Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Deep Reinforcement Learning Enabled Persistent Surveillance with Energy-Aware UAV-UGV Systems for Disaster Management Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · 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 transformer-based deep reinforcement learning policy can plan cooperative UAV-UGV persistent surveillance—choosing both mission-point visits and recharging rendezvous—so as to minimize the squared age-period…

desk verdict A plausible extension of the authors' prior line with a real runtime advantage, but the DRL-vs-baseline comparison is not yet trustworthy because the policy ignores UGV travel time to rendezvous points. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02666 v1 pith:SRJGARYH submitted 2025-02-04 cs.RO

Md Safwan Mondal , Subramanian Ramasamy , Pranav Bhounsule This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords persistentsurveillanceUAV-UGVcooperationdeepreinforcementlearningtransformerpolicymobilerechargingstationageperioddisastermanagementonlinerouteplanning
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

The paper tries to establish that a single deep reinforcement learning policy can solve the energy-constrained UAV-UGV cooperative persistent surveillance problem: deciding which mission points the drone should fly to and where it should meet a ground vehicle for recharging, so that the time between consecutive visits to every point stays small. This matters because persistent surveillance in disaster zones requires continuous, current information, and existing approaches are either slow heuristics or planning methods limited by a short horizon. The authors claim their transformer-based policy, trained with REINFORCE, produces lower objective values than heuristic baselines and an attention-model baseline in shorter runtimes. They also claim it generalizes to larger problem sizes, to Gaussian, Rayleigh, and Exponential point distributions, and to dynamically inserted mission points.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the age-period formulation: the score is $S = \frac{1}{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{n}\sum_{q=1}^{p}(a_k^q)^2$, where the age period $a_k = t - t_{\text{last}}$ is the time since mission point $k$ was last visited, and the squared form penalizes long gaps. This score is converted into a per-step reward $r_t = -(a_t)^2$, summed and scaled by the mission period. The MDP state is $s_t = (p_t, f_t, q_t)$, with $q_t$ holding the coordinates and age periods of all mission points. The policy is an encoder-decoder transformer: the encoder embeds coordinates and a recharge-eligibility bit; the decoder builds a context vector from the current position embedding, fuel level, and graph embedding, and adds a dynamic age-period embedding to the node embeddings at every decision step. A masked softmax over compatibility scores selects the next action, with masks enforcing fuel reachability, no consecutive recharges, no immediate same-point revisits, and the ability to reach a refuel stop on the following step. Training uses REINFORCE with a greedy rollout baseline.

