wave heights not exceeding 1.5 m and visibility greater than 2 km.
    Stated in Section III-A as the envelope for all claimed operations.
  • domain assumption The USV has prior information about the target, including approximate location with accuracy of 50 m and a limited number of target photographs.
    Section III-A and Section IV-B; the search and approach pipeline is initialized from this prior.
  • domain assumption Docking is only possible with target vessels no more than twice the USV's size, with well-defined edges for the latching mechanism.
    Section III-A lists this as a constraint for the mechanical docking system.
  • domain assumption UWB localization plus QR-code landing provides the 20 cm landing accuracy required by the drone gripper.
    Section III-C states the gripper requires 20 cm landing accuracy; the field demonstration assumes this accuracy was achieved.
  • domain assumption The dynamic model in Eq. (1) uses a diagonal first-order damping matrix and neglects roll and pitch effects during docking.
    Section IV-A; this simplification supports path planning but is not validated in the sea trials.
  • standard math Established tools such as Extended Kalman filtering, UWB trilateration, Dubins paths, and L-shape fitting work as cited.
    Section IV invokes these tools without re-derivation; their correctness is assumed from the cited literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Drone Carrier: An Integrated Unmanned Surface Vehicle for Autonomous Inspection and Intervention in GNSS-Denied Maritime Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNISTE7R

@misc{pith2026250112869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Drone Carrier: An Integrated Unmanned Surface Vehicle for Autonomous Inspection and Intervention in GNSS-Denied Maritime Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNISTE7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12869}
}
abstract

This paper introduces an innovative drone carrier concept that is applied in maritime port security or offshore rescue. This system works with a heterogeneous system consisting of multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) to perform inspection and intervention tasks in GNSS-denied or interrupted environments. The carrier, an electric catamaran measuring 4m by 7m, features a 4m by 6m deck supporting automated takeoff and landing for four DJI M300 drones, along with a 10kg-payload manipulator operable in up to level 3 sea conditions. Utilizing an offshore gimbal camera for navigation, the carrier can autonomously navigate, approach and dock with non-cooperative vessels, guided by an onboard camera, LiDAR, and Doppler Velocity Log (DVL) over a 3 km$^2$ area. UAVs equipped with onboard Ultra-Wideband (UWB) technology execute mapping, detection, and manipulation tasks using a versatile gripper designed for wet, saline conditions. Additionally, two UAVs can coordinate to transport large objects to the manipulator or interact directly with them. These procedures are fully automated and were successfully demonstrated at the Mohammed Bin Zayed International Robotic Competition (MBZIRC2024), where the drone carrier equipped with four UAVS and one manipulator, automatically accomplished the intervention tasks in sea-level-3 (wave height 1.25m) based on the rough target information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12869 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed drone carrier concepts. (a): CAD design of the integrated constitution, (b): support, (c): device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modular design of both the (a): catamaran and (b): the drones, manipulator and sensors on the drone carrier. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Physical diagram of components in a drone carrier. The subscript ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Modification of a typical drone DJI-M300, including localization (UWBs), payloads, landing component (landing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two typical grippers mounted on the manipulator applied in the marine transportation task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multiple robotics communication using data-link for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Flow chat for the drone carrier conducting wide-range inspection and transportation in GNSS-denied marine environment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the target localization using: (a) onshore [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Collaborate object localization and grasping using drones and a manipulator, where the drones are localized based on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Field test data of the drone carrier in a GNSS-denied sea environment: (a) Desired heading angle and position of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Field test images of the drone carrier in a GNSS-denied sea environment: (a) Target vessel localization and drone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Path and positional trajectory of the UAV transportation object from a target vessel to the drone carrier, where (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Marine surveillance capabilities of the autonaut wave-propelled unmanned surface vessel (usv),

    P. Johnston and M. Poole, “Marine surveillance capabilities of the autonaut wave-propelled unmanned surface vessel (usv),” in OCEANS 2017-Aberdeen. IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–46

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Design and control of an unmanned surface vehicle for environmental monitoring applications,

    J. L. Villa, J. Paez, C. Quintero, E. Yime, and J. Cabrera, “Design and control of an unmanned surface vehicle for environmental monitoring applications,” in 2016 IEEE Colombian Conference on Robotics and Automation (CCRA) , 2016, pp. 1–5

