pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05003 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-06 · 💻 cs.RO

A Survey on Sensor-based Planning and Control for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles

Shivam Vishwakarma , Tejal Bedmutha , Dharmendra Kumar Patel , Vijay Bhaskar Semwal , Leena Vachhani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 20:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords unmanned underwater vehiclessensor-based planningcoupled controldecoupled controlmodel predictive controlPID controlinvariant-set controlunderwater navigation
0
0 comments X

The pith

This survey divides sensor-based UUV planning and control into decoupled sequential stages and coupled integrated loops, then compares PID, MPC, and invariant-set controllers.

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

Underwater vehicles must navigate without GNSS, amid noisy sensors and slow communications, so they need reactive local planners that use real-time SONAR and IMU data for obstacle avoidance and re-planning. The paper organizes existing work by architecture type: decoupled methods handle planning then control one after another, while coupled methods keep planning and control in a single tight loop for faster response. A side-by-side look at coupled controllers shows PID is easy to tune but cannot anticipate complex paths, MPC finds better routes at higher compute cost, and invariant-set methods enforce safety bounds but can limit movement in tight spaces.

Core claim

The survey establishes a taxonomy that separates decoupled architectures, which treat planning and control as sequential steps, from coupled architectures, which integrate them for immediate feedback from sensors, and then evaluates three controller families within the coupled class on simplicity, predictive power, computational load, and safety-agility trade-offs.

What carries the argument

The taxonomy of decoupled versus coupled architectures for combining sensor-driven local planning with low-level control in UUVs.

If this is right

  • Designers can choose controller type according to whether the mission prioritizes simplicity, path quality, or hard safety constraints.
  • Coupled loops become preferable when acoustic latency forces decisions within a single control cycle.
  • Invariant-set methods are indicated when collision risk must be provably bounded even if it reduces maneuver room.
  • MPC use is justified only when onboard compute can handle the optimization at the required update rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same taxonomy could be tested on surface or aerial vehicles to see whether the decoupled-coupled split travels across domains.
  • Future work might quantify the compute-versus-safety frontier for each controller class using standardized UUV simulation benchmarks.
  • The survey implies that hybrid controllers blending MPC prediction with invariant-set safety tubes deserve direct study.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen recent papers are representative enough to support a useful taxonomy and controller comparison.

What would settle it

A new sensor-based UUV method that performs well in field tests yet fits neither the decoupled nor the coupled category, or a direct head-to-head trial where the reported performance differences among PID, MPC, and invariant-set controllers disappear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05003 by Dharmendra Kumar Patel, Leena Vachhani, Shivam Vishwakarma, Tejal Bedmutha, Vijay Bhaskar Semwal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: UUV Navigation Stack Hierarchy and orientation ( [19]–[21]). These hydrodynamic influences vary with depth, location and time and are often unknown or unpredictable in advance. Moreover, physical interactions such as tether forces in Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs) or changes in buoyancy add additional complexity to the con￾trol system ( [22], [23]). The communication limitations are equally significant.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Path Planning Techniques ronments. This taxonomy acts as the conceptual backbone for sensor-based autonomous control and sets the stage for the detailed discussions that follow in subsequent sections [13]. The paper outlines the evolution of sensor-based under￾water navigation, followed by a detailed description of the Underwater Autonomous Navigation Stack. It explores sensor￾based planning and control fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A chronological view of Major Technological Breakthroughs in Sensor-based Autonomous Underwater Navigation, its evolution from the 1970s to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Elements of UUV navigation stack Perception serves as the foundational layer. It provides the sensory inputs needed to understand the UUVs environment. The perception subsystem is primarily composed of sonar￾based systems, Doppler Velocity Logs (DVLs) and sometimes optical cameras and acoustic modems. Sonar technologies, such as multibeam echosounders and side-scan sonar, enable terrain mapping and obstacl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustrative model outlining the typical UUV operational setting in an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustrative model outlining the typical Decoupled Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustrative model outlining the typical Coupled Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scenario 1 : Underwater Environment with non-uniformly distributed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Scenario 2 : Underwater Environment with a static narrow passage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scenario 3 : Underwater Environment with a infinitely wide static [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scenario 5 : Underwater Environment with Temporally Varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Tracked Path visualization of Figure-Of-Eight curve using Invariant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Scenario 4 : Underwater Environment with a infinitely long static [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Tracked Path visualization of Figure-Of-Eight curve using PID [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This survey examines recent sensor-based planning and control methods for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs). In complex, uncertain underwater environments, UUVs require advanced planning and control strategies for effective navigation. These vehicles face significant challenges including drifting and noisy sensor measurements, absence of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals, and low-bandwidth, high-latency underwater acoustic communications. The focus is on reactive local planning layers that adapt to real-time sensor inputs such as SONAR and Inertial Measurement Units (IMU) to improve localization accuracy and autonomy in dynamic ocean conditions, enabling dynamic obstacle avoidance and on-the-fly re-planning. The survey categorizes the existing literature into decoupled and coupled architectures for sensor-based planning and control. The decoupled architecture sequentially addresses planning and control stages, whereas coupled architectures offer tighter feedback loops for more immediate responsiveness. A comparative analysis of coupled planning and control methods reveals that while PID controllers are simple, they lack predictive capability for complex maneuvers. Model Predictive Control (MPC) offers superior path optimization but can be computationally intensive, and invariant-set controllers provide strong safety guarantees at the potential cost of agility in confined environments. Key contributions include a taxonomy of architectures combining planning and control, a focus on adaptive local planning, and an analysis of controller roles in integrated planning frameworks for autonomous navigation of UUVs.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. This survey examines recent sensor-based planning and control methods for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs), emphasizing reactive local planning that adapts to real-time inputs from sensors such as SONAR and IMU in GNSS-denied, communication-constrained environments. It categorizes the literature into decoupled architectures (sequential planning then control) and coupled architectures (tighter integration for responsiveness), and provides a qualitative comparison of coupled methods, noting that PID controllers are simple but lack predictive power, MPC offers path optimization at computational cost, and invariant-set controllers ensure safety but may limit agility.

Significance. If the underlying literature corpus is representative, the taxonomy and controller trade-off analysis could serve as a useful reference for UUV researchers working on dynamic obstacle avoidance and adaptive navigation. The focus on local reactive layers addresses a practical gap in underwater autonomy, but the survey's value hinges on transparent coverage of the field rather than novel derivations or empirical results.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: The central taxonomy (decoupled vs. coupled architectures) and controller comparison (PID vs. MPC vs. invariant-set) are presented as drawn from 'existing literature' and 'recent works,' yet no search protocol, database list, inclusion/exclusion criteria, time window, or total paper count is provided. This omission makes it impossible to assess whether the selected corpus supports field-wide claims about architecture prevalence or controller trade-offs, directly undermining the representativeness of the survey's main contributions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which highlights an important aspect of survey transparency. We address the single major comment below and commit to a revision that strengthens the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: The central taxonomy (decoupled vs. coupled architectures) and controller comparison (PID vs. MPC vs. invariant-set) are presented as drawn from 'existing literature' and 'recent works,' yet no search protocol, database list, inclusion/exclusion criteria, time window, or total paper count is provided. This omission makes it impossible to assess whether the selected corpus supports field-wide claims about architecture prevalence or controller trade-offs, directly undermining the representativeness of the survey's main contributions.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of an explicit literature selection methodology limits the ability to evaluate the survey's scope and representativeness. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (e.g., 'Literature Search Methodology') that details the databases consulted (IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Google Scholar), the search keywords and strings used, the time window (publications 2010–2024), inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed works on sensor-based reactive planning/control for UUVs in GNSS-denied settings), exclusion criteria (purely theoretical papers without sensor integration or UUV application), and the approximate number of papers screened and retained. We will also explicitly state that the taxonomy and controller trade-off analysis are drawn from a curated, representative selection of influential works rather than an exhaustive systematic review, thereby avoiding unsupported prevalence claims. This addition will directly improve transparency without changing the core contributions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: survey taxonomy and comparisons drawn from external literature