What would settle it

For any route produced by the trained policy, compute the UGV's earliest feasible arrival at each rendezvous from its previous position at its speed along the road network; if any rendezvous requires waiting that is physically impossible because the UGV cannot arrive in time, the route schedule is not realizable and the policy's superiority claim is weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a single transformer-based DRL policy can solve the energy-constrained UAV-UGV cooperative persistent surveillance problem end to end. From a state consisting only of the drone's position, fuel level, and each mission point's age period, the policy learns to alternate visit actions with recharging rendezvous so that the squared age-period score is minimized. The authors report that this policy yields lower objective values than the Attention Model and the heuristic baselines on all tested problem sizes (U15G5, U30G10, U45G15, and the larger U60G20 and U75G25), across Gaussian, Rayleigh, and Exponential point distributions, and in a Hurricane Harvey case study, with the sampling-decoding variant DRL(10240) achieving the minimum objective everywhere. The paper also argues that the policy mitigates the horizon effect that hurts receding-horizon heuristics, supports online insertion of new points with only a modest objective increase, and can be steered by priority weights through an age-increment factor without retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ground vehicle can always be at the chosen rendezvous point when the drone arrives, since the policy's state does not include the UGV's position or travel time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, disaster-response planners can use one trained policy for a 1000-minute mission on 20 UAV points and 10 ground points, and the same policy extends to 75 UAV points and 25 ground points without retraining while still beating the evaluated baselines.
  • The reported generalization across Gaussian, Rayleigh, and Exponential distributions means the policy transfers to mission layouts where points cluster near the road network or spread outward, covering a range of realistic disaster topologies.
  • The online-planning result implies that new mission points appearing within the first 200 minutes of a 1000-minute mission can be folded into the plan at rendezvous, at the cost of a raised score metric and maximum age period.
  • The priority-weighted variant implies that a uniform-weight policy can be repurposed for weighted surveillance by inflating the age of high-priority points, so no retraining is needed when visit priorities change.
  • The reported runtime advantage means the greedy-decoding policy could be used in settings where a route must be produced in seconds rather than the hundreds of seconds taken by the heuristic baselines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The MDP state has no UGV position or arrival-time information, so the strongest validation would be a simulator that enforces UGV travel; the paper's route schedules may not be physically realizable in the field.
  • Editorial inference: The dynamic age-period embedding is a generic mechanism: any revisit-based routing objective (patrol, inspection, restocking) could reuse it to make decisions sensitive to how stale each target is.
  • Editorial inference: The masking rules form a reusable safety layer for energy-constrained multi-agent reinforcement learning, guaranteeing fuel feasibility and basic transition constraints without reward shaping.
  • Editorial inference: The generalization to larger sizes and other distributions suggests the policy is approximating a structural rule (visit stale points, rendezvous when fuel is low) rather than memorizing instances; a direct test would be evaluating on 100-plus-point instances.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses an energy-aware persistent surveillance problem with one UAV and one UGV, where the UGV serves as a mobile recharging station on a road network. The authors formulate the problem as an MDP, propose an encoder-decoder transformer policy trained with REINFORCE, and evaluate it against the Attention Model and three OR-Tools heuristics (GLS, TS, SA) on problem instances of varying sizes and point distributions. They additionally present a Hurricane Harvey case study, a dynamic-planning extension, and a priority-weighted variant. The central claim is that the proposed DRL policy consistently yields lower values of the age-period-based score metric than all baselines, in shorter or comparable runtime, and that it generalizes to larger instances and different distributions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would offer a practical learning-based method for a relevant UAV-UGV coordination problem, with a plausible transformer architecture that dynamically incorporates age-period embeddings. The generalization experiments and the case study are useful additions that go beyond a plain routing benchmark. However, the significance is currently undermined by two load-bearing issues: (i) the DRL policy never checks whether the UGV can physically reach the chosen rendezvous point at the required time, so the reported DRL routes may be infeasible, and (ii) all tabular results are point estimates over 30 instances without any measure of variance or significance, making the claimed 'consistent outperformance' impossible to verify. The priority-driven extension also tunes its key hyperparameter on the very case-study scenario used for reporting, which overstates the demonstration. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope and do not invalidate the overall approach, but they must be addressed before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-B1, III-B4, V-A2, Tables I-III] The MDP state in Section III-B1, st = (pt, ft, qt), contains no UGV position or arrival-time information, and the transition in Section III-B4 updates mission time as t = tij + TR for a recharging action with no waiting term. The masking rules in Section V-A2 check UAV fuel reachability but never check whether the UGV can physically arrive at the selected ground point by the time the UAV lands. In contrast, the O-EVRPTW baseline enforces the UGV time-window constraint via Eq. (10) (ti >= tr_l,i). Because the UGV route is constructed only after the DRL action sequence is generated (Section V, first paragraph), the DRL timelines in Tables I-III may rely on rendezvous that are not physically realizable; inserting the required UGV travel time would increase every mission point's age period and raise the reported objective values. This is the most load-bearing point in the paper, and it must be resolved by either incorporating UGV state into the MDP or post-hoc verifying feasibility and recomputing objectives with actual waiting times.
  2. [Tables I-III, Section VI-B] All comparison tables report average objective values and runtimes over 30 test instances without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The claim that 'the proposed DRL policy consistently produces lower objective values across all problem sizes' (Section VI-B) cannot be assessed from point estimates, especially when some gaps are small (e.g., U15G5: DRL(greedy) 2.9 vs TS 3.1, roughly 7% difference) and may lie within instance-to-instance variability. The authors should report variance and perform paired statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or paired t-test) across the 30 instances for each comparison, and state the number of random seeds or evaluation runs if applicable.
  3. [VI-F, Eqs. (31)-(32), Figure 9] The priority-driven extension introduces the increment factor F = 1 + (wk - 1)S in Eq. (32), where S is a hyperparameter that is tuned on the Hurricane Harvey case-study scenario (Figure 9 shows the objective score metric versus S, with 'Optimal value' chosen on that same scenario). Reporting the subsequent reduction in maximum age periods for high-priority points on that same scenario after tuning S constitutes tuning on the test set. To make the demonstration credible, the value of S should be fixed a priori, selected on a separate validation scenario, or justified analytically, and the reported performance should be evaluated on held-out priority scenarios.
  4. [VI-E, Table IV] The dynamic-planning experiment reports only two numbers in Table IV (initial route score 3.92 and max age 378; modified routes 5.51 and 523), despite the text stating that '30 trials of dynamic planning with an average of 5 newly appeared mission points' were conducted. The claim of 'little deviations in objective score metric and maximum age period' is unsupported without the mean, standard deviation, or range across those 30 trials. The authors should report distributional information and also clarify how the 30 trials differ (random new point locations, numbers, or timing).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (27) and Table I caption] The quantity computed in Eq. (27) is the relative gap to the best objective found among the compared methods, not an optimality gap with respect to a true optimum. Renaming this 'relative gap' would avoid misleading readers.
  2. [Section VI-A] The dataset description says the road network G is fixed but 'the road network points are chosen randomly from the given network.' This is confusing because the ground points Mg are mission points, not the road network nodes; please clarify the relationship between the fixed road network, the randomly sampled ground points, and the training/test split.
  3. [Figure 5] The training reward curves in Figure 5 appear to be single runs without error bands or multiple seeds; given the stochastic nature of REINFORCE, reporting mean and variance over at least a few seeds would strengthen the convergence claim.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor notational inconsistencies, such as 'UA V' with a space in several places, and the symbol P is used both for the penalty in Eq. (5) and for the probability in Eq. (12). These should be harmonized.
  5. [Section VI-B] The statement 'the DRL model generally requires slightly more runtime than the AM model, except when using greedy decoding' is not consistently supported by Table I (e.g., U30G10 DRL(1024) time is 10.5 sec vs AM(1024) 9.8 sec, but U45G15 DRL(1024) time is 12.8 sec vs AM(1024) 9.5 sec, and DRL(greedy) is indeed fastest). Please revisit the wording.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Core DRL comparisons are independent; priority-surveillance demonstration tunes S on the same case study.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI-F, Eqs. (30)-(32) and Figure 9]
    "To optimize the hyperparameter S, we conduct trials across a range of S values and select the optimal value that minimizes the objective score metric, as illustrated in Figure 9. ... We have executed the routing process on the given scenario using the defined priority weights and the increment factor F with the optimal S = 0.75. ... This demonstrates the policy's effectiveness in prioritizing mission points based on their assigned weights."