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    A survey on unmanned surface vehicles for disaster robotics: Main challenges and directions,

    V . Jorge, R. Granada, R. Maidana, D. Jurak, G. Heck, A. Negreiros, D. Dos Santos, L. Gonc ¸alves, and A. Amory, “A survey on unmanned surface vehicles for disaster robotics: Main challenges and directions,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 702, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Development of an unmanned capsule for large-scale maritime search and rescue,

    A. Matos, E. Silva, N. Cruz, J. C. Alves, D. Almeida, M. Pinto, A. Martins, J. Almeida, and D. Machado, “Development of an unmanned capsule for large-scale maritime search and rescue,” in 2013 OCEANS- San Diego. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–8

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Sea robot-assisted inspection,

    M. Lindemuth, R. Murphy, E. Steimle, W. Armitage, K. Dreger, T. Elliot, M. Hall, D. Kalyadin, J. Kramer, M. Palankar, K. Pratt, and C. Griffin, “Sea robot-assisted inspection,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Maga- zine, vol. 18, pp. 96–107, 6 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Enabling technologies for autonomous offshore inspections by heterogeneous unmanned teams,

    A. C. G. Collins and D. Twining, “Enabling technologies for autonomous offshore inspections by heterogeneous unmanned teams,” 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Het- erogeneous robotic system for underwater oil spill survey,

    A. Vasilijevic, P. Calado, F. Lopez-Castejon, D. Hayes, N. Stilinovic, D. Nad, F. Mandic, P. Dias, J. Gomes, J. C. Molina, A. Guerrero, J. Gilabert, N. Miskovic, Z. Vukic, J. Sousa, and G. Georgiou, “Het- erogeneous robotic system for underwater oil spill survey,” in OCEANS 2015 - Genova , 2015, pp. 1–7

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Detection of bodies in maritime rescue operations using unmanned aerial vehicles with multispectral cameras,

    A. J. Gallego, A. Pertusa, P. Gil, and R. B. Fisher, “Detection of bodies in maritime rescue operations using unmanned aerial vehicles with multispectral cameras,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, pp. 782– 796, 6 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    A cooperative multi-robot team for the surveillance of shipwreck survivors at sea,

    R. Mendonc ¸a, M. M. Marques, F. Marques, A. Lourenc ¸o, E. Pinto, P. Santana, F. Coito, V . Lobo, and J. Barata, “A cooperative multi-robot team for the surveillance of shipwreck survivors at sea,” in OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey , 2016, pp. 1–6

    2016

  2. [10]

    Coastal slam with marine radar for usv operation in gps-restricted situations,

    J. Han, Y . Cho, and J. Kim, “Coastal slam with marine radar for usv operation in gps-restricted situations,” pp. 300–309, 4 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    A lidar slam-assisted fusion positioning method for usvs,

    W. Shen, Z. Yang, C. Yang, and X. Li, “A lidar slam-assisted fusion positioning method for usvs,” Sensors, vol. 23, 2 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Radar image-based positioning for usv under gps denial environment,

    H. Ma, E. Smart, A. Ahmed, and D. Brown, “Radar image-based positioning for usv under gps denial environment,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 19, pp. 72–80, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Security and safety concerns in air taxis: a systematic literature review,

    I. G. Ferr ˜ao, D. Espes, C. Dezan, and K. R. L. J. C. Branco, “Security and safety concerns in air taxis: a systematic literature review,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 18, p. 6875, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Implementation of facility management for port infrastructure through the use of uavs, photogrammetry and bim,

    C. Jofr ´e-Brice˜no, F. Mu ˜noz-La Rivera, E. Atencio, and R. F. Herrera, “Implementation of facility management for port infrastructure through the use of uavs, photogrammetry and bim,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 19, p. 6686, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Side-pull maneuver: A novel control strategy for dragging a cable- tethered load of unknown weight using a uav,

    A. S. Brand ˜ao, D. Smrcka, ´E. Pairet, T. Nascimento, and M. Saska, “Side-pull maneuver: A novel control strategy for dragging a cable- tethered load of unknown weight using a uav,” IEEE robotics and automation letters , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9159–9166, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Applications, evolutions, and challenges of drones in maritime transport,