full rationale

This is a literature survey with no derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-referential claims. The central taxonomy (decoupled vs. coupled architectures) and controller comparisons (PID, MPC, invariant-set) are explicitly presented as categorizations and qualitative summaries of cited external works. No load-bearing step reduces to the paper's own inputs by construction, self-citation chain, or renaming; all content is self-contained against the referenced body of literature.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities as it is a review of existing methods in the literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5556 in / 1142 out tokens · 80650 ms · 2026-05-10T20:27:14.179963+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

128 extracted references · 128 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Autonomous underwater vehicle naviga- tion,

    J. J. Leonard and A. Bahr, “Autonomous underwater vehicle naviga- tion,” inMarine Robot Autonomy. Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 341–355

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Autonomous underwater vehicle navigation,

    P. A. Miller, J. A. Farrell, Y . Zhao, and V . Djapic, “Autonomous underwater vehicle navigation,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 663–675, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Autonomous underwater navigation and control,

    S. B. Williams, P. Newman, J. Rosenblatt, G. Dissanayake, and H. Durrant-Whyte, “Autonomous underwater navigation and control,” Robotica, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 481–496, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Challenging the paradigms of deep-sea ecology,

    R. Danovaro, P. V . Snelgrove, and P. Tyler, “Challenging the paradigms of deep-sea ecology,”Trends in ecology & evolution, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 465–475, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    A fusion framework with spatial perception and energy-aware strategies for AUV path planning in uncharted marine environments,

    W. Meng, Y . Pu, H. Yu, Y . Gong, and D. Chu, “A fusion framework with spatial perception and energy-aware strategies for AUV path planning in uncharted marine environments,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 328, p. 121095, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    J. F. Artiola, I. L. Pepper, and M. L. Brusseau,Environmental moni- toring and characterization. Academic Press, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    An overview of machine learning techniques in local path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,

    M. M. M. Chinonso E. Okereke, “An overview of machine learning techniques in local path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,” IEEE Access, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    An augmented reality system for military operations in urban terrain,

    M. A. Livingston, L. J. Rosenblum, S. J. Julier, D. Brown, Y . Baillot, J. E. Swan, J. L. Gabbard, D. Hixet al., “An augmented reality system for military operations in urban terrain,” inInterservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference, vol. 89. Citeseer, 2002

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    A review of terrain aided navigation for underwater vehicles,

    T. Ma, S. Ding, Y . Li, and J. Fan, “A review of terrain aided navigation for underwater vehicles,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 281, p. 114779, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Active planning for underwater inspection and the benefit of adaptiv- ity,

    G. A. Hollinger, B. Englot, F. S. Hover, U. Mitra, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Active planning for underwater inspection and the benefit of adaptiv- ity,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2013

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Deep reinforcement learning for adaptive path planning and control of an autonomous underwater vehicle,

    B. Hadi, A. Khosravi, and P. Sarhadi, “Deep reinforcement learning for adaptive path planning and control of an autonomous underwater vehicle,”Applied Ocean Research, vol. 129, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Towards integrated autonomous underwater operations for ocean mapping and monitoring,

    M. Ludvigsen and A. J. Sørensen, “Towards integrated autonomous underwater operations for ocean mapping and monitoring,”Annual Reviews in Control, pp. 145–157, 2016

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Oceanic challenges to technological solutions: A review of autonomous underwater vehicle path technologies in biomimicry, control, navigation and sensing,