    The demonstration of priority-driven effectiveness uses the same Hurricane Harvey scenario on which S was tuned by minimizing the weighted objective (Eq. 30). Since Eq. 32 sets F = 1 + (wk - 1)S and Eq. 31 uses F to inflate age growth for high-weight points, the policy's increased attention to those points is directed by the designed input manipulation, and the scale of that manipulation is selected to optimize the very metric later reported as evidence. The observed reduction in high-priority maximum age periods is therefore an in-sample fitted result, not an independent validation or a generalizable prediction. The main comparison tables (Tables I-III) do not share this issue: they use fixed trained policies on held-out instances and external/OR-Tools baselines.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The MDP reward in Section III-B3 is defined exactly as the negative of the score metric in Eq. (2), so the DRL policy is trained to minimize the same quantity used for evaluation; this is an aligned training objective, and the resulting lower objective values in Tables I-III are empirical claims tested on unseen instances, larger problem sizes, and new point distributions against the AM model and OR-Tools heuristics. Self-citations (prior IROS framework [24], previous bilevel formulations [44,45]) describe architecture and omitted generic constraints but are not the load-bearing evidence for the main comparison. The significant caveat that the MDP state omits UGV position/arrival time (Section III-B1) and the UGV route is constructed after the DRL sequence means the DRL timelines may assume UGV availability at any selected rendezvous; that is a correctness/feasibility concern, not a circularity. The only step with a fitted-input character is the priority-surveillance example (Section VI-F), where S is tuned on the case study scenario and the outcome is then presented as demonstrating effectiveness; this in-sample tuning is partial and secondary, so the overall circularity score is 3 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The central claim rests on standard optimization and learning background, deterministic simulator assumptions, and one ad hoc hyperparameter S in the priority extension. Free parameters are limited because the main policy is trained end-to-end on the target objective rather than tuned against a hidden target.