    J. Wang, K. Zhou, W. Xing, H. Li, and Z. Yang, “Applications, evolutions, and challenges of drones in maritime transport,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering , vol. 11, no. 11, p. 2056, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cooperative use of unmanned sea surface and micro aerial vehicles at hurricane wilma,

    R. R. Murphy, E. Steimle, C. Griffin, C. Cullins, M. Hall, and K. Pratt, “Cooperative use of unmanned sea surface and micro aerial vehicles at hurricane wilma,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 25, pp. 164–180, 3 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Robot- assisted measurement for hydrologic understanding in data sparse re- gions,

    S. Young, J. Peschel, G. Penny, S. Thompson, and V . Srinivasan, “Robot- assisted measurement for hydrologic understanding in data sparse re- gions,” Water, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 494, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    X. Xiao, J. Dufek, T. Woodbury, and R. Murphy, UA V Assisted USV Visual Navigation for Marine Mass Casualty Incident Response , 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    A novel cooperative platform design for coupled usv-uav systems,

    G. Shao, Y . Ma, R. Malekian, X. Yan, and Z. Li, “A novel cooperative platform design for coupled usv-uav systems,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 15, pp. 4913–4922, 9 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Marine uav–usv marsupial platform: System and recovery technic verification,

    H. Zhang, Y . He, D. Li, F. Gu, Q. Li, M. Zhang, C. Di, L. Chu, B. Chen, and Y . Hu, “Marine uav–usv marsupial platform: System and recovery technic verification,” Applied Sciences , vol. 10, no. 5, p. 1583, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Saturated adaptive sliding mode control for autonomous vessel landing of a quadrotor,

    Y . Huang, Z. Zheng, L. Sun, and M. Zhu, “Saturated adaptive sliding mode control for autonomous vessel landing of a quadrotor,”IET Control Theory and Applications , vol. 12, pp. 1830–1842, 9 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Synchronized motion-based uav– usv cooperative autonomous landing,

    W. Li, Y . Ge, Z. Guan, and G. Ye, “Synchronized motion-based uav– usv cooperative autonomous landing,” Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 1214, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    3u: Joint design of uav-usv-uuv networks for cooperative target hunting,

    W. Wei, J. Wang, Z. Fang, J. Chen, Y . Ren, and Y . Dong, “3u: Joint design of uav-usv-uuv networks for cooperative target hunting,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 4085–4090, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Towards uav-usv collaboration in harsh maritime conditions including large waves,

    F. Nov ´ak, T. B ´aˇca, O. Proch ´azka, and M. Saska, “Towards uav-usv collaboration in harsh maritime conditions including large waves,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10163, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Methodology for performing bathymetric and photogram- metric measurements using uav and usv vehicles in the coastal zone,

    M. Specht, “Methodology for performing bathymetric and photogram- metric measurements using uav and usv vehicles in the coastal zone,” Remote Sensing , vol. 16, no. 17, p. 3328, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Uav-usv docking control system based on motion compensation deck and attitude prediction,

    E. Tian, Y . Li, Y . Liao, and J. Cao, “Uav-usv docking control system based on motion compensation deck and attitude prediction,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 307, p. 118223, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Collaborative object manipulation on the water surface by a uav-usv team using tethers,

    F. Nov ´ak, T. B ´aˇca, and M. Saska, “Collaborative object manipulation on the water surface by a uav-usv team using tethers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08580, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Devel- opment of algal bloom removal system using unmanned aerial vehicle and surface vehicle,

    S. Jung, H. Cho, D. Kim, K. Kim, J. I. Han, and H. Myung, “Devel- opment of algal bloom removal system using unmanned aerial vehicle and surface vehicle,” IEEE Access , vol. 5, pp. 22 166–22 176, 10 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Adaptive nonlinear relative motion control of quadrotors in autonomous shipboard landings,

    L. Sun, Y . Huang, Z. Zheng, B. Zhu, and J. Jiang, “Adaptive nonlinear relative motion control of quadrotors in autonomous shipboard landings,” Journal of the Franklin Institute , vol. 357, pp. 13 569–13 592, 12 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    A vio-based localization approach in gps-denied environments for an unmanned surface vehicle

    X. Liu, Z. Hu, Z. Sun, J. Lu, W. Xie, and W. Zhang, “A vio-based localization approach in gps-denied environments for an unmanned surface vehicle.” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2023, pp. 912–917

    2023

  24. [32]