    K. Hasan, S. Ahmad, A. F. Liaf, M. Karimi, T. Ahmed, M. A. Sha- won, and S. Mekhilef, “Oceanic challenges to technological solutions: A review of autonomous underwater vehicle path technologies in biomimicry, control, navigation and sensing,”IEEE Access, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Autonomous underwater navigation with 3D environ- ment modeling using stereo images,

    V . A. Bobkov, A. P. Kudryashov, S. V . Mel’man, and A. F. Shcherbatyuk, “Autonomous underwater navigation with 3D environ- ment modeling using stereo images,”Gyroscopy and Navigation, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 67–75, 2018

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Underwater navigation, localization and path planning for autonomous vehicles: A review,

    F. Jalal and F. Nasir, “Underwater navigation, localization and path planning for autonomous vehicles: A review,” in2021 International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technologies (IBCAST). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    The autonomous maritime navigation (AMN) project: Field tests, autonomous and cooperative be- haviors, data fusion, sensors, and vehicles,

    L. Elkins, D. Sellers, and W. R. Monach, “The autonomous maritime navigation (AMN) project: Field tests, autonomous and cooperative be- haviors, data fusion, sensors, and vehicles,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 790–818, 2010

    work page 2010

  17. [17]

    An active perception framework for autonomous underwater vehicle navigation under sen- sor constraints,

    D. Chang, M. Johnson-Roberson, and J. Sun, “An active perception framework for autonomous underwater vehicle navigation under sen- sor constraints,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 2301–2316, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    A comprehensive review of path planning algorithms for autonomous underwater vehicles,

    M. Panda, B. Das, B. Subudhi, and B. B. Pati, “A comprehensive review of path planning algorithms for autonomous underwater vehicles,” International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 321–352, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Adaptive neuro fuzzy PID controller for a compact autonomous underwater vehicle,

    A. Sahoo, S. K. Dwivedy, and P. S. Robi, “Adaptive neuro fuzzy PID controller for a compact autonomous underwater vehicle,” inOCEANS 2022, Hampton Roads. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–5

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Directions of development of the autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles. a review,

    M. Orłowski, “Directions of development of the autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles. a review,”Maritime Technical Journal, vol. 1, no. 224, 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Performance comparison of con- trollers for the autonomous underwater vehicle REMUS 100,

    S. G. Shetty and K. Subramanian, “Performance comparison of con- trollers for the autonomous underwater vehicle REMUS 100,” in2021 7th International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Study on underwater simultaneous localization and mapping based on different sensors,

    J. Yin, Y . Wang, J. Lv, and J. Ma, “Study on underwater simultaneous localization and mapping based on different sensors,” in2021 IEEE 10th Data Driven Control and Learning Systems Conference (DDCLS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–5

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Underwater vehicle path planning using a multi-beam forward looking sonar,

    Y . Petillot, I. T. Ruiz, D. Lane, Y . Wang, E. Trucco, and N. Pican, “Underwater vehicle path planning using a multi-beam forward looking sonar,” inIEEE Oceanic Engineering Society. OCEANS’98. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 98CH36259), vol. 2. IEEE, 1998, pp. 1194– 1199

    work page 1998

  24. [24]

    Path planning of autonomous underwater vehicles for adaptive sampling using mixed integer linear programming,

    N. K. Yilmaz, C. Evangelinos, P. F. J. Lermusiaux, and N. M. Patrikalakis, “Path planning of autonomous underwater vehicles for adaptive sampling using mixed integer linear programming,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 522–537, 2008

    work page 2008

  25. [25]

    Path planning technologies for autonomous underwater vehicles-a review,

    D. Li, P. Wang, and L. Du, “Path planning technologies for autonomous underwater vehicles-a review,”IEEE Access, 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    A survey on path planning for persistent autonomy of autonomous underwater vehicles,

    Z. Zeng, L. Lian, K. Sammut, F. He, Y . Tang, and A. Lammas, “A survey on path planning for persistent autonomy of autonomous underwater vehicles,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 110, pp. 303–313, 2015

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Emperor yu tames the flood: Water sur- face garbage cleaning robot using improved A* algorithm in dynamic environments,

    R. Li, B. Zhang, and D. Lin, “Emperor yu tames the flood: Water sur- face garbage cleaning robot using improved A* algorithm in dynamic environments,”IEEE Access, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV): Their past, present and future contributions to the advancement of marine geoscience,

    R. B. Wynn, V . A. Huvenne, T. P. L. Bas, B. J. Murton, D. P. Connelly, B. J. Bett, H. A. Ruhl, K. J. Morris, J. Peakall, D. R. Parsons, E. J. Sumner, S. E. Darby, R. M. Dorrell, and J. E. Hunt, “Autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV): Their past, present and future contributions to the advancement of marine geoscience,”Marine Geology, vol. 352, pp. 451–468, 2014

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    Research progress of path planning methods for autonomous underwater vehicle,

    Y . Guo, H. Liu, X. Fan, and W. Lyu, “Research progress of path planning methods for autonomous underwater vehicle,”Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2021, 2021

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    The improvement of the prescision of an inertial nav- igation system for AUV based on the neural network,

    S. Ishibashi, “The improvement of the prescision of an inertial nav- igation system for AUV based on the neural network,” inOCEANS 2006-Asia Pacific. IEEE, 2006, pp. 1–6

    work page 2006

  31. [31]

    Dynamic-detection- based trajectory planning for autonomous underwater vehicle to collect data from underwater sensors,

    M. Cheng, Q. Guan, F. Ji, J. Cheng, and Y . Chen, “Dynamic-detection- based trajectory planning for autonomous underwater vehicle to collect data from underwater sensors,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 15, pp. 13 168–13 178, 2022

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    A comparative study of different collision avoidance systems with local path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,

    R. Kot, P. Szymak, P. Piskur, and K. Naus, “A comparative study of different collision avoidance systems with local path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,”IEEE Access, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Deep learning-based inertial navigation technology for autonomous underwater vehicle long-distance naviga- tion—a review,

    Q. He, H. Yu, and Y . Fang, “Deep learning-based inertial navigation technology for autonomous underwater vehicle long-distance naviga- tion—a review,”Gyroscopy and Navigation, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 267– 275, 2023

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Online path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles in unknown environments,

    J. D. Hern ´andez, E. Vidal, G. Vallicrosa, E. Galceran, and M. Carreras, “Online path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles in unknown environments,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015, pp. 2539–2544

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    An information gain based adaptive path planning method for an autonomous underwater vehicle using sidescan sonar,

    L. Paull, S. Saeedi, H. Li, and V . Myers, “An information gain based adaptive path planning method for an autonomous underwater vehicle using sidescan sonar,” in6th annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, 2010, pp. 1–6

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    Decoupled modelling and controller design for the hybrid autonomous underwater vehicle: MACO,

    J. Kennedy, E. Gamroth, C. Bradley, A. A. Proctor, and G. J. Heard, “Decoupled modelling and controller design for the hybrid autonomous underwater vehicle: MACO,”International Journal of the Society for Underwater Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 11–21, 2007

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    Modeling and fuzzy decoupling control of an underwater vehicle-manipulator system,

    H. Han, Y . Wei, X. Ye, and W. Liu, “Modeling and fuzzy decoupling control of an underwater vehicle-manipulator system,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 18 962–18 983, 2020

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Decoupled sampling-based motion planning for multiple autonomous marine vehicles,

    N. C. V olpi, S. C. Smith, A. M. Pascoal, E. Simetti, A. Turetta, M. Al- ibani, and D. Polani, “Decoupled sampling-based motion planning for multiple autonomous marine vehicles,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Autonomous un- derwater manipulation: Current trends in dynamics, control, planning, perception, and future directions,