free parameters (2)
  • Priority increment scaling S = 0.75
    Tuned in Section VI-F, Figure 9, to minimize the objective score on the Hurricane Harvey case-study scenario; appears in Eq. (32) as F = 1 + (wk - 1)S. Affects only the priority extension, not the main comparison.
  • Attention compatibility clipping Cp = 10
    Hand-set exploration parameter in Eq. (24), inherited from the Attention Model; not fitted to the target metric.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math REINFORCE with a greedy rollout baseline yields an unbiased policy-gradient estimate and converges to a good local policy.
    Used in Algorithm 1, lines 14 to 19; treated as standard in the DRL routing literature and not proved in this preprint.
  • domain assumption UAV and UGV speeds, fuel consumption, and travel times are deterministic and constant (va = 10 m/s, vg = 4.5 m/s, fuel polynomial from [53]).
    Section VI-A; enables the simulator but omits wind, road traffic, battery degradation, GPS noise, and other stochastic effects.
  • domain assumption The UGV is restricted to the road network and can serve as a mobile charging station at any reached road point, while the UAV can only recharge at ground points.
    Section III-A; this defines the feasibility of rendezvous and the action space.
  • domain assumption The DRL policy can choose recharging actions using only UAV state (position, fuel, mission-point ages), with no explicit UGV position or time-window availability in the state.
    Section III-B1 defines st = (pt, ft, qt); Section V-A2 masks actions by UAV reachability but not by UGV schedule. This is the weakest load-bearing premise for route feasibility.
  • ad hoc to paper Weighted priority can be embedded by rescaling age increments with F = 1 + (wk - 1)S, with S tuned to the scenario.
    Eqs. (31)-(32), Section VI-F; this mechanism is not derived from the MDP or the original reward and is fitted on the case-study scenario.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Reinforcement Learning Enabled Persistent Surveillance with Energy-Aware UAV-UGV Systems for Disaster Management Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRJGARYH

@misc{pith2026250202666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Reinforcement Learning Enabled Persistent Surveillance with Energy-Aware UAV-UGV Systems for Disaster Management Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRJGARYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02666}
}
read the original abstract

Integrating Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) with Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) provides an effective solution for persistent surveillance in disaster management. UAVs excel at covering large areas rapidly, but their range is limited by battery capacity. UGVs, though slower, can carry larger batteries for extended missions. By using UGVs as mobile recharging stations, UAVs can extend mission duration through periodic refueling, leveraging the complementary strengths of both systems. To optimize this energy-aware UAV-UGV cooperative routing problem, we propose a planning framework that determines optimal routes and recharging points between a UAV and a UGV. Our solution employs a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) framework built on an encoder-decoder transformer architecture with multi-head attention mechanisms. This architecture enables the model to sequentially select actions for visiting mission points and coordinating recharging rendezvous between the UAV and UGV. The DRL model is trained to minimize the age periods (the time gap between consecutive visits) of mission points, ensuring effective surveillance. We evaluate the framework across various problem sizes and distributions, comparing its performance against heuristic methods and an existing learning-based model. Results show that our approach consistently outperforms these baselines in both solution quality and runtime. Additionally, we demonstrate the DRL policy's applicability in a real-world disaster scenario as a case study and explore its potential for online mission planning to handle dynamic changes. Adapting the DRL policy for priority-driven surveillance highlights the model's generalizability for real-time disaster response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of collaboration between an energy￾constrained UAV and a UGV for surveying disaster-stricken areas. The UAV performs continuous surveillance and recharges through the UGV. The proposed DRL policy determines mission point visits and coordinates UAV-UGV recharging. contemporary disaster management strategies [3, 4]. UAVs can provide vital real-time data and continuously assess sce￾narios to support both t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bilevel optimization workflow: a) Given scenario with UAV and ground points, and UGV’s traversal direction along the road network from the starting depot as obtained from the TSP solution. b) Available refuel stops provided by the UGV during O-EVRPTW route planning for the UAV. c) Recharging rendezvous between the UAV and UGV, along with their respective route sorties, derived from the O-EVRPTW solution. II. RELATED… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MDP representation for the UAV-UGV cooperative persistent surveillance problem utilizing a Transformer archi￾tecture. The problem can be modeled as a sequential decision￾making system where the agent sequentially selects the mis￾sion points to visit (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Architecture of the proposed Transformer network. The encoder consists of three attention layers that generate input embeddings from raw data, while the decoder constructs a context vector based on the current state. The network leverages both input embeddings and the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training reward curves across different problem sizes under DRL and AM policies. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scenario instances from different distributions of UAV points around the road network Across the three distributions, our DRL(10240) policy con￾sistently outperforms the baseline models. However, the Tabu Search (TS) heuristic model offers comparable performance to our…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Best viewed in color) Analysis of objective score metric and age period metrics across mission points in the Hurricane Harvey 2017 case study. (i) Contribution to the objective score metric from individual mission points: (a) Case study scenario illustrating ground (b…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dynamic route planning for newly appearing mission points (a) Initial UAV route sorties during 240–290 minutes in the case study scenario (b) Updated UAV route sorties during 240–290 minutes in response to newly added mission points (c) Initial UAV route sorties during…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: score metric 0.0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.5 1.75 Optimal value 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Maximum age periods at individual mission points in the case study scenario, comparing uniformly weighted surveillance with priority-weighted surveillance conditions. Under priority-driven surveillance, high-priority mission points show a reduction in maximum age peri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Disaster management using unmanned aerial vehicles,