    Long-range vision-based uav- assisted localization for unmanned surface vehicles,

    W. Akram, S. Yang, H. Kuang, X. He, M. U. Din, Y . Dong, D. Lin, L. Seneviratne, S. He, and I. Hussain, “Long-range vision-based uav- assisted localization for unmanned surface vehicles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11429, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    ultralytics/yolov5: v7.0 - YOLOv5 SOTA Realtime Instance Segmentation,

    G. Jocher, A. Chaurasia, A. Stoken, J. Borovec, NanoCode012, Y . Kwon, K. Michael, TaoXie, J. Fang, imyhxy, Lorna, Z. Yifu, C. Wong, A. V , D. Montes, Z. Wang, C. Fati, J. Nadar, Laughing, UnglvKitDe, V . Sonck, tkianai, yxNONG, P. Skalski, A. Hogan, D. Nair, M. Strobel, and M...

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Efficient L-shape fitting for vehicle detection using laser scanners,

    X. Zhang, W. Xu, C. Dong, and J. M. Dolan, “Efficient L-shape fitting for vehicle detection using laser scanners,” IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium, Proceedings, pp. 54–59, jul 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Long-Range UWB Positioning-Based Automatic Docking Trajectory Design for Unmanned Surface Vehicle,

    W. Cai, M. Zhang, Q. Yang, C. Wang, and J. Shi, “Long-Range UWB Positioning-Based Automatic Docking Trajectory Design for Unmanned Surface Vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 72, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    An aerial transport system in marine gnss-denied environment,

    J. Sun, Z. Niu, Y . Dong, F. Zhang, M. U. Din, L. Seneviratne, D. Lin, I. Hussain, and S. He, “An aerial transport system in marine gnss-denied environment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01603 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A heterogeneous multi-robot system for autonomous object retrieval in challenging gnss-denied maritime environment

    Q. Chen, M. Irfan, Q. Yu, J. Sun, M. U. Din, D. Lin, S. He, and I. Hussain, “A heterogeneous multi-robot system for autonomous object retrieval in challenging gnss-denied maritime environment.” 14

  30. [38]

    A Drone’s 3D Localization and Load Mapping Based on QR Codes for Load Management,

    T.-W. Kang and J.-W. Jung, “A Drone’s 3D Localization and Load Mapping Based on QR Codes for Load Management,” Drones, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 130, Mar. 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Revisiting Trilateration for Robot Localization,

    F. Thomas and L. Ros, “Revisiting Trilateration for Robot Localization,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 93–101, Feb. 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Kalman- Filter-Based Integration of IMU and UWB for High-Accuracy Indoor Positioning and Navigation,

    D. Feng, C. Wang, C. He, Y . Zhuang, and X.-G. Xia, “Kalman- Filter-Based Integration of IMU and UWB for High-Accuracy Indoor Positioning and Navigation,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3133–3146, Apr. 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    On Noise Reduction Methods for Chaotic Data,

    P. Grassberger, R. Hegger, H. Kantz, C. Schaffrath, and T. Schreiber, “On Noise Reduction Methods for Chaotic Data,” Chaos: An Interdis- ciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 127–141, Apr. 1993

    1993

  34. [42]

    An introduction to the kalman filter,

    G. Welch, G. Bishop et al., “An introduction to the kalman filter,” 1995

    1995

  35. [43]

    Survey on Coverage Path Planning with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

    T. Cabreira, L. Brisolara, and P. R. Ferreira Jr., “Survey on Coverage Path Planning with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,” Drones, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 4, Jan. 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Geometric tracking control of a quadrotor UA V on SE(3),

    T. Lee, M. Leok, and N. H. McClamroch, “Geometric tracking control of a quadrotor UA V on SE(3),” in 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . Atlanta, GA: IEEE, Dec. 2010, pp. 5420–5425

    2010

  37. [45]

    Unmanned aerial vehicles motion control with fuzzy tuning of cascaded-pid gains,

    F. A. A. Andrade, I. P. Guedes, G. F. Carvalho, A. R. L. Zachi, D. B. Haddad, L. F. Almeida, A. G. de Melo, and M. F. Pinto, “Unmanned aerial vehicles motion control with fuzzy tuning of cascaded-pid gains,” Machines, vol. 10, no. 1, 2022. Yihao Dong received the Ph.D. degree ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.