    E. Morgan, I. Carlucho, W. Ard, and C. Barbalata, “Autonomous un- derwater manipulation: Current trends in dynamics, control, planning, perception, and future directions,”Current Robotics Reports, vol. 3, pp. 187–198, 2022

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Energy-optimal control for autonomous underwater vehicles using economic model predictive control,

    N. Yang, D. Chang, M. Johnson-Roberson, and J. Sun, “Energy-optimal control for autonomous underwater vehicles using economic model predictive control,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 2377–2390, 2022

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Coupled, non-linear control system design for autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV),

    S. M, “Coupled, non-linear control system design for autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV),” in2008 10th Intl. Conf. on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, 2008

    work page 2008

  42. [42]

    Comparative evaluation of PID, MPC and fuzzy logic control strategies for energy transfer stations in district cooling networks,

    M. Zafar and S. Ozcelik, “Comparative evaluation of PID, MPC and fuzzy logic control strategies for energy transfer stations in district cooling networks,”Preprints, December 2024

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Mobile robot navigation using state-constrained sliding mode control,

    J. V . Karthik, G. Arunkumar, M. Thomas, and L. Vachhani, “Mobile robot navigation using state-constrained sliding mode control,” in2021 Seventh Indian Control Conference (ICC), 2021, pp. 219–224

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Guaranteed safe navigation via state- constraints induced by feedback control,

    J. V . Karthik and L. Vachhani, “Guaranteed safe navigation via state- constraints induced by feedback control,”Mechatronics, vol. 102, p. 103221, 2024

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Underwater robots: From remotely operated vehicles to intervention-autonomous underwater vehicles,

    Y . R. Petillot, G. Antonelli, G. Casalino, and F. Ferreira, “Underwater robots: From remotely operated vehicles to intervention-autonomous underwater vehicles,” inSpringer Handbook of Ocean Engineering, M. Singh, Ed., 2021, pp. 1299–1326

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Sensor-driven autonomous underwater inspections: A receding-horizon RRT-based view planning solution for AUV,

    L. Zacchini, M. Franchi, and A. Ridolfi, “Sensor-driven autonomous underwater inspections: A receding-horizon RRT-based view planning solution for AUV,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 499– 527, 2022

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Underwater vehicle obstacle avoidance and path planning using a multi-beam forward looking sonar,

    Y . Petillot, I. T. Ruiz, and D. M. Lane, “Underwater vehicle obstacle avoidance and path planning using a multi-beam forward looking sonar,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 240– 251, 2001

    work page 2001

  48. [48]

    A robust predictive control approach for underwater robotic vehicles,

    S. Heshmati-Alamdari, G. C. Karras, P. Marantos, and K. J. Kyri- akopoulos, “A robust predictive control approach for underwater robotic vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 2352–2367, 2020

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Global and local path planning study in a ROS-based research platform for autonomous vehicles,

    P. Marin-Plaza, A. Hussein, D. Martin, and A. de la Escalera, “Global and local path planning study in a ROS-based research platform for autonomous vehicles,”Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2018, pp. 1–10, 2018

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Multi-model-based local path planning methodology for autonomous driving: An integrated framework,

    Z. Jian, S. Chen, S. Zhang, Y . Chen, and N. Zheng, “Multi-model-based local path planning methodology for autonomous driving: An integrated framework,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4187–4199, 2022

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Constrained control of autonomous underwater vehicles based on command optimization and disturbance estimation,

    Z. Peng, J. Wang, and J. Wang, “Constrained control of autonomous underwater vehicles based on command optimization and disturbance estimation,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 3627–3637, 2019

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    Shared autonomy for low- cost underwater vehicles,

    N. Lawrance, R. DeBortoli, D. Jones, S. McCammon, L. Milliken, A. Nicolai, T. Somers, and G. Hollinger, “Shared autonomy for low- cost underwater vehicles,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 495–516, 2019

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    On mixed-initiative planning and control for autonomous underwater vehicles,

