Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Visibility-Aware Cooperative Tracking with Decentralized LiDAR-Based Aerial Swarms

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fully decentralized LiDAR-based drone swarm can keep an agile target in near-constant view by planning around a spherical signed distance field and an electrostatic-inspired formation cost.

desk verdict Solid systems contribution with a genuinely useful SSDF visibility formulation, but the headline ">99%" claim rests on best-of-four runs and needs honest statistics before it supports robustness. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.01280 v2 pith:BST7LY4K submitted 2025-12-01 cs.RO

Longji Yin , Yunfan Ren , Fangcheng Zhu , Liuyu Shi , Fanze Kong , Benxu Tang , Wenyi Liu , Ximin Lyu
show 1 more author
Fu Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords swarmtrackingdecentralizedplanningLiDARvisibility-awaresphericalsigneddistancefieldfield-of-viewalignmentThomsonproblemaerialrobotics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a swarm of drones, with no central coordinator, can track a fast-moving human or drone through cluttered outdoor spaces while keeping the target in view almost all the time. The key insight is to encode occlusion as a Spherical Signed Distance Field (SSDF) around the predicted target position, so the cost of being in a shadow is a smooth, differentiable angular distance to the nearest visible boundary. Three differentiable costs—SSDF occlusion, field-of-view alignment for heterogeneous LiDARs, and a logarithmic Coulomb repulsion that spreads drones uniformly in 3D—drive a two-stage planner that balances visibility, safety, and swarm coordination. If the claims hold, cooperative aerial tracking becomes practical for cinematography, surveillance, and inspection without a ground station.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SSDF: a spherical grid around the target storing, for each ray direction and radius, the signed angular distance to the nearest visibility boundary. It is computed by a 2-D spherical distance transform followed by an incremental 3-D update that exploits the monotonic fact that along each ray, occlusion only worsens with distance. The other load-bearing costs are the FOV-alignment term, which keeps the target inside each LiDAR's unique field of view by optimizing both position and yaw, and the swarm distribution cost, a logarithmic variant of the Thomson problem that treats drones as repelling charges on a sphere around the target to achieve uniform multidirectional

What would settle it

A real-world experiment where the target executes a hard 90° turn at 3 m/s into a blind alley, while the planner still predicts straight-line motion; if the swarm's line-of-sight is lost for more than one replanning cycle (≈66 ms), the linear-prediction assumption has been broken and the visibility guarantee fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper introduces the SSDF as a spatial representation centered at the target, where each direction stores the signed angular distance to the closest visibility boundary, updated incrementally by exploiting the monotonicity of occlusion along rays. It couples this with a general FOV-alignment cost that handles upward- and downward-facing 360° LiDARs and conic Avia LiDARs by jointly optimizing the drone's position and yaw in SE(3). A swarm distribution cost, derived from the Thomson problem of electrons on a sphere, encourages the drones to form a uniform 3D encirclement, preventing mutual occlusion and maximizing angular diversity. These costs are embedded in a hierarchical planner—a kino