    J. Rajan, S. Shriwastav, A. Kashyap, A. Ratnoo, and D. Ghose, “Disaster management using unmanned aerial vehicles,” in Unmanned Aerial Systems. Elsevier, 2021, pp. 129–155

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Help from the sky: Leveraging uavs for disaster management,

    M. Erdelj, E. Natalizio, K. R. Chowdhury, and I. F. Aky- ildiz, “Help from the sky: Leveraging uavs for disaster management,” IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 24–32, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Comparative review study of military and civilian un- manned aerial vehicles (uavs),

    S. K. Chaturvedi, R. Sekhar, S. Banerjee, and H. Kamal, “Comparative review study of military and civilian un- manned aerial vehicles (uavs),” INCAS bulletin, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 181–182, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Unmanned aerial vehicle contributions to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions for expeditionary operations,

    M. Raffetto, “Unmanned aerial vehicle contributions to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions for expeditionary operations,” Ph.D. dissertation, Mon- terey, California. Naval Postgraduate School, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Con- struction of 3d models of buildings damaged by earth- quakes using uav aerial images,

    F. Yamazaki, T. Matsuda, S. Denda, and W. Liu, “Con- struction of 3d models of buildings damaged by earth- quakes using uav aerial images,” in Proceedings of the Tenth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient Pacific, vol. 204, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Guidelines for the use of unmanned aerial systems in flood emergency response,

    G. Salmoral, M. Rivas Casado, M. Muthusamy, D. Butler, P. P. Menon, and P. Leinster, “Guidelines for the use of unmanned aerial systems in flood emergency response,” Water, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 521, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Uses of drones in fighting covid-19 pandemic,

    K. Gupta, S. Bansal, and R. Goel, “Uses of drones in fighting covid-19 pandemic,” in 2021 10th International Conference on System Modeling & Advancement in Re- search Trends (SMART). IEEE, 2021, pp. 651–655

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Robust plan- ning for persistent surveillance with energy-constrained uavs and mobile charging stations,

    X. Lin, Y . Yazıcıo ˘glu, and D. Aksaray, “Robust plan- ning for persistent surveillance with energy-constrained uavs and mobile charging stations,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4157–4164, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Coverage of an JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 16 environment using energy-constrained unmanned aerial vehicles,

    K. Yu, J. M. O’Kane, and P. Tokekar, “Coverage of an JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 16 environment using energy-constrained unmanned aerial vehicles,” in 2019 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 3259–3265

    2021

  2. [10]

    On cooperation between a fuel constrained uav and a refueling ugv for large scale mapping applications,

    P. Maini and P. Sujit, “On cooperation between a fuel constrained uav and a refueling ugv for large scale mapping applications,” in 2015 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1370–1377

    2015

  3. [11]

    Vehicle routing problem with drones,

    Z. Wang and J.-B. Sheu, “Vehicle routing problem with drones,” Transportation research part B: methodological, vol. 122, pp. 350–364, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    A study on the traveling salesman problem with a drone,

    Z. Tang, W.-J. v. Hoeve, and P. Shaw, “A study on the traveling salesman problem with a drone,” in Integra- tion of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research: 16th International Conference, CPAIOR 2019, Thessaloniki, Greece, June 4–7, 2019, Proce...

    2019

  5. [13]

    For- mulations and algorithms for the multiple depot, fuel- constrained, multiple vehicle routing problem,

    K. Sundar, S. Venkatachalam, and S. Rathinam, “For- mulations and algorithms for the multiple depot, fuel- constrained, multiple vehicle routing problem,” in 2016 American Control Conference (ACC) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 6489–6494

    2016

  6. [14]

    The flying sidekick trav- eling salesman problem: Optimization of drone-assisted parcel delivery,

    C. C. Murray and A. G. Chu, “The flying sidekick trav- eling salesman problem: Optimization of drone-assisted parcel delivery,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerg- ing Technologies, vol. 54, pp. 86–109, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Vehicle routing problems with multiple trips,

    D. Cattaruzza, N. Absi, and D. Feillet, “Vehicle routing problems with multiple trips,” 4or, vol. 14, pp. 223–259, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Terra: A path planning algorithm for cooperative ugv–uav ex- ploration,

    F. Ropero, P. Mu ˜noz, and M. D. R-Moreno, “Terra: A path planning algorithm for cooperative ugv–uav ex- ploration,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelli- gence, vol. 78, pp. 260–272, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Path planning of uav-ugv heterogeneous robot system in road network,

    M. Chen, Y . Chen, Z. Chen, and Y . Yang, “Path planning of uav-ugv heterogeneous robot system in road network,” in Intelligent Robotics and Applications: 12th Interna- tional Conference, ICIRA 2019, Shenyang, China, August 8–11, 2019, Proceedings, Part VI 12 . Springer, 2019,...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Cooperative route planning for fuel-constrained ugv-uav exploration,

    M. Zhang, H. Liang, and P. Zhou, “Cooperative route planning for fuel-constrained ugv-uav exploration,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Sys- tems (ICUS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1047–1052

    2022

  11. [19]

    Learning the multiple travel- ing salesmen problem with permutation invariant pooling networks,

    Y . Kaempfer and L. Wolf, “Learning the multiple travel- ing salesmen problem with permutation invariant pooling networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09621 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Learning scheduling poli- cies for multi-robot coordination with graph attention networks,

    Z. Wang and M. Gombolay, “Learning scheduling poli- cies for multi-robot coordination with graph attention networks,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4509–4516, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Multi-agent routing value iteration network,

    Q. Sykora, M. Ren, and R. Urtasun, “Multi-agent routing value iteration network,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 9300–9310

    2020

  14. [22]

    Learning scal- able policies over graphs for multi-robot task allocation using capsule attention networks,

    S. Paul, P. Ghassemi, and S. Chowdhury, “Learning scal- able policies over graphs for multi-robot task allocation using capsule attention networks,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 8815–8822

    2022

  15. [23]

    Heterogenous vehicle routing: comparing parameter tuning using genetic algorithm and bayesian optimization,

    S. Ramasamy, M. S. Mondal, J.-P. F. Reddinger, J. M. Dotterweich, J. D. Humann, M. A. Childers, and P. A. Bhounsule, “Heterogenous vehicle routing: comparing parameter tuning using genetic algorithm and bayesian optimization,” in 2022 International Conference on Un- manned Air...