    L. Chrpa, J. Pinto, and M. A. Ribeiro, “On mixed-initiative planning and control for autonomous underwater vehicles,” in2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2015, pp. 1685–1690

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    The predictive functional control and the management of constraints in GUANAY II autonomous underwater vehicle actuators,

    W. A. Pineda Mu ˜noz, A. G. Sellier, and S. Gomariz Castro, “The predictive functional control and the management of constraints in GUANAY II autonomous underwater vehicle actuators,”IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 22 353–22 367, 2018

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    Robust genetic algorithm and fuzzy inference mechanism embedded in a sliding-mode controller for an uncertain underwater robot,

    C. S. Chin and W. P. Lin, “Robust genetic algorithm and fuzzy inference mechanism embedded in a sliding-mode controller for an uncertain underwater robot,”IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatron- ics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 655–666, 2018

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Sensor-driven online coverage planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,

    L. Paull, S. Saeedi, M. Seto, and H. Li, “Sensor-driven online coverage planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,”IEEE/ASME Transac- tions on Mechatronics, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1827–1838, 2012

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    A survey of autonomous underwater vehicle formation: Performance, formation control, and communication capability,

    Y . Yang, Y . Xiao, and T. Li, “A survey of autonomous underwater vehicle formation: Performance, formation control, and communication capability,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 815–841, 2021

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    NavNet: AUV navigation through deep sequential learning,

    X. Zhang, B. He, G. Li, X. Mu, Y . Zhou, and T. Mang, “NavNet: AUV navigation through deep sequential learning,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 59 845–59 861, 2020

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Sensors and measurements for unmanned systems: An overview,

    E. Balestrieri, P. Daponte, L. De Vito, and F. Lamonaca, “Sensors and measurements for unmanned systems: An overview,”Sensors, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 1518, 2021

    work page 2021

  60. [60]

    Control architectures for autonomous underwater vehi- cles,

    K. P. Valavanis, D. Gracanin, M. Matijasevic, R. Kolluru, and G. A. Demetriou, “Control architectures for autonomous underwater vehi- cles,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 48–64, 1997

    work page 1997

  61. [61]

    Development of the REMUS 600 autonomous underwater vehicle,

    R. P. Stokey, A. Roup, C. von Alt, B. Allen, N. Forrester, T. Austin, R. Goldsborough, M. Purcell, F. Jaffre, G. Packardet al., “Development of the REMUS 600 autonomous underwater vehicle,” inProceedings of OCEANS 2005 MTS/IEEE. IEEE, 2005, pp. 1301–1304

    work page 2005

  62. [62]

    Advances in unmanned underwater vehicles technolo- gies: Modeling, control and guidance perspectives,

    A. Budiyono, “Advances in unmanned underwater vehicles technolo- gies: Modeling, control and guidance perspectives,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2009

    work page 2009

  63. [63]

    Underwater sensor network applications: A comprehensive survey,

    E. Felemban, F. K. Shaikh, U. M. Qureshi, A. A. Sheikh, and S. B. Qaisar, “Underwater sensor network applications: A comprehensive survey,”International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 896832, 2015

    work page 2015

  64. [64]

    3D mapping and characterization of sistema zacat ´on from DEPTHX (Deep Hreatic Thermal Explorer),

    M. Gary, N. Fairfield, W. C. Stone, D. Wettergreen, G. Kantor, and J. M. Sharp, Jr, “3D mapping and characterization of sistema zacat ´on from DEPTHX (Deep Hreatic Thermal Explorer),” inSinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, 2008, pp. 202–212

    work page 2008

  65. [65]

    HUGIN 3000 AUV for deepwater surveying,

    K. Vestgard, R. A. Klepaker, and N. Storkersen, “HUGIN 3000 AUV for deepwater surveying,” inOffshore Technology Conference. OTC, 2000, pp. OTC–12 005

    work page 2000

  66. [66]

    Real- time path planning and obstacle avoidance for RAIS: an autonomous underwater vehicle,