Load-bearing premise

The system assumes the target is a passive, marker-wearing object whose next 1.8 seconds of motion are a straight-line extension of its current velocity, and that the environment around the predicted positions is static; when the target maneuvers harder than the linear prediction or a moving obstacle intrudes, the visibility maps are built at the wrong centers with stale occupancy and the near-100% visibility claim no longer holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A four-drone swarm with mixed LiDAR orientations (upward, downward, conic) can track a drone flying at up to 3 m/s through a forest without losing line-of-sight, as demonstrated in real-world experiments.
  • The swarm automatically reconfigures its formation when members join or leave, maintaining tracking without a central planner.
  • Computation stays below 16 ms per replanning cycle for swarms up to 10 drones, suggesting scalability to larger teams on modest onboard hardware.
  • In simulation benchmarks the planner outperforms methods with fixed 2-D formations and 2-D visibility sectors, especially in dense obstacle fields and with fast target speeds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The SSDF representation is sensor-agnostic: with a depth camera or aggregated point cloud, the same occlusion and FOV costs could drive camera-based swarms, though the FOV geometry would need reformulation.
  • The benchmark's '>99% visibility' reports the best of four independent trials; a stricter average-of-trials metric would likely show lower but still high visibility, which is a caveat for expectations.
  • The 1.8 s prediction horizon with linear extrapolation means the method is inherently limited to targets that do not make sharp unpredictable maneuvers; a nonlinear motion model or learned predictor could extend it.
  • The distribution cost is a heuristic for coverage; a more principled objective might maximize mutual information of target measurements across sensors, but the electrostatic analogy is an efficient, differentiable proxy.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a fully decentralized LiDAR-based swarm tracking framework for cooperating aerial vehicles to track a passive target in cluttered 3-D environments. The core technical contribution is a Spherical Signed Distance Field (SSDF) representation of environmental occlusion around the predicted target position, with an incremental update algorithm. On top of this, the authors derive differentiable costs for occlusion avoidance, FOV alignment for heterogeneous LiDAR configurations, tracking-distance regulation, teammate-occlusion avoidance, and a Thomson-problem-inspired 3-D swarm distribution cost. These costs are embedded in a two-stage planner comprising a kinodynamic front-end searcher and a spatiotemporal SE(3) back-end optimizer. The full system is evaluated in simulation against three prior planners and in real-world experiments with heterogeneous LiDAR swarms tracking a drone and a human runner, including dynamic agent join/leave scenarios. The paper claims 'near-complete swarm visibility (>99%) across all test conditions' in simulation and 'uninterrupted target tracking' during membership changes.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a substantial systems contribution to multi-robot target tracking: the SSDF-based visibility metric is differentiable, sensor-agnostic, and supported by an efficient incremental update; the FOV-alignment cost explicitly handles heterogeneous LiDAR geometries; and the electrostatic-potential distribution cost is a novel way to achieve 3-D encirclement rather than the usual 2-D formations. The manuscript also has notable strengths: the derivations of the gradients in Eqs. (13)-(14), (29)-(40) are careful; the ablation study in Sec. VIII-C shows that each proposed cost contributes to the reported performance; and the incremental SSDF update is honestly validated against the brute-force ground truth in Sec. VIII-E, with negligible numerical error. The promise of open-sourced code further increases the potential impact. However, as detailed below, the empirical support for the headline robustness claim is weakened by the benchmark selection protocol and the absence of quantitative real-world visibility statistics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VIII-A, Table I] The benchmark protocol states 'each test case undergoes four independent trials, and the trial with the highest ϑavg is selected as the benchmark.' The paper then concludes that the proposed planner 'maintains near-complete swarm visibility (>99%) across all test conditions.' This conclusion is not supported by the reported statistics: selecting the best of four trials gives an upper envelope, not a central tendency or a worst-case guarantee. The robustness claim in the abstract is distributional, but the table reports only the best draw. Please report all trials (or mean, standard deviation, min, and number of trials) for each condition, and state whether the >99% figure holds for every trial or only for the best one. Without this, the central robustness claim is materially weakened.
  2. [Sec. IX-B to IX-D] The real-world sections contain no quantitative visibility metrics. The text claims 'collisions or occlusions' did not occur, 'full visibility throughout the target's walking and running phases,' and 'uninterrupted target tracking during dynamic membership changes,' but no ϑavg, ϑwrst, γvis, or loss durations are provided. Given that the abstract and conclusion rely on 'robust cooperative tracking' and 'uninterrupted tracking,' quantitative real-world visibility statistics (or at least loss timelines for the join/leave experiment) are necessary to substantiate these claims. Qualitative snapshots are not sufficient for the strength of the stated conclusion.
  3. [Sec. IV-D and Sec. IX-A] The planning and evaluation rely on three strong assumptions that should be stated as limitations and preferably stress-tested: (i) target future positions are obtained by linear velocity extrapolation (Eq. 6), so a target maneuvering faster than the prediction model may invalidate the SSDF centers; (ii) the environment is treated as static during the horizon, so moving obstacles are not reflected in the SSDFs; and (iii) the target must be the largest high-reflectivity cluster in every tracker's point cloud (Sec. IX-A). These assumptions are reasonable for the demonstrated scenarios but are scope limits on the claimed robustness. Please discuss them explicitly in a limitations paragraph and, if possible, provide sensitivity experiments for prediction error or missed detections.
  4. [Table I, Walls (1.0 m/s), Ho et al.] The Ho et al. row for the Walls scenario at 1.0 m/s lists identical values for Swarm Configuration A and Swarm Configuration B (ϑavg=3.514, ϑwrst=1.0, γvis=67.214, davg=1.988). Since the two configurations differ in sensor FOV orientations, identical results are suspicious. Please verify the data and explain whether this is a typo or an actual outcome; if it is the latter, justify why the FOV configuration has no effect on this method. This issue does not by itself overturn the main comparison, but it undermines the benchmark's credibility as reported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-C] 'brutal approach' should read 'brute-force approach'.
  2. [References] Reference [39] contains typos in the original Thomson paper title ('oscilletion', 'Tomson') and should be corrected or quoted accurately.
  3. [Fig. 18] The caption uses '(j)-(k)' twice for different phases; the in-text references '(j)-(h)' and '(l)-(m)' also appear inconsistent. Please renumber the subfigures with unique labels.
  4. [Sec. VII-D] The temporal variable substitution (Eq. 41) is stated without derivation. A brief explanation of how the map ensures the equality constraint TΣ=Tp by construction would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the planner derivation is self-contained, and self-citations are to independent infrastructure rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The SSDF-based visibility field is computed from the occupancy map by geometric spherical distance transforms (Sec. IV, Eqs. 1-5, Algs. 1-4); the costs (Sec. V, Eqs. 7, 11-12, 15, 17-21) are explicit differentiable functions of tracker/target positions and FOV geometry; the searcher and SE(3) optimizer (Secs. VI-VII) minimize these costs; and the evaluation metric (Eq. 42, defined in Sec. VIII-A) independently counts trackers whose LOS is not blocked and whose FOV/distance constraints hold. No fitted parameter from the evaluation data is used to construct the planner, so no Eq. X = Eq. Y circularity is present. The same-group citations (Swarm-LIO2 [26], ROG-Map [27], map sync [28], MPC [29], and the prior tracker [7]) are independently published system components or evaluation baselines, not uniqueness theorems or ansatz justifications; per the rules, these do not constitute load-bearing circularity. One evaluation weakness, flagged as non-circular: Sec. VIII-A says 'four independent trials, and the trial with the highest ϑavg is selected as the benchmark,' immediately followed by 'maintains near-complete swarm visibility (>99%) across all test conditions,' so the headline robustness number is an upper envelope rather than a central or worst-case statistic; the real-world sections also provide no quantitative visibility statistics. These are scope/statistical limitations, not circular reasoning; the passive, marked-target and linear-prediction assumptions (Eq. 6) further define scope but do not smuggle the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The engineering claims rest mostly on borrowed, published infrastructure (graphics SSDFs, FIESTA-style insertion, MINCO, Swarm-LIO2, ROG-Map), which is legitimate but confines the paper's true novelty to the cost formulations and their integration. The planner introduces no free physical parameters, but it has roughly seven hand-tuned cost weights and thresholds whose values are undisclosed, plus stated-but-untested operational assumptions (marker-based detection, passive target, static environment, linear prediction). These assumptions are the key to judging how far the claimed performance generalizes.

free parameters (7)
  • front-end cost weight vector w = not reported in preprint
    Eq. 22: node cost g_n = [Jvis, Jdis, Jtoc, Jfrm]·w; values hand-tuned and absent from the text, but required to reproduce the search behavior.
  • back-end penalty weights λ_G and λ_H = not reported
    Eqs. 28 and 37: weights for continuous (obstacle, dynamics, clearance) and discrete (visibility, FOV, distance, teammate occlusion, formation) penalties; no numeric values given.
  • tracking distance bounds d_lb and d_ub = not reported
    Eq. 15 breaks the distance cost at these thresholds; benchmark tables show ~2 m tracking distance, but the bounds themselves are unstated.
  • teammate angular occlusion clearance θ_c = not reported
    Eq. 17 threshold separating acceptable from occlusion-inducing angular separation between teammate LOS rays.
  • inter-robot mutual clearance r_s = not reported
    Eq. 21 radius below which the reciprocal clearance cost activates.
  • distribution energy constant k_e = not reported
    Eq. 18 scaling of the Thomson/Smale logarithmic potential that drives 3-D encirclement.
  • SSDF grid resolutions (N_θ, N_φ, N_r, r_max) = 5 m radius, 0.1 m radial, 0.1 rad angular (only in Sec. VIII-E study)
    The planner's operating grid resolution is reported only for the SSDF update benchmark; the values used during tracking are not stated.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math LOS monotonicity: along a fixed direction (θ,φ), if the closest blocking cell is at radius r_min, then every cell with r > r_min is occluded.
    Sec. IV-A. Geometric fact for a static binary occupancy map; the foundation of the entire visibility-map construction.
  • domain assumption The environment is static over the prediction horizon; the occupancy map and the SSDFs built from it remain valid during planning and execution.
    Secs. IV-A, IV-D. SSDFs are computed once per predicted target position from the current occupancy grid; moving obstacles or stale maps would invalidate the visibility penalties.
  • domain assumption The target wears high-reflectivity markers and is detected as the largest high-reflectivity cluster in each tracker's point cloud.
    Secs. III and IX-A. The entire real-world tracking demonstration depends on this marker-based detection pipeline.
  • domain assumption Constant-velocity linear interpolation (Eq. 6) predicts target positions sufficiently well over the horizon T_p = 1.8 s.
    Sec. IV-D. SSDFs and the planning time alignment are keyed to these predicted positions; a strongly evasive target invalidates them.
  • standard math The two-phase spherical distance transform of [11] is exact on the θ-φ grid: the angular metric L of Eq. 1 satisfies the single-intersection property required by Alg. 3.
    Sec. IV-B. Borrowed from Wang et al. [11] and Felzenszwalb-Huttenlocher [30]; the paper relies on it without reproving it.
  • domain assumption The incremental BFS SSDF update (Alg. 4) approximates the true SSDF closely enough for planning; the paper supports this numerically, not analytically.
    Sec. IV-C, validated in Sec. VIII-E against brute-force ground truth (cumulative error ~1e-5 rad).
  • standard math Minimizing the Smale logarithmic potential (Eq. 18) produces the desired uniform 3-D encirclement of the target.
    Sec. V-E, borrowed from the Thomson problem [39] and Smale's problem 7 [40]; the cost is imported rather than derived.
invented entities (1)
  • Spherical Signed Distance Field (SSDF) visibility representation D(p) independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes signed angular distance to the nearest visibility boundary around the target; used as the differentiable occlusion penalty in both front-end and back-end planning.
    A computational construct rather than a physical postulate. Its values are verifiable against known geometry and are checked against brute-force ground truth in Sec. VIII-E (Tab. II, cumulative error ~1e-5 rad).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visibility-Aware Cooperative Tracking with Decentralized LiDAR-Based Aerial Swarms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BST7LY4K

