Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Dynamic real-time multi-UAV cooperative mission planning method under multiple constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that replacing Euclidean distances with Dubins path lengths in the task-allocation cost couples task assignment and path planning, enabling sub-millisecond replanning for fixed-wing UAV swarms at a 9.57% longer total path.

desk verdict Useful integration of known pieces with real speed gains, but the 9.57% optimality claim is not backed by the experiments because the SA baseline optimizes Euclidean, not Dubins, cost. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02365 v1 pith:OJXNPBSF submitted 2025-06-03 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Chenglou Liu , Yufeng Lu , Fangfang Xie , Tingwei Ji , Yao Zheng This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords multi-UAVmissionplanningDubinspathtaskassignmentreal-timereplanningfixed-wingUAVclusteringemergencyresponseMTSP
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that multi-UAV mission planning can be made fast enough for real-time replanning by using Dubins path lengths instead of Euclidean distances as the cost of assigning tasks. Because a Dubins path is a flyable fixed-wing path, the same path used for decision-making is the path flown, so task assignment and path planning are solved together. With clustering preprocessing and low-iteration greedy or Hungarian allocation, the planner reports roughly 0.0003 seconds per planning decision, 4-5 orders of magnitude faster than simulated annealing, for a 9.57% longer total path. If correct, fixed-wing UAV swarms could reallocate tasks and re-route in under a millisecond when new targets appear or a UAV is lost, at a modest distance cost. The claim rests on a simplified world: no obstacles or no-fly zones, constant speed, and collision avoidance by altitude layering.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Dubins path distance $L^k_{i,j}$ used as the cost function for task assignment. Two simplified path types are used: a CS-type path (arc-straight) when only the starting heading is constrained, and a CSC-type path (arc-straight-arc) for the Markov-Dubins problem with heading constraints at both endpoints. The paper constructs these paths with analytic geometry, reducing solution types so the distance cost can be computed in roughly $10^{-4}$ seconds; because the path used for decision is identical to the path flown, task assignment and path planning are coupled in one step.

What would settle it

Run the same four-UAV, 20-25 task scenarios in a simulated environment with a few polygon no-fly zones or buildings, replacing the pure Dubins cost with obstacle-avoiding path lengths; if the single planning time rises well above 0.0003 seconds or the path-length gap versus simulated annealing grows substantially, the real-time claim would not transfer to cluttered environments. A more direct check is to replay the 50-run experiment with time-varying wind or speed and verify that the same task allocations remain flyable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that replacing the Euclidean distance cost in the task-allocation phase with the exact Dubins path distance between configurations couples the two traditionally separate problems: the distance used to decide which UAV takes which task is the same flyable path the UAV will follow. It provides analytic-geometry formulas for two simplified Dubins path types (CS with starting heading constraint only, and CSC with both endpoints constrained) that bring path generation to the same roughly $10^{-4}$ second order as Euclidean distance. Coupled with K-means clustering of tasks into per-UAV subspaces and a deliberately low-complexity greedy or Hungarian allocation, the resulting preprocessing-enabled real-time Dubins-distance planner achieves single planning times around 0.0003 seconds and total mission planning times 4-5 orders below simulated annealing, while staying within 9.57% of the simulated-annealing path length. The same mechanism handles new tasks by assigning them to the nearest cluster centroid and handles UAV loss by releasing and reassigning unfinished tasks to the remaining UAVs, including when both emergencies occur together.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mission area is clean: no obstacles or hazard zones, so the Dubins path length used for assigning tasks is also the path the UAV can actually fly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fixed-wing UAV swarms could replan in under a millisecond when a new task appears, a UAV is lost, or both occur simultaneously, making in-flight reassignment practical.
  • The 9.57% average path-length penalty versus simulated annealing would be the price of real-time operation, while the differential clustering also avoids the over-averaged task splits of Euclidean-cost baselines.
  • Because heading-angle constraints enter at the assignment stage, heterogeneous target types (point, line, circle, area) can be handled without a separate path-smoothing step.
  • The same kinematics-aware cost logic could be embedded in other assignment methods beyond greedy and Hungarian, potentially improving their realism without changing their structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, adding obstacles or no-fly zones would break the identity between decision cost and flown path, so the 9.57% figure and sub-millisecond times would need re-benchmarking with obstacle-aware Dubins lengths.
  • Beyond the paper, the method's speed relies on the decision space being small enough for greedy or Hungarian after clustering; for very large, highly uneven task sets, which the paper flags as future work, the reported timings would need re-measurement.
  • Beyond the paper, a natural extension is to inject time-varying winds or speed changes and compare planned versus actual path lengths, since constant-speed flight is assumed and real fixed-wing flight rarely holds speed exactly.
  • Beyond the paper, the nearest-centroid rule for assigning new tasks is myopic; re-solving the full allocation for the affected cluster when a new task appears could improve path length further, at the cost of some latency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-UAV mission planning algorithm (PRBDDG) that uses Dubins path distances as assignment costs, K-means clustering preprocessing, and low-complexity greedy or Hungarian allocation to achieve real-time planning. It also presents response strategies for new tasks, UAV damage, and their simultaneous occurrence. The headline claims are a 9.57% path-length penalty relative to simulated annealing and a single planning time of about 0.0003 s, corresponding to a speed improvement of 4-5 orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful engineering contribution: a simple, reproducible algorithm for real-time coupled task assignment and path planning for fixed-wing UAV swarms, with explicit handling of emergencies. The fast CS-type Dubins distance computation and the clustering-based decision-space reduction are sensible and clearly described. The direct experimental comparisons and the explicit statement of modeling assumptions are strengths. However, the fairness of the optimality baseline and an internal timing inconsistency must be resolved before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI.B.3, Table VI] The 9.57% average gap between PRBDDG and SA is computed against an SA benchmark that optimizes Euclidean distance during the search and applies Dubins smoothing only after the allocation is fixed. Since the optimization objective in Eq. (11) is expressed in terms of Dubins connection lengths and coverage costs, the reported gap is not the suboptimality gap of PRBDDG for the actual problem; a fair comparison would use an SA variant with Dubins distances in its cost matrix, or an exact solver, as the baseline. Without that, the 'only sacrifices 9.57% of the path length' claim is not established.
  2. [Tables IV and VII] Table IV reports that computing one CS-type Dubins distance takes 0.00053 s on average, while Table VII reports a single PRBDDG planning time of 0.0003 s. Because every PRBDDG assignment decision builds a cost matrix that contains at least one CS-type Dubins distance (and typically many), the single planning time cannot be smaller than the cost of one such distance unless the two tables were measured under different implementations or vectorization conditions. The authors need to reconcile this inconsistency or clarify how the timings were obtained.
  3. [Abstract and Table VII] The abstract's 'speed improvement of 4-5 orders of magnitude' is not supported by the data. The ratios of average single planning times (3.2164/0.0003) and average total planning times (80.4097/0.0079) are both approximately 10^4, i.e., four orders of magnitude. A five-order figure is obtained only by mixing the total SA time with the single PRBDDG time, which is not a like-for-like comparison. Please correct the wording or specify the exact quantities compared.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.B] 'Double-exponential integer linear programming' appears to be a typo; the formulation is a standard integer linear program with binary variables.
  2. [Section VI.A and VI.B.3] The abbreviation PRBDDH appears in the text after Fig. 10 but is never defined; presumably it denotes the Hungarian variant of PRBDD. Please define it in Section VI.A or in Table VII.
  3. [Section IV.A and Algorithm 2] The algorithm is described as distributed, but Algorithm 2 appears to be a sequential decision loop with global clustering and no communication or consensus mechanism. The authors should clarify whether the implementation is centralized or distributed, and if distributed, specify the coordination protocol.
  4. [Section VII and Assumptions 1-2] The results are explicitly limited to obstacle-free environments with constant-speed, collision-free altitude-layering (Assumptions 1 and 2). This limitation is acknowledged in Section VII, but the title and abstract's 'under multiple constraints' may overstate the generality; the 9.57% trade-off and the sub-millisecond times should be interpreted within this scope.
  5. [Section VI.B.3] The text mentions 'seven methods' in the discussion of Fig. 10, but only six methods are listed in Table VII and Section VI.A; please make the count consistent.
  6. [Section VI.C.1] The phrase 'has a confidential relationship with both the task generation time and the task generation location' appears to be a typo; 'confidential' should likely be 'correlation' or 'correspondence.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported results are direct benchmark measurements; the sole self-citation is an upstream, self-contained path-construction ingredient.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: the 9.57% path-length gap and the sub-millisecond planning times are measured against external baselines (SA, GBA, HBA, AA) in Tables VI and VII, not derived from fitted parameters or from the algorithm's own definitions. The gap is computed as a direct ratio of measured total distances, so it is not circular. The concern that SA optimizes Euclidean cost and then smooths with Dubins paths is a baseline-fairness or correctness issue, not circularity, because PRBDDG's reported result is not defined in terms of SA's output. The only self-citation, reference [27], supplies a Dubins-path construction and a CS-type optimality statement; the construction is reproduced in the paper's own Eqs. (19)-(26), and neither is derived from the claimed performance results, so it is independent support rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The paper's limitations are stated explicitly, including Assumption 2 ('obstacles and hazardous areas are currently not taken into account') and Section VII's 'Future work will focus on resolving potential conflicts caused by obstacles,' but these scope restrictions do not make any derived quantity equal to its input by construction. The apparent timing inconsistency between Table IV's 0.00053 s CS-Dubins cost and Table VII's 0.0003 s single planning time is a possible measurement-reconciliation issue, not a circular step. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper's claims rest on a kinematic simplification (unicycle/Dubins), an obstacle-free and collision-free environment, homogeneous agents, and non-urgent simple new tasks. These are all stated as assumptions or simulation settings rather than independently validated. The speed claim also depends on hand-set SA hyperparameters and on the exact number of clusters, greedy/Hungarian policy, arrival thresholds, and random seeds, none of which are released.

free parameters (5)
  • Number of task clusters in K-means (k) = equal to number of UAVs (K=4 in main simulations)
    The clustering preprocessing partitions the decision space into one cluster per UAV; this directly affects the assignment result and the reported 9.57% path gap.
  • Minimum turning radius R = 80 m
    Input to the Dubins path generator; all path lengths and assignment decisions depend on this value.
  • SA cooling schedule (T0, alpha, stop threshold, Markov chain length, max iterations) = T0=50, alpha=0.99, stop below 10, 500 runs per Markov chain, 1000 max iterations
    The '4-5 orders of magnitude' speed-up claim is computed against this hand-set SA benchmark; different SA settings would change the ratio.
  • Arrival criterion and mission completion criteria = not specified
    Algorithms 2 uses these thresholds to switch UAV states; without their values the reported simulation times are not exactly reproducible.
  • New-task occurrence criteria = not specified ('probof occ < Occurrence criteria')
    Governs when and how many new tasks appear in emergency simulations; affects the reported emergency handling results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fixed-wing UAVs are modeled as planar unicycle vehicles flying at constant speed, with sufficient fuel and collision-free flight via altitude layering (Assumption 1)
    Reduces kinematics to Dubins paths and removes energy, collision, and altitude constraints from the central objective.
  • domain assumption Obstacles and hazardous areas are not considered (Assumption 2)
    The planner never needs to avoid obstacles or no-fly zones, so all reported path lengths are obstacle-free; this assumption is explicitly listed as a limitation in Section VII.
  • standard math The optimal two-point path with no terminal heading constraint is a CS-type Dubins path, as asserted from the authors' prior work [27]
    Used to justify simplifying the cost function; the construction formulas in Section III.D inherit this result without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption New tasks are non-urgent, simple point targets, appearing within a fixed time window (Section V.A)
    Removes deadlines and task-type heterogeneity from the emergency scenarios; the simultaneous-emergency strategy is validated only under this simplification.
  • domain assumption All UAVs are homogeneous and every UAV can perform every task (Section III.A, simulations)
    Task allocation ignores capability constraints, making the assignment problem a vanilla MTSP rather than a heterogeneous assignment problem.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic real-time multi-UAV cooperative mission planning method under multiple constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJXNPBSF

@misc{pith2026250602365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic real-time multi-UAV cooperative mission planning method under multiple constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJXNPBSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02365}
}
read the original abstract

As UAV popularity soars, so does the mission planning associated with it. The classical approaches suffer from the triple problems of decoupled of task assignment and path planning, poor real-time performance and limited adaptability. Aiming at these challenges, this paper proposes a dynamic real-time multi-UAV collaborative mission planning algorithm based on Dubins paths under a distributed formation structure. Dubins path with multiple advantages bridges the gap between task assignment and path planning, leading to a coupled solution for mission planning. Then, a series of acceleration techniques, task clustering preprocessing, highly efficient distance cost functions, low-complexity and less iterative task allocation strategies, are employed to guarantee the real-time performance of the algorithms. To cope with different emergencies and their simultaneous extremes, real-time planning of emerging tasks and mission replanning due to the reduction of available UAVs are appropriately handled. Finally, the developed algorithm is comprehensively exemplified and studied through simulations, highlighting that the proposed method only sacrifices 9.57% of the path length, while achieving a speed improvement of 4-5 orders of magnitude over the simulated annealing method, with a single mission planning of about 0.0003s.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02365 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall structure flowchart of the proposed algo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different types of task. A target with an arrow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dubins path. (a) Geometric of the degenerate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multi-UAV real-time collaborative mission planning flowchart. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The sequential relationship between the destruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Mission planning based on Euclidean distance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spatial comparison results of 6 different methods: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time comparison results of 6 different methods: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time comparison results of 6 different methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic diagram of typical application scenar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Completion of tasks by UAV swarm at different times as new tasks emerge. Red pentagrams indicate emerging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: New task appearance, allocation, and completion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) Planning diagram of the missions without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Completion of tasks by UAV swarm at different times when two emergency situations occur simultaneously. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: New Task Appearance, Allocation, and Com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yun, Won Joon and Park, Soohyun and Kim, Joongheon and Shin, MyungJae and Jung, Soyi and Mohaisen, David A and Kim, Jae-Hyun Cooperative multiagent deep reinforcement learning for reliable surveillance via autonomous multi-UA V control InIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2022, pp.7086–7096, doi: 10.1109/TII.2022.3143175

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Rajan, Sudarshan and Sundar, Kaarthik and Gautam, Natara- jan Routing problem for unmanned aerial vehicle pa- trolling missions-a progressive hedging algorithm InCom- puters & Operations Research, 2022, pp 105702, doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2022.105702

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Qadir, Zakria and Zafar, Muhammad Hamza and Moosavi, Syed Kumayl Raza and Le, Khoa N and Mahmud, MA Parvez Autonomous UA V path-planning optimization us- ing metaheuristic approach for predisaster assessment In IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2021, pp 12505–12514, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2021.3137331

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Cui, Qingshan Multi-target points path planning for fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicle performing reconnaissance missions In 5th International Conference on Information Science, Electrical, and Automation Engineering (ISEAE 2023), 2023, pp 713–723, doi: 10.1117/12.2689384

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2689384 2023

  5. [5]

    Liu, Zhihong and Wang, Xiangke and Shen, Lincheng and Zhao, Shulong and Cong, Yirui and Li, Jie and Yin, Dong and Jia, Shengde and Xiang, Xiaojia Mission-oriented miniature fixed- wing UA V swarms: A multilayered and distributed architecture InIEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Sys- tems, 2020, pp 1588–1602, doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2020.3033935

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Zhang, Jian and Huang, Hailong Occlusion-aware UA V path planning for reconnaissance and surveillance InDrones, 2021, pp 98, doi: 10.3390/drones5030098

    work page doi:10.3390/drones5030098 2021

  7. [7]

    Sawadsitang, Suttinee and Niyato, Dusit and Tan, Puay Siew and Wang, Ping and Nutanong, Sarana Shipper cooperation in stochastic drone delivery: A dynamic Bayesian game approach InIEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2021, pp 7437– 7452, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2021.3090992

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Li, Shuang and Fang, Xi A modified adaptive formation of UA V swarm by pigeon flock behavior within local visual field InAerospace Science and Technology, 2021, pp 106736, doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.106736

    arXiv 2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Jiang, Chao and Wan, Zhongping and Peng, Zhenhua A new efficient hybrid algorithm for large scale multiple traveling salesman problems InExpert Systems with Applications, 2020, pp 112867, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112867

    2020

  2. [10]

    Zhou, Honglu and Song, Mingli and Pedrycz, Witold A com- parative study of improved GA and PSO in solving multiple traveling salesmen problem InApplied Soft Computing, 2018, pp 564–580, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.12.031

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Savuran, Halil and Karakaya, Murat Efficient route planning for an unmanned air vehicle deployed on a moving carrier In Soft Computing, 2016, pp 2905–2920, doi: 10.1007/s00500-015- 1970-4

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Jiang, Xiaowei and Zhou, Qiang and Ye, Ying Method of task assignment for UA V based on particle swarm optimization in logistics InProceedings of the 2017 international conference on intelligent systems, metaheuristics & swarm intelligence, 2017, pp 113–117, doi: 10.1145/30593...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Xiong, Jing and Li, Jie and Li, Juan and Kang, Senbo and Liu, Chang and Yang, Chengwei Probability-tuned market-based allocations for UA V swarms under unreliable observations In IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2022, pp 6803–6814, doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2022.3162907

    2022

  6. [14]

    Liao, Yuan and Friderikos, Vasilis Energy and age Pareto optimal trajectories in UA V-assisted wireless data collection InIEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2022, pp 9101–9106, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2022.3175318

    2022

  7. [15]

    Cho, Doo-Hyun and Jang, Dae-Sung and Choi, Han- Lim Memetic algorithm-based path generation for multi- ple Dubins vehicles performing remote tasks InInterna- tional Journal of Systems Science, 2020, pp 608–630, doi: 10.1080/00207721.2020.1737263

    2020

  8. [16]

    Rasmussen, Steven J and Shima, Tal Branch and bound tree search for assigning cooperating UA Vs to multiple tasks In2006 American Control Conference, 2006, pp 6, doi: 10.1109/ACC.2006.1656541

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Alighanbari, Mehdi and How, Jonathan P Cooperative task assignment of unmanned aerial vehicles in adversarial environ- ments InProceedings of the 2005, American Control Conference, 2005, pp 4661–4666, doi: 10.1109/ACC.2005.1470731

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Samiei, Arezoo and Ismail, Sarah and Sun, Liang Cluster- based hungarian approach to task allocation for unmanned aerial vehicles In2019 IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON), 2019, pp 148–154, doi: 10.1109/NAE- CON46414.2019.9057847

    2019

  11. [19]

    Wang, Chao and Mu, Dong and Zhao, Fu and Sutherland, John W A parallel simulated annealing method for the vehicle routing problem with simultaneous pickup–delivery and time windows InComputers & Industrial Engineering, 2015, pp 111–122, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2015.02.005

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Zhu, W ANG and Li, LIU and Teng, LONG and Yonglu, WEN Multi-UA V reconnaissance task allocation for heterogeneous targets using an opposition-based genetic algorithm with double- chromosome encoding InChinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2018, pp 339–350, doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2017.09.005

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Zhang, Jing and Cui, Yani and Ren, Jia Dynamic mission planning algorithm for UA V formation in battlefield environment InIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2022, pp 3750–3765, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3231244

    2022

  14. [22]

    Choi, Han-Lim and Whitten, Andrew K and How, Jonathan P Decentralized task allocation for heterogeneous teams with cooperation constraints InProceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference, 2010, pp 3057–3062, doi: 10.1109/ACC.2010.5530496

    2010

  15. [23]

    Wu, Weinan and Xu, Jie and Sun, Yiming Integrate assignment of multiple heterogeneous unmanned aerial vehicles performing dynamic disaster inspection and validation task with Dubins path InIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2023, pp 4018–4032, doi: 10.1109/...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Wu, Jiehong and Zhang, Jingchuan and Li, Xianwei and Gao, Lijun and Han, Guangjie and others Multi-UA V Collaborative Dynamic Task Allocation Method Based on ISOM and Attention Mechanism InIEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2023, doi: 10.1109/TVT.2023.3341878

    2023

  17. [25]

    Gao, Xiaohua and Wang, Lei and Su, Xichao and Lu, Chen and Ding, Yu and Wang, Chao and Peng, Haijun and Wang, Xinwei A Unified Multi-Objective Optimization Framework for UA V Cooperative Task Assignment and Re-Assignment In Mathematics, 2022, pp 4241, doi: 10.3390/math10224241

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Chen, Yongbo and Yang, Di and Yu, Jianqiao Multi-UA V task assignment with parameter and time-sensitive uncertainties using modified two-part wolf pack search algorithm InIEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2018, pp 2853–2872, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2018.2831138

    2018

  19. [27]

    Liu, Chenglou and Xie, Fangfang and Ji, Tingwei Fixed- Wing UA V Formation Path Planning Based on Formation Con- trol: Theory and Application InAerospace, 2023, pp 1, doi: 10.3390/aerospace11010001

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Manyam, Satyanarayana G and Rathinam, Sivakumar and Cas- beer, David and Garcia, Eloy Tightly bounding the shortest du- bins paths through a sequence of points InJournal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 2017, pp 495–511, doi: 10.1007/s10846-016- 0459-4

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.