    G. Antonelli, S. Chiaverini, R. Finotello, and R. Schiavon, “Real- time path planning and obstacle avoidance for RAIS: an autonomous underwater vehicle,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 216–227, 2001

    work page 2001

  67. [67]

    The deepglider: A full ocean depth glider for oceanographic research,

    T. J. Osse and C. C. Eriksen, “The deepglider: A full ocean depth glider for oceanographic research,” inOCEANS 2007. IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–12

    work page 2007

  68. [68]

    Path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,

    C. P ˆetr`es, Y . Pailhas, P. Patr´on, Y . Petillot, J. Evans, and D. Lane, “Path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 331–341, 2007

    work page 2007

  69. [69]

    ROS based SLAM implementation for autonomous navigation using turtlebot,

    S. P. Thale, M. M. Prabhu, P. V . Thakur, and P. Kadam, “ROS based SLAM implementation for autonomous navigation using turtlebot,” in ITM Web of conferences, vol. 32. EDP Sciences, 2020, p. 01011

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Advances in intelligent and autonomous navigation systems for small UA V,

    S. Bijjahalli, R. Sabatini, and A. Gardi, “Advances in intelligent and autonomous navigation systems for small UA V,”Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 115, p. 100617, 2020

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    Modeling and simulation of autonomous underwater vehicles: design and implementation,

    F. Song, P. E. An, and A. Folleco, “Modeling and simulation of autonomous underwater vehicles: design and implementation,”IEEE journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 283–296, 2003

    work page 2003

  72. [72]

    The backseat control architecture for autonomous robotic vehicles: A case study with the IVER 2 AUV,

    D. P. Eickstedt and S. R. Sideleau, “The backseat control architecture for autonomous robotic vehicles: A case study with the IVER 2 AUV,” Marine technology society journal, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 42–54, 2010

    work page 2010

  73. [73]

    A survey on visual navigation and positioning for autonomous AUV,

    J. Qin, M. Li, D. Li, J. Zhong, and K. Yang, “A survey on visual navigation and positioning for autonomous AUV,”Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 15, p. 3794, 2022

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Guidance, navigation, and control of AUV for permanent underwater optical networks,

    A. Immas and M.-R. Alam, “Guidance, navigation, and control of AUV for permanent underwater optical networks,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 43–58, 2022

    work page 2022

  75. [75]

    Into the world of underwater swarm robotics: Architecture, communication, applications and challenges,

    K. S. Keerthi, B. Mahapatra, and V . G. Menon, “Into the world of underwater swarm robotics: Architecture, communication, applications and challenges,”Recent Advances in Computer Science and Commu- nications (Formerly: Recent Patents on Computer Science), vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 110–119, 2020

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Underwater electric current communication of robotic fish: Design and experimental results,

    W. Wang, J. Zhao, W. Xiong, F. Cao, and G. Xie, “Underwater electric current communication of robotic fish: Design and experimental results,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 1166–1171

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    A review of recent advancements in sensors employed in unmanned underwater vehicles,

    E. Shields and M. Imtiaz, “A review of recent advancements in sensors employed in unmanned underwater vehicles,”Preprints.org, 2023

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    AUV navigation and localization: A review,

    L. Paull, S. Saeedi, M. Seto, and H. Li, “AUV navigation and localization: A review,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 131–145, 2014

    work page 2014

  79. [79]

    A survey of techniques and challenges in underwater localization,

    H.-P. Tan, R. Diamant, W. K. Seah, and M. Waldmeyer, “A survey of techniques and challenges in underwater localization,”Ocean Engi- neering, vol. 38, no. 14-15, pp. 1663–1676, 2011

    work page 2011

  80. [80]

    Review of underwater slam techniques,

    F. Hidalgo and T. Br ¨aunl, “Review of underwater slam techniques,” inProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications, 2015

    work page 2015

Showing first 80 references.