@misc{pith2026251201280,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visibility-Aware Cooperative Tracking with Decentralized LiDAR-Based Aerial Swarms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BST7LY4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.01280}
}
abstract

Autonomous aerial tracking with drones offers vast potential for surveillance, cinematography, and industrial inspection applications. While single-drone tracking systems have been extensively studied, swarm-based target tracking remains underexplored, despite its unique advantages of distributed perception, fault-tolerant redundancy, and multidirectional target coverage. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel decentralized LiDAR-based swarm tracking framework that enables visibility-aware, cooperative target tracking in complex environments, while fully harnessing the unique capabilities of swarm systems. To address visibility, we introduce a novel Spherical Signed Distance Field (SSDF)-based metric for 3-D environmental occlusion representation, coupled with an efficient algorithm that enables real-time onboard SSDF updating. A general Field-of-View (FOV) alignment cost supporting heterogeneous LiDAR configurations is proposed for consistent target observation. Swarm coordination is enhanced through cooperative costs that enforce inter-robot safe clearance, prevent mutual occlusions, and notably facilitate 3-D multidirectional target encirclement via a novel electrostatic-potential-inspired distribution metric. These innovations are integrated into a hierarchical planner, combining a kinodynamic front-end searcher with a spatiotemporal $SE(3)$ back-end optimizer to generate collision-free, visibility-optimized trajectories.Deployed on heterogeneous LiDAR swarms, our fully decentralized implementation features collaborative perception, distributed planning, and dynamic swarm reconfigurability. Validated through rigorous real-world experiments in cluttered outdoor environments, the proposed system demonstrates robust cooperative tracking of agile targets (drones, humans) while achieving superior visibility maintenance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.01280 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A swarm of four autonomous drones is cooperatively tracking a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of our complete decentralized swarm tracking system, including the decentralized swarm localization, shared mapping, collaborative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) An illustration of the spherical discretization and the definition of the visibility map. A map cell is flagged as occluded if obstacles block the LOS. (b) An illustration of the monotonic property used in visibility maps. Along the direction (0, ϕ) in the figure, an obstacle blockage is at radius rmin. Then all grids with radii larger than rmin can be directly set as occluded. SSD Value on Grid Occluded Cells V… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrations of the SSDF definition. (a) On the surface of a unit sphere, an occluded area is shadowed by an obstacle. For two queried directions va and vb, the black dashed curves on the sphere indicate the directions’ Spherical Signed Distances (SSD) to the closest …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An illustration of the incremental SSDF update strategy on a 2-D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of the SSDF computed for an occluded scene. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distributions of a four-drone swarm on a sphere centered at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An illustration of the primitive selection mechanism in our task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) The Forest map used in the general benchmark. (b) The Walls map. (c) An illustration of the tracker drone with a regular upward-facing Mid360 LiDAR unit. (d) An illustration of the tracker drone with an inverted downward-facing Mid360 LiDAR unit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Histograms of swarm-wide cumulative target loss duration with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Tracking performance in the case study. Top: The orange trajectory is executed by the target. Four areas, ①-④, are highlighted, featuring Sparse clutter, Dense clutter, Vertical structures, and Narrow passages. Rows ①-④: Snapshots of swarm tracking in areas ①-④. Subfi…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ablation study results. Top-left: The average visibility (ϑavg) profiles across all variants. Top-right: The full visibility ratio (γvis) profiles across all variants. Bottom: The target loss duration histograms recording the test cases in the densest map (1/9 tree/m2…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Results of the swarm size study. (a)-(b) Top-down and side views of the proposed 8-drone tracking behavior, highlighting agile occlusion avoidance with a 3-D polyhedral swarm distribution. (c)-(d) Top-down and side views of the baseline tracking behavior, showing the …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Top-down views of the test scenes used in the SSDF updating study, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Four drones cooperatively track an agile target drone in a forest. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Four drones cooperatively track a human runner as the target. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Swarm tracking experiment with dynamic joining and leaving. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Online trajectory generation of a mav for chasing a moving target in 3d dense environments,

    B. F. Jeon and H. J. Kim, “Online trajectory generation of a mav for chasing a moving target in 3d dense environments,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1115–1121

    2019

  2. [2]

    Integrated motion planner for real-time aerial videography with a drone in a dense environment,

    B. Jeon, Y . Lee, and H. J. Kim, “Integrated motion planner for real-time aerial videography with a drone in a dense environment,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1243–1249

    2020

  3. [3]

    Visibility-aware trajectory optimization with application to aerial tracking,

    Q. Wang, Y . Gao, J. Ji, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Visibility-aware trajectory optimization with application to aerial tracking,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5249–5256

    2021

  4. [4]

    Adaptive tracking and perching for quadrotor in dynamic scenarios,

    Y . Gao, J. Ji, Q. Wang, R. Jin, Y . Lin, Z. Shang, Y . Cao, S. Shen, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Adaptive tracking and perching for quadrotor in dynamic scenarios,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 499–519, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Elastic tracker: A spatio-temporal trajectory planner for flexible aerial tracking,

    J. Ji, N. Pan, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Elastic tracker: A spatio-temporal trajectory planner for flexible aerial tracking,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 47–53

    2022

  6. [6]

    Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,

    X. Zhou, X. Wen, Z. Wang, Y . Gao, H. Li, Q. Wang, T. Yang, H. Lu, Y . Cao, C. Xuet al., “Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,”Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm5954, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Decentralized swarm trajectory generation for lidar-based aerial tracking in cluttered envi- ronments,

    L. Yin, F. Zhu, Y . Ren, F. Kong, and F. Zhang, “Decentralized swarm trajectory generation for lidar-based aerial tracking in cluttered envi- ronments,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 9285–9292

    2023

  8. [8]

    Dmvc-tracker: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning for target tracking using dynamic buffered voronoi and inter-visibility cells,

    Y . Lee, J. Park, and H. J. Kim, “Dmvc-tracker: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning for target tracking using dynamic buffered voronoi and inter-visibility cells,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18086, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    All-frequency ren- dering of dynamic, spatially-varying reflectance,

    J. Wang, P. Ren, M. Gong, J. Snyder, and B. Guo, “All-frequency ren- dering of dynamic, spatially-varying reflectance,” inACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2009 papers, 2009, pp. 1–10

    2009

  2. [10]

    Analytic double product integrals for all-frequency relighting,

    R. Wang, M. Pan, W. Chen, Z. Ren, K. Zhou, W. Hua, and H. Bao, “Analytic double product integrals for all-frequency relighting,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 1133–1142, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    Parallel and adaptive visibility sampling for rendering dynamic scenes with spatially varying reflectance,

    R. Wang, M. Pan, X. Han, W. Chen, and H. Bao, “Parallel and adaptive visibility sampling for rendering dynamic scenes with spatially varying reflectance,”Computers & graphics, vol. 38, pp. 374–381, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Interactive cloth rendering of microcylinder appearance model under environment lighting,

    K. Iwasaki, K. Mizutani, Y . Dobasbi, and T. Nisbita, “Interactive cloth rendering of microcylinder appearance model under environment lighting,” inComputer Graphics F orum, vol. 33, no. 2. Wiley Online Library, 2014, pp. 333–340

    2014

  5. [13]

    Active perception based formation control for multiple aerial vehicles,

    R. Tallamraju, E. Price, R. Ludwig, K. Karlapalem, H. H. B ¨ulthoff, M. J. Black, and A. Ahmad, “Active perception based formation control for multiple aerial vehicles,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 4491–4498, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Formation control for moving target enclosing via relative localization,

    X. Liu, K. Liu, T. Hu, and Q. Zhang, “Formation control for moving target enclosing via relative localization,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1400–1405

    2023

  7. [15]

    Formation control for enclosing and tracking via relative localization,

    X. Liu, D. Zhang, Q. Zhang, and T. Hu, “Formation control for enclosing and tracking via relative localization,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    On-board object tracking control of a quadcopter with monocular vision,

    A. G. Kendall, N. N. Salvapantula, and K. A. Stol, “On-board object tracking control of a quadcopter with monocular vision,” in2014 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2014, pp. 404–411

    2014

  9. [17]

    An autonomous vision-based target tracking system for rotorcraft unmanned aerial vehi- cles,

    H. Cheng, L. Lin, Z. Zheng, Y . Guan, and Z. Liu, “An autonomous vision-based target tracking system for rotorcraft unmanned aerial vehi- cles,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1732–1738

    2017

  10. [18]

    Fast-tracker: A robust aerial system for tracking agile target in cluttered environments,

    Z. Han, R. Zhang, N. Pan, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Fast-tracker: A robust aerial system for tracking agile target in cluttered environments,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 328–334

    2021

  11. [19]

    Vision-based reactive planning for aggressive target tracking while avoiding collisions and occlusions,

    B. Penin, P. R. Giordano, and F. Chaumette, “Vision-based reactive planning for aggressive target tracking while avoiding collisions and occlusions,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3725–3732, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Autonomous aerial cine- matography in unstructured environments with learned artistic decision- making,

    R. Bonatti, W. Wang, C. Ho, A. Ahuja, M. Gschwindt, E. Camci, E. Kayacan, S. Choudhury, and S. Scherer, “Autonomous aerial cine- matography in unstructured environments with learned artistic decision- making,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 606–641, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Spherical distance transforms,

    T. Michikawa and H. Suzuki, “Spherical distance transforms,” in2008 International Conference on Computational Sciences and Its Applica- tions. IEEE, 2008, pp. 405–412

    2008

  14. [22]

    Do you see what i see? coordinating multiple aerial cameras for robot cinematography,

    A. Bucker, R. Bonatti, and S. Scherer, “Do you see what i see? coordinating multiple aerial cameras for robot cinematography,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 7972–7979

    2021

  15. [23]

    3d human reconstruction in the wild with collaborative aerial cameras,

    C. Ho, A. Jong, H. Freeman, R. Rao, R. Bonatti, and S. Scherer, “3d human reconstruction in the wild with collaborative aerial cameras,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5263–5269

    2021

  16. [24]

    Real-time planning for automated multi-view drone cinematography,

    T. N ¨ageli, L. Meier, A. Domahidi, J. Alonso-Mora, and O. Hilliges, “Real-time planning for automated multi-view drone cinematography,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1–10, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Autonomous aerial filming with distributed lighting by a team of unmanned aerial vehicles,

    V . Kr´atk`y, A. Alc ´antara, J. Capit ´an, P. ˇStˇep´an, M. Saska, and A. Ollero, “Autonomous aerial filming with distributed lighting by a team of unmanned aerial vehicles,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7580–7587, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Swarm-lio2: Decentralized, efficient lidar-inertial odometry for uav swarms,

    F. Zhu, Y . Ren, L. Yin, F. Kong, Q. Liu, R. Xue, W. Liu, Y . Cai, G. Lu, H. Liet al., “Swarm-lio2: Decentralized, efficient lidar-inertial odometry for uav swarms,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Rog-map: An efficient robocentric occupancy grid map for large-scene and high- resolution lidar-based motion planning,

    Y . Ren, Y . Cai, F. Zhu, S. Liang, and F. Zhang, “Rog-map: An efficient robocentric occupancy grid map for large-scene and high- resolution lidar-based motion planning,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 8119–8125

    2024

  20. [28]

    Real-time bandwidth-efficient occupancy grid map synchronization for multi-robot systems,

    L. Shi, L. Yin, F. Kong, Y . Ren, F. Zhu, B. Tang, and F. Zhang, “Real-time bandwidth-efficient occupancy grid map synchronization for multi-robot systems,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 8489–8496

    2024

  21. [29]

    On-manifold model predictive control for trajectory tracking on robotic systems,

    G. Lu, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “On-manifold model predictive control for trajectory tracking on robotic systems,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 9192–9202, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Distance transforms of sampled functions,

