pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23774 · v1 · pith:PYAFKTTGnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 💻 cs.MM

Swarical: An Integrated Hierarchical Approach to Localizing Flying Light Specks

Hamed Alimohammadzadeh , Shahram Ghandeharizadeh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MM
keywords flying light specksswarm localizationhierarchical localizationArUco markersminiature dronespoint cloud generationdecentralized localizationsensor orientation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Swarical lets swarms of flying light specks localize themselves as accurately as prior methods but more than twice as fast.

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

The paper introduces Swarical as a swarm-based hierarchical localization method for miniature drones called Flying Light Specks that illuminate shapes. It converts mesh files into point clouds sized to the accuracy limits of each FLS's sensors and mixes FLSs with different sensor orientations to keep a clear line of sight between any localizing unit and its anchor. An implementation that uses Raspberry cameras and ArUco markers shows the technique matches the accuracy of a leading decentralized method while running more than twice as fast. A reader would care because faster, hardware-limited localization could make large coordinated light displays practical without sacrificing precision.

Core claim

Swarical is an integrated hierarchical approach that enables a swarm of Flying Light Specks to localize accurately and efficiently. Accuracy is set by the physical sensors that track neighboring FLSs, and the method converts mesh files into point clouds that let the swarm reach the highest accuracy those sensors allow. It incorporates a heterogeneous mix of FLSs with differing sensor orientations to guarantee line of sight between a localizing FLS and its anchor FLS. The Raspberry-camera and ArUco-marker implementation demonstrates that Swarical is as accurate as a state-of-the-art decentralized technique yet more than 2x faster.

What carries the argument

Swarical, the swarm-based hierarchical localization technique that converts mesh files to point clouds using hardware specifications and heterogeneous sensor orientations to ensure line of sight.

If this is right

  • Swarms reach the accuracy ceiling set by their own hardware when illuminating complex 2D and 3D shapes.
  • Localization finishes in less than half the time of comparable decentralized methods.
  • Heterogeneous sensor orientations become a practical design choice for maintaining visibility inside the swarm.
  • Mesh-to-point-cloud conversion lets designers directly map target shapes to the swarm's localization capability.
  • An implementation with standard cameras and markers shows the approach works on readily available hardware.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The hierarchical structure may reduce total communication volume as swarm size grows compared with fully decentralized tracking.
  • The same sensor-orientation principle could apply to other mobile robot groups that need mutual visibility for coordination.
  • Testing the method while shapes move or while FLSs enter and leave the swarm would reveal how robust the line-of-sight guarantee remains.
  • Pairing Swarical with existing path-planning algorithms could produce end-to-end systems that both localize and illuminate without extra layers of control.

Load-bearing premise

The sensors on each flying light speck can track neighbors with enough precision and a mix of sensor orientations will always keep a line of sight open between a localizing unit and its anchor.

What would settle it

A controlled test in which all FLSs share the same sensor orientation, producing blocked line-of-sight cases and either lower localization accuracy or no speed gain over the decentralized baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23774 by Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Shahram Ghandeharizadeh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Palm tree with 725 FLSs. Ground truth (GT), Dead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The yellow cylinders of the architecture of [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Swarical, a divide-and-conquer framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Swarm-tree and FLS-tree with the Chess Piece, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Detection rate as a function of distance between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distribution of swarm size, Skateboard, 𝐺=50. the pitch (rotation around the depth). This accuracy decreases with marker sizes smaller than 3 mm. In darkness, an FLS may use the camera with IR light to capture an image of paper-printed markers for processing. In our exper￾iments, IR lighting in the dark does not impact the accuracy of measurements and the detection rate. 5.2 Planner We use the Raspberry c… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Percentage error of distance measurement as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of distance between localizing and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Distribution of the number of localizing FLSs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparison of Swarical with SwarMer for the Skateboard. swarms in an offline manner. SwarMer’s swarms are seeded with 1 FLS that merge to construct larger swarms, ultimately growing into one swarm that includes all FLSs. Swarical’s swarms are static. Swarical is an integrated approach that considers the range of sen￾sors mounted on an FLS to track another FLS. This is reflected in its hierarchical swarm-t… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of different swarm sizes (𝐺) with the Skateboard and the ISR technique. Lower is better. is 20x higher. If we considered only two points, we would observe the expected 0.9 to 1.2 mm error. However, with a point cloud, the error compounds as FLSs localize to magnify the error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Swarical, a Swarm-based hierarchical localization technique, enables miniature drones, known as Flying Light Specks (FLSs), to accurately and efficiently localize and illuminate complex 2D and 3D shapes. Its accuracy depends on the physical hardware (sensors) of FLSs, which are used to track neighboring FLSs in order to localize themselves. It uses the hardware specification to convert mesh files into point clouds that enable a swarm of FLSs to localize at the highest accuracy afforded by their hardware. Swarical considers a heterogeneous mix of FLSs with different orientations for their tracking sensors, ensuring a line of sight between a localizing FLS and its anchor FLS. We present an implementation using Raspberry cameras and ArUco markers. A comparison of Swarical with a state of the art decentralized localization technique shows that it is as accurate and more than 2x faster.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents Swarical, a swarm-based hierarchical localization technique for Flying Light Specks (FLSs) that converts mesh files to point clouds using hardware sensor specifications to achieve localization at the precision limit of the sensors. It incorporates a heterogeneous mix of FLS orientations to ensure line-of-sight to anchor FLSs and reports an implementation using Raspberry Pi cameras and ArUco markers. The central empirical claim is that Swarical matches the accuracy of a state-of-the-art decentralized localization technique while providing more than 2x speedup.

Significance. If the accuracy and speedup claims are substantiated with full experimental validation, the work could contribute a hardware-aware hierarchical method for swarm localization in illumination applications, directly tying sensor limits to point-cloud generation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the performance comparison result ('as accurate and more than 2x faster') is stated without any accompanying experimental details, error bars, dataset descriptions, statistical tests, or sensitivity analysis to sensor noise, preventing verification of whether the 2x speedup and accuracy equivalence hold.
  2. [Abstract and implementation description] The manuscript states that accuracy depends on physical sensors and that heterogeneous orientations ensure line of sight, yet provides no separate quantification of tracking error under flight dynamics, no failure-rate measurements when orientations vary, and no analysis showing how localization error scales with sensor noise; these unquantified assumptions are load-bearing for both the accuracy and speedup claims.
minor comments (1)
  1. Clarify early in the manuscript how the mesh-to-point-cloud conversion step interacts with the hierarchical swarm structure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. We address each major comment below, indicating revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened without misrepresenting the presented work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the performance comparison result ('as accurate and more than 2x faster') is stated without any accompanying experimental details, error bars, dataset descriptions, statistical tests, or sensitivity analysis to sensor noise, preventing verification of whether the 2x speedup and accuracy equivalence hold.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is concise and omits these specifics, which are instead reported in the evaluation section of the full manuscript (including dataset descriptions, error bars on accuracy and runtime measurements, and direct comparison to the decentralized baseline). To improve verifiability at a glance, we will revise the abstract to incorporate a brief summary of the experimental conditions, the number of trials, and the observed speedup factor with its variability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and implementation description] The manuscript states that accuracy depends on physical sensors and that heterogeneous orientations ensure line of sight, yet provides no separate quantification of tracking error under flight dynamics, no failