Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Multi-UAV Deployment in Obstacle-Cluttered Environments with LOS Connectivity

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a two-layer planner—an RRT*-based topology search plus a distributed MPC with explicit distance-sphere and line-of-sight hyperplane constraints—can deploy a minimal team of UAVs in obstacle-cluttered 3D space while…

desk verdict Useful integration of an edge-minimizing RRT* relay tree with distributed MPC enforcing LOS connectivity as linear constraints, but the Theorem 1 recursive-feasibility proof is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21772 v1 pith:6WJWK3GK submitted 2025-07-29 cs.RO

Yuda Chen , Shuaikang Wang , Jie Li , Meng Guo This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-UAVdeploymentline-of-sightconnectivityspanningtreedistributedmodelpredictivecontrolcollisionavoidanceobstacle-clutteredenvironmentrecursivefeasibility
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 aims to show that a UAV team can be deployed as a relay network in obstacle-cluttered 3D space without ever losing line-of-sight communication or crashing, and that the number of relay drones can be planned rather than assumed. The proposed solution first designs a spanning-tree communication topology using a modified RRT* that penalizes extra edges, then runs a distributed model predictive controller that encodes connectivity as explicit convex constraints. The paper's headline theoretical claim is Theorem 1: if the team starts collision-free and connected, it stays collision-free and the actual communication graph never loses the designed spanning tree. This matters because line-of-sight connectivity is normally a nonconvex, nonlinear condition that is approximated or solved slowly; here it is turned into linear inequalities solvable in tens of milliseconds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the embedded spanning tree T, a set of vertices (index, position, parent index) rooted at the ground station, together with a distributed MPC that encodes the tree's edges as convex constraints. Connectivity is split into a distance-sphere constraint (6) and a separating-hyperplane LOS constraint (9): for each edge, intermediate points are computed along the planned motion, and a hyperplane is fitted that separates the free-space convex hull from the inflated obstacle, making the nonconvex LOS condition a linear inequality. Collision avoidance uses a modified buffered Voronoi cell (4) and a convex safe corridor (5). The per-agent optimization (12) is a quadratically constrained quadratic program whose recursive feasibility is the load-bearing mechanism for the guarantee.

What would settle it

Log, over many replanning steps in a narrow or U-shaped obstacle course, whether the shifted predetermined trajectory P^i satisfies the freshly computed constraints (6) and (9); a single timestep where the shifted trajectory violates the new LOS or distance-sphere constraint while the system is still in the promised regime would refute the recursive-feasibility invariant on which Theorem 1 rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: given an initially collision-free and connected team, the distributed MPC keeps the system collision-free and the communication graph G(t) connected for all times, with the embedded spanning tree T always contained in G(t). The argument is recursive feasibility: the optimization at each step has a feasible solution obtained by shifting the previous planned trajectory one horizon forward, provided the distance-sphere constraints (6) and LOS hyperplane constraints (9) persist from one step to the next; the remaining collision-avoidance constraints are imported from the authors' earlier work. A second theorem states that the physical chain of agents from the ground station to each searcher remains topologically equivalent to the planned tree path, so the fleet does not just stay connected but keeps the intended relay structure.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee collapses if the shifted previous plan stops satisfying the newly recomputed distance-sphere and LOS hyperplane constraints, a persistence property the paper asserts but does not actually prove.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The number of relay UAVs becomes part of the optimization, so missions can be sized to the minimum team rather than a redundant fleet.
  • The per-agent problem is a convex QCQP, which is why replanning takes tens of milliseconds instead of the seconds reported for MILP baselines.
  • The designed spanning tree remains a subgraph of the actual communication graph at all times, meaning the route from the ground station to every searcher is continuously available.
  • The dynamic-target hardware experiment shows the topology can adapt online when a target moves, not only during static deployment.
  • The method inherits the assumptions of its building blocks, including convex obstacles with known vertices and the buffered-Voronoi collision model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence the authors do not spell out is that the same hyperplane-separation idea could be applied to other nonconvex team constraints, such as sensor coverage or keep-out zones, as long as they can be separated from the previous plan's geometry.
  • The persistence claim behind Theorem 1 could be tested independently by logging, at each replan, whether the shifted previous trajectory violates the newly derived constraints; a violation would not necessarily invalidate the simulations but would mean the stated guarantee is stronger than what the proof supports.
  • Because the guarantee covers line-of-sight and range rather than the underlying radio channel, real-world packet loss may still occur even when the geometric constraints hold; extending the framework to signal-strength or ray-tracing models would be a natural next step.
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 two-layer approach for deploying a team of UAVs as a multi-hop relay network in obstacle-cluttered environments. The first layer (Alg. 1, MiniEdgeRRT*) constructs a spanning-tree topology to minimize the required number of relay agents. The second layer is a distributed MPC (Alg. 2, problem (12)) that encodes inter-agent collision avoidance via buffered Voronoi cells and safe corridors, and connectivity maintenance via distance-sphere constraints (6) and line-of-sight separating-hyperplane constraints (9). The paper claims a theoretical guarantee (Theorem 1) that the team remains collision-free and connected at all times, and a homotopy-preservation claim (Theorem 2). The approach is evaluated in 3D simulations and in hardware experiments with a moving target, and the code is made available.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantee were fully established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it treats LOS connectivity as a hard constraint in a distributed MPC with convex constraints, and it optimizes the number of relay agents rather than assuming a fixed team. The empirical evaluation is broad, including comparison with an MILP baseline, and the release of source code supports reproducibility. However, the central guarantee depends on a recursive-feasibility argument that is asserted rather than proved in the manuscript, and the proof also imports key feasibility results from prior self-cited work. These gaps prevent the paper from substantiating its main advertised claim as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-D, Theorem 1] The proof of Theorem 1 states that the optimization (12) is recursively feasible because "constraints (6) and (9) are satisfied at t if they are satisfied at t-h, as shown in Sec. III-B.2", but Sec. III-B.2 contains no such proof; it only defines the coefficients c_ij^k and the separating hyperplane coefficients and states the separating condition on the current P_free. The gap is load-bearing: for a searcher, p_i^{K+1}(t)=p_i^{tg}(t) is updated online, so at step k=K the center c_ij^K in (6) and the coefficients in (8)-(9) are recomputed from new points p_i^{K+1}(t) and p_j^{K+1}(t). The shifted previous plan provides p_i^K(t)=p_i^K(t-h) and p_i^{K+1}(t-h), but not p_i^{K+1}(t); hence the old point p_i^K(t) can lie outside the new sphere or the new half-space. Without a proof of this persistence property, or a modification of the algorithm (e.g., fixing p_i^{K+1} over the horizon or adding a terminal constraint that makes the shifted plan feasible for the recomputed constraints), Theorem 1 is not established. The fallback to the predetermined trajectory in Sec. III-C does not repair this, since that trajectory is not shown to satisfy the newly recomputed constraints.
  2. [III-D, III-B] Theorem 1 states that the system remains collision-free and connected "at all times," but the proof only establishes feasibility of the optimization (12) at successive sampling instants. The constraints (6) and (9) are enforced on the planned positions p_i^k at discrete steps k, while the actual continuous-time trajectory between samples follows the quadratic arc generated by the double-integrator model with a constant input. No margin analogous to r1_min in (4) is introduced for the communication-range constraint (6) or the LOS constraint (9), so the paper does not rule out a violation of LOS connectivity between sampling instants. The theorem's conclusion should be restricted to the sampling instants, or an inter-sample analysis should be supplied.
  3. [III-D, III-B.1] The proof of Theorem 1 delegates feasibility of constraints (4) and (5) to prior works [24] and [25] without verifying that the assumptions of those results hold here. In this paper, (4) and (5) are coupled with the online-updated intermediate target p_i^tg, with the terminal step K of the connectivity constraints, and with the fallback rule that selects the predetermined trajectory when (12) is infeasible. Since the fallback trajectory is not shown to satisfy the newly recomputed constraints (6) and (9), the fallback does not provide the claimed safety guarantee. The authors should either state the relevant feasibility results from [24] and [25] and prove that their hypotheses are satisfied in this coupled setting, or give a self-contained recursive-feasibility proof.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV-A.1, Table I] The phrase "the our method" in the text around Table I is ungrammatical; also, reporting only the average over 10 runs without variance or confidence intervals makes the comparison with baselines less informative.
  2. [Alg. 2] Algorithm 2 has inconsistent notation: the input is denoted Ptg (the target set), but Line 1 calls ComNet(p_g, P_i^tg, O); the symbol P_i^tg is not defined there, and later p_i^tg denotes a single intermediate target. Please unify the notation.
  3. [III-B.2] In case (ii) of the definition of c_ij^k, the condition "if |p - c_i^k,center| < d_w for all p in {p_i^k, p_j^k, p_i^{k+1}, p_j^{k+1}}" has a missing subscript on the center and an unusual use of the variable p; please clarify the condition.
  4. [III-D, Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2 is explicitly a sketch and uses imprecise terms such as "dynamic region" and "tractive point"; if Theorem 2 is to be advertised as a theoretical property, the proof should be completed or the statement should be rephrased as an empirical observation.
  5. [IV-A.2] The comparison with the MILP method reports single-run results for a few scenarios; since MPC timing can depend strongly on the obstacle configuration, adding statistics over multiple runs would strengthen the claim of a 90% reduction.
  6. [Abstract, III-A.1] There are several formatting and typographical issues: the abstract and Section III-A.1 contain "RRT ?" with a stray symbol, and Remark 2 uses "typologies" instead of "topologies".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the LOS-connectivity MPC constraints are derived in-paper, and the cited prior-work feasibility results are independent published support rather than restatements of this paper's claims.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation—reformulating LOS connectivity as sphere constraints (6) and separating-hyperplane constraints (9), then proving feasibility of the distributed MPC—does not fit any fitted-parameter or definitional-circularity pattern. The topology planner's κ is an explicit edge-penalty cost, not a fitted constant, and RRT*-based planning is validated against external baselines (MST, VWMST, DST) rather than against itself. Constraint forms (4) and (5) are imported from the authors' prior works [24] and [25], and Theorem 1 cites [25] for feasibility of those 'other constraints.' Those are separate peer-reviewed publications with independent content, so the citation is legitimate external support under the reviewing rules, not a self-citation chain that forces the result. The notable weakness is in the proof of Theorem 1 in Sec. III-D: the sentence 'the constraints (6) and (9) are satisfied at t if they are satisfied at t−h, as shown in Sec. III-B.2' is asserted without the promised derivation, and the terminal-step connectivity constraint is recomputed with the updated p_i^{K+1}(t)=p_i^{tg}(t), so the shifted previous trajectory may not satisfy it. That is a missing proof and a potential correctness gap, not a circular reduction: the constraints are not defined in terms of the theorem's conclusion, and the claimed persistence property is not an input to the construction. No step of the derivation is equivalent to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the embedded spanning tree and intermediate target points are computational constructs, not falsifiable entities, so the graviton problem does not apply.

free parameters (4)
  • κ edge penalty = not specified
    Added to every edge cost in MiniEdgeRRT* (Section III-A.1) to prefer fewer edges; chosen by hand and directly shapes the relay count, so the relay-minimizing claim depends on it.
  • dw warning distance = 142 m
    Chosen slightly below dc=150 m to define distance-sphere centers in constraint (6); hand-tuned for the simulations.
  • dm LOS margin = 3 m
    Margin inflating obstacles in the LOS separating-hyperplane construction (8); hand-tuned.
  • α_j child/parent weights = 3 for child, 1 for parent
    Weights in connector cost (11) bias motion toward child agents; chosen by hand, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Obstacles are convex and LOS is a binary condition: Line(p_i,p_j) ∩ O = ∅
    Defines the communication model in Section II-B; real radio propagation includes reflection and diffraction, which the paper explicitly sets aside.
  • domain assumption Agents follow a double-integrator model with velocity and acceleration bounds
    Section II-A; hardware experiments show that a real quadrotor can track such plans approximately, but the guarantee is for the model, not the physical system.
  • domain assumption Initial team is collision-free and the initial communication network is connected
    Explicit assumption in Section II-D and Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Recursive feasibility of MBVC and safe-corridor constraints is proven in [24], [25]
    Theorem 1 proof states 'The feasibility of other constraints has already been proven in [25]', importing the central feasibility argument from prior self-cited work.
  • standard math Separating hyperplane theorem gives δ > 0 in Eq. (8)
    Used to guarantee that the LOS constraints are nontrivial linear inequalities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-UAV Deployment in Obstacle-Cluttered Environments with LOS Connectivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WJWK3GK

@misc{pith2026250721772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-UAV Deployment in Obstacle-Cluttered Environments with LOS Connectivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WJWK3GK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21772}
}
read the original abstract

A reliable communication network is essential for multiple UAVs operating within obstacle-cluttered environments, where limited communication due to obstructions often occurs. A common solution is to deploy intermediate UAVs to relay information via a multi-hop network, which introduces two challenges: (i) how to design the structure of multihop networks; and (ii) how to maintain connectivity during collaborative motion. To this end, this work first proposes an efficient constrained search method based on the minimumedge RRT? algorithm, to find a spanning-tree topology that requires a less number of UAVs for the deployment task. Then, to achieve this deployment, a distributed model predictive control strategy is proposed for the online motion coordination. It explicitly incorporates not only the inter-UAV and UAVobstacle distance constraints, but also the line-of-sight (LOS) connectivity constraint. These constraints are well-known to be nonlinear and often tackled by various approximations. In contrast, this work provides a theoretical guarantee that all agent trajectories are ensured to be collision-free with a teamwise LOS connectivity at all time. Numerous simulations are performed in 3D valley-like environments, while hardware experiments validate its dynamic adaptation when the deployment position changes online.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21772 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Experiment of 6 quadrotors cooperatively searching two targets. Right: Simulation of 15 agents (colored spheres) are deployed from the ground station (red cubic) to reach 10 targets (pink diamonds). The optimized network topology (blue lines) are kept during motion at all time. tailing agent to perform a task. Another common topology is called spanning tree as adopted in [9], [10], [11], where all agents as le… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the iterative process in Alg. 1. ‹ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of how the intermediate target point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: the chain (in solid line) from the ground station to a searcher has the same topological structure as the given path (in dashed line). Right: the area in orange shows the dynamic region. Theorem 1. If the agents are initially collision-free and connected, the sys…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of the communication topology ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the resulting communication topology for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparisons of the resulting trajectories by the method in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The entire mission takes around 10s, with an average velocity of 0.4m{s for all targets, while ensuring collision avoidance and connectivity. In the second experiment, the target is moved manually as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of how the network and the agent trajectories adapt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Numerical results from the experiment study: the minimum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Deadlock resolution and recursive feasibility in mpc-based multi-robot trajectory generation,

    Y . Chen, M. Guo, and Z. Li, “Deadlock resolution and recursive feasibility in mpc-based multi-robot trajectory generation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [25]

    Multi-robot trajectory planning with feasibility guarantee and deadlock resolution: An obstacle-dense environment,

    Y . Chen, C. Wang, M. Guo, and Z. Li, “Multi-robot trajectory planning with feasibility guarantee and deadlock resolution: An obstacle-dense environment,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2197–2204, 2023

    2023

  3. [1]

    A survey on aerial swarm robotics,

    S.-J. Chung, A. A. Paranjape, P. Dames, S. Shen, and V . Kumar, “A survey on aerial swarm robotics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 837–855, 2018

    2018

  4. [2]

    Practical dis- tributed control for vtol uavs to pass a virtual tube,

    Q. Quan, R. Fu, M. Li, D. Wei, Y . Gao, and K.-Y . Cai, “Practical dis- tributed control for vtol uavs to pass a virtual tube,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 342–353, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    Formation control for an uav team with environment-aware dynamic constraints,

    Z. Hu and X. Jin, “Formation control for an uav team with environment-aware dynamic constraints,” IEEE Transactions on In- telligent V ehicles, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1465–1480, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    ihero: Interactive human- oriented exploration and supervision under scarce communication,

    Z. Tian, Y . Zhang, J. Wei, and M. Guo, “ihero: Interactive human- oriented exploration and supervision under scarce communication,” in Robotics: Science and systems (RSS) , 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    An air-to-ground relay communication planning method for uavs swarm applications,

    D. Yin, X. Yang, H. Yu, S. Chen, and C. Wang, “An air-to-ground relay communication planning method for uavs swarm applications,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2983– 2997, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    Flykites: Human-centric interactive exploration and assistance under limited communication,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Tian, J. Wei, and M. Guo, “Flykites: Human-centric interactive exploration and assistance under limited communication,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 28 references
  1. [7]

    Multi-vehicle path planning for non-line of sight communication,

    T. Schouwenaars, E. Feron, and J. How, “Multi-vehicle path planning for non-line of sight communication,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2006, pp. 5757–5762

    2006

  2. [8]

    Swarm relays: Distributed self-healing ground-and-air connectivity chains,

    V . S. Varadharajan, D. St-Onge, B. Adams, and G. Beltrame, “Swarm relays: Distributed self-healing ground-and-air connectivity chains,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5347–5354, 2020

    2020

  3. [9]

    De- centralized connectivity-preserving deployment of large-scale robot swarms,

    N. Majcherczyk, A. Jayabalan, G. Beltrame, and C. Pinciroli, “De- centralized connectivity-preserving deployment of large-scale robot swarms,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2018, pp. 4295–4302

    2018

  4. [10]