    P. F. Felzenszwalb and D. P. Huttenlocher, “Distance transforms of sampled functions,”Theory of computing, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 415–428, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    A general algo- rithm for computing distance transforms in linear time,

    A. Meijster, J. B. Roerdink, and W. H. Hesselink, “A general algo- rithm for computing distance transforms in linear time,”Mathematical Morphology and its applications to image and signal processing, pp. 331–340, 2000

    2000

  24. [32]

    A linear time algorithm for computing exact euclidean distance transforms of binary images in arbitrary dimensions,

    C. R. Maurer, R. Qi, and V . Raghavan, “A linear time algorithm for computing exact euclidean distance transforms of binary images in arbitrary dimensions,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 265–270, 2003

    2003

  25. [33]

    A unified distance transform algorithm and architec- ture,

    D. W. Paglieroni, “A unified distance transform algorithm and architec- ture,”Machine Vision and Applications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 47–55, 1992

    1992

  26. [34]

    Fiesta: Fast incremental euclidean distance fields for online motion planning of aerial robots,

    L. Han, F. Gao, B. Zhou, and S. Shen, “Fiesta: Fast incremental euclidean distance fields for online motion planning of aerial robots,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 4423–4430

    2019

  27. [35]

    Vdb-edt: An efficient euclidean distance transform algorithm based on vdb data structure,

    D. Zhu, C. Wang, W. Wang, R. Garg, S. Scherer, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Vdb-edt: An efficient euclidean distance transform algorithm based on vdb data structure,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04419, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,

    H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1366–1373

    2017

  29. [37]

    V oxfield: Non-projective signed distance fields for online plan- ning and 3d reconstruction,

    Y . Pan, Y . Kompis, L. Bartolomei, R. Mascaro, C. Stachniss, and M. Chli, “V oxfield: Non-projective signed distance fields for online plan- ning and 3d reconstruction,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 5331–5338

    2022

  30. [38]

    Control of quadrotors using the hopf fibration on so (3),

    M. Watterson and V . Kumar, “Control of quadrotors using the hopf fibration on so (3),” inRobotics Research: The 18th International Symposium ISRR. Springer, 2019, pp. 199–215

    2019

  31. [39]

    J. Tomson, “On the structure of the atom: an investigation of the stability and periods of osciletion of a number of corpuscles arranged at equal intervals around the circumference of a circle; with application of the results to the theory atomic structure,”Philos. Mag. Series...

    1904

  32. [40]

    Mathematical problems for the next century,

    S. Smale, “Mathematical problems for the next century,”The Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 20, pp. 7–15, 1998. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1331144

    1998

  33. [41]

    Practical search techniques in path planning for autonomous driving,

    D. Dolgov, S. Thrun, M. Montemerlo, and J. Diebel, “Practical search techniques in path planning for autonomous driving,”ann arbor, vol. 1001, no. 48105, pp. 18–80, 2008

    2008

  34. [42]

    Search-based motion planning for quadrotors using linear quadratic minimum time control,

    S. Liu, N. Atanasov, K. Mohta, and V . Kumar, “Search-based motion planning for quadrotors using linear quadratic minimum time control,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 2872–2879

    2017

  35. [43]

    Robust and effi- cient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,

    B. Zhou, F. Gao, L. Wang, C. Liu, and S. Shen, “Robust and effi- cient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3529–3536, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-d complex environments,

    S. Liu, M. Watterson, K. Mohta, K. Sun, S. Bhattacharya, C. J. Taylor, and V . Kumar, “Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-d complex environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2017

    2017

  37. [45]

    Geometrically constrained tra- jectory optimization for multicopters,

    Z. Wang, X. Zhou, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Geometrically constrained tra- jectory optimization for multicopters,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 3259–3278, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    A new computational algorithm for functional inequality constrained optimization problems,

    K. L. Teo, V . Rehbock, and L. S. Jennings, “A new computational algorithm for functional inequality constrained optimization problems,” Automatica, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 789–792, 1993

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.