    2022

  16. [24]

    An attention-aware deep reinforcement learning framework for uav-ugv collaborative route planning,

    M. S. Mondal, S. Ramasamy, and P. Bhounsule, “An attention-aware deep reinforcement learning framework for uav-ugv collaborative route planning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Persistent multi-uav surveil- lance with energy and communication constraints,

    J. Scherer and B. Rinner, “Persistent multi-uav surveil- lance with energy and communication constraints,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on automation sci- ence and engineering (CASE) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1225– 1230

    2016

  18. [26]

    Intelligent systems for disas- ter management: Unmanned aerial vehicles’ surveillance problem with energy consumption constraints,

    E. Ang ¨un and U. D ¨undar, “Intelligent systems for disas- ter management: Unmanned aerial vehicles’ surveillance problem with energy consumption constraints,” in Intel- ligent and Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data Analytics and Decision Making: Proceedings of the INFUS 2019 Con- ...

    2019

  19. [27]

    Management of a post-disaster emergency scenario through unmanned aerial vehicles: Multi-depot multi-trip vehicle routing with total completion time minimization,

    T. Calamoneri, F. Cor `o, and S. Mancini, “Management of a post-disaster emergency scenario through unmanned aerial vehicles: Multi-depot multi-trip vehicle routing with total completion time minimization,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 251, p. 123766, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    The multiple unmanned air vehicle persistent surveillance problem: A review,

    N. Nigam, “The multiple unmanned air vehicle persistent surveillance problem: A review,” Machines, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 13–72, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Persistent surveil- lance with a team of mavs,

    N. Michael, E. Stump, and K. Mohta, “Persistent surveil- lance with a team of mavs,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2011, pp. 2708–2714

    2011

  22. [30]

    Optimal uav route plan- ning for persistent monitoring missions,

    S. K. K. Hari, S. Rathinam, S. Darbha, K. Kalyanam, S. G. Manyam, and D. Casbeer, “Optimal uav route plan- ning for persistent monitoring missions,” IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 550–566, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Persistent surveillance with energy-constrained uavs and mobile charging stations,

    S. Seyedi, Y . Yazicio ˘glu, and D. Aksaray, “Persistent surveillance with energy-constrained uavs and mobile charging stations,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 52, no. 20, pp. 193–198, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Cooperative aerial–ground vehicle route planning with fuel constraints for coverage applications,

    P. Maini, K. Sundar, M. Singh, S. Rathinam, and P. Sujit, “Cooperative aerial–ground vehicle route planning with fuel constraints for coverage applications,” IEEE Trans- actions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3016–3028, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Persistent surveillance us- ing multiple unmanned air vehicles,

    N. Nigam and I. Kroo, “Persistent surveillance us- ing multiple unmanned air vehicles,” in 2008 IEEE Aerospace Conference. IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–14

    2008

  26. [34]

    A reactive energy-aware rendezvous planning approach for multi- vehicle teams,

    K. Chour, J.-P. Reddinger, J. Dotterweich, M. Childers, J. Humann, S. Rathinam, and S. Darbha, “A reactive energy-aware rendezvous planning approach for multi- vehicle teams,” in 2022 IEEE 18th International Confer- ence on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) . IEEE, 202...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Risk-aware recharging rendezvous for a collaborative team of uavs and ugvs,

    A. B. Asghar, G. Shi, N. Karapetyan, J. Humann, J.-P. Reddinger, J. Dotterweich, and P. Tokekar, “Risk-aware recharging rendezvous for a collaborative team of uavs and ugvs,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5544–5550

    2023

  28. [36]

    Pointer net- works,

    O. Vinyals, M. Fortunato, and N. Jaitly, “Pointer net- works,” Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, vol. 28, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate,

    D. Bahdanau, K. Cho, and Y . Bengio, “Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Atten- tion, learn to solve routing problems!

    W. Kool, H. Van Hoof, and M. Welling, “Atten- tion, learn to solve routing problems!” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08475, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Deep reinforcement learning for solving the heterogeneous capacitated vehicle routing problem,

    J. Li, Y . Ma, R. Gao, Z. Cao, A. Lim, W. Song, and J. Zhang, “Deep reinforcement learning for solving the heterogeneous capacitated vehicle routing problem,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 13 572–13 585, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Reinforcement learning based truck-and-drone coordinated delivery,

    G. Wu, M. Fan, J. Shi, and Y . Feng, “Reinforcement learning based truck-and-drone coordinated delivery,” IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence , 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Deep reinforcement learning for uav routing in the presence of multiple charging stations,

    M. Fan, Y . Wu, T. Liao, Z. Cao, H. Guo, G. Sartoretti, and G. Wu, “Deep reinforcement learning for uav routing in the presence of multiple charging stations,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Deep reinforcement learning-based approach for a single vehicle persistent surveillance problem with fuel constraints,

    H. Bana, M. Mishra, S. Sarkar, S. Sanjeevi, S. PB, and K. Sundar, “Deep reinforcement learning-based approach for a single vehicle persistent surveillance problem with fuel constraints,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06423, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Integer programming formulation of traveling salesman prob- lems,

    C. E. Miller, A. W. Tucker, and R. A. Zemlin, “Integer programming formulation of traveling salesman prob- lems,” Journal of the ACM (JACM) , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 326–329, 1960

    1960

  36. [44]

    Cooperative multi-agent planning frame- work for fuel constrained uav-ugv routing problem,

    M. S. Mondal, S. Ramasamy, J. D. Humann, J.-P. F. Reddinger, J. M. Dotterweich, M. A. Childers, and P. A. Bhounsule, “Cooperative multi-agent planning frame- work for fuel constrained uav-ugv routing problem,” 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Optimizing fuel-constrained uav-ugv routes for large scale coverage: Bilevel planning in heterogeneous multi-agent systems,

    M. S. Mondal, S. Ramasamy, J. D. Humann, J.-P. F. Red- dinger, J. M. Dotterweich, M. A. Childers, and P. Bhoun- sule, “Optimizing fuel-constrained uav-ugv routes for large scale coverage: Bilevel planning in heterogeneous multi-agent systems,” in 2023 International Symposium o...

    2023

  38. [46]

    Google OR-tools,

    Google, “Google OR-tools,” https://developers.google. com/optimization, 2021, online; accessed Feb 2, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Coordinated route planning of multiple fuel-constrained unmanned aerial systems with recharging on an unmanned ground vehicle for mission coverage,

    S. Ramasamy, J.-P. F. Reddinger, J. M. Dotterweich, M. A. Childers, and P. A. Bhounsule, “Coordinated route planning of multiple fuel-constrained unmanned aerial systems with recharging on an unmanned ground vehicle for mission coverage,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Syste...

    2022

  40. [48]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    Step-wise deep learning models for solving routing problems,

    L. Xin, W. Song, Z. Cao, and J. Zhang, “Step-wise deep learning models for solving routing problems,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 4861–4871, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Multimodal trans- former with multi-view visual representation for image captioning,

    J. Yu, J. Li, Z. Yu, and Q. Huang, “Multimodal trans- former with multi-view visual representation for image captioning,” IEEE transactions on circuits and systems for video technology , vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 4467–4480, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer,

    F. Sun, J. Liu, J. Wu, C. Pei, X. Lin, W. Ou, and P. Jiang, “Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management , 2019, pp. 1441–1450

    2019

  44. [52]

    Simple statistical gradient-following al- gorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning,

    R. J. Williams, “Simple statistical gradient-following al- gorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning,” Ma- chine learning, vol. 8, pp. 229–256, 1992

    1992

  45. [53]

    Mobile robot battery life estimation: battery energy use of an unmanned ground vehicle,

    A. M. Hurwitz, J. M. Dotterweich, and T. A. Rocks, “Mobile robot battery life estimation: battery energy use of an unmanned ground vehicle,” in Energy Harvesting and Storage: Materials, Devices, and Applications XI , vol. 11722. SPIE, 2021, pp. 24–40

    2021

  46. [54]

    Hurricane harvey,

    National Weather Service, “Hurricane harvey,” https: //www.weather.gov/hgx/hurricaneharvey, 2017, accessed: 2024-08-14

    2017

  47. [55]

    Hurricane harvey disaster map,

    ArcGIS, “Hurricane harvey disaster map,” https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid= 8350c2f309bb49f8865a44cb972024c2, 2017, accessed: 2024-08-14

    2017

  48. [56]

    Houston population density,

    Esri, “Houston population density,” https: //www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html? webmap=85a821d13a4f4502a85f71c4aae8bae8, 2017, accessed: 2024-10-11. Md Safwan Mondal is a PhD student in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at the University of Illinoi...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.