    Behavior mixing with minimum global and subgroup connectivity maintenance for large-scale multi- robot systems,

    W. Luo, S. Yi, and K. Sycara, “Behavior mixing with minimum global and subgroup connectivity maintenance for large-scale multi- robot systems,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 9845–9851

    2020

  5. [11]

    Distributed topology correction for flexible connectivity maintenance in multi-robot systems,

    S. Yi, W. Luo, and K. Sycara, “Distributed topology correction for flexible connectivity maintenance in multi-robot systems,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2021, pp. 8874–8880

    2021

  6. [12]

    Maintaining wireless connectivity con- straints for swarms in the presence of obstacles,

    J. Esposito and T. Dunbar, “Maintaining wireless connectivity con- straints for swarms in the presence of obstacles,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2006, pp. 946–951

    2006

  7. [13]

    Graph connectivity control of a mobile robot network with mixed dynamic multi-tasks,

    M. Boldrer, P. Bevilacqua, L. Palopoli, and D. Fontanelli, “Graph connectivity control of a mobile robot network with mixed dynamic multi-tasks,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1934–1941, 2021

    1934

  8. [14]

    Multirobot data gathering under buffer constraints and intermittent communication,

    M. Guo and M. M. Zavlanos, “Multirobot data gathering under buffer constraints and intermittent communication,” IEEE transactions on robotics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1082–1097, 2018

    2018

  9. [15]

    Propem-l: Radio propagation environment modeling and learning for communication-aware multi-robot exploration,

    L. Clark, J. A. Edlund, M. S. Net, T. S. Vaquero, and A. akbar Agha- mohammadi, “Propem-l: Radio propagation environment modeling and learning for communication-aware multi-robot exploration,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01267, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Robust connectivity preserving ren- dezvous of multi-robot systems under unknown dynamics and distur- bances,

    Z. Feng, C. Sun, and G. Hu, “Robust connectivity preserving ren- dezvous of multi-robot systems under unknown dynamics and distur- bances,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2015, pp. 4266–4271

    2015

  11. [17]

    A passivity-based decentralized strategy for generalized connectivity maintenance,

    P. R. Giordano, A. Franchi, C. Secchi, and H. H. Bülthoff, “A passivity-based decentralized strategy for generalized connectivity maintenance,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 299–323, 2013

    2013

  12. [18]

    Graph-theoretic connectivity control of mobile robot networks,

    M. M. Zavlanos, M. B. Egerstedt, and G. J. Pappas, “Graph-theoretic connectivity control of mobile robot networks,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 9, pp. 1525–1540, 2011

    2011

  13. [19]

    Controlling the relative agent motion in multi-agent formation stabilization,

    M. Guo, M. M. Zavlanos, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Controlling the relative agent motion in multi-agent formation stabilization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 820–826, 2013

    2013

  14. [20]

    Multi-objective composi- tions for collision-free connectivity maintenance in teams of mobile robots,

    L. Wang, A. D. Ames, and M. Egerstedt, “Multi-objective composi- tions for collision-free connectivity maintenance in teams of mobile robots,” in IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , 2016, pp. 2659–2664

    2016

  15. [21]

    Resilient robust connectivity for multiagent systems with line of sight using mixed-integer programming,

    A. Caregnato-Neto, M. R. O. A. Maximo, and R. J. M. Afonso, “Resilient robust connectivity for multiagent systems with line of sight using mixed-integer programming,” Journal of Control, Automation and Electrical Systems , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 129–140, Feb 2022

    2022

  16. [22]

    Informed rrt*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic,

    J. D. Gammell, S. S. Srinivasa, and T. D. Barfoot, “Informed rrt*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2014, pp. 2997–3004

    2014

  17. [23]

    A distributed model predictive control strategy for constrained multi-vehicle systems moving in unknown environments,

    G. Franzè, W. Lucia, and A. Venturino, “A distributed model predictive control strategy for constrained multi-vehicle systems moving in unknown environments,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 343–352, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    R. L. Burden, J. D. Faires, and A. M. Burden, Numerical analysis . Cengage learning, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Martin, D

    A. Martin, D. Joachim, and V . Lieven, “Cvxopt,” Website, http: //cvxopt.org/

  20. [28]

    Teach- repeat-replan: A complete and robust system for aggressive flight in complex environments,

    F. Gao, L. Wang, B. Zhou, X. Zhou, J. Pan, and S. Shen, “Teach- repeat-replan: A complete and robust system for aggressive flight in complex environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1526–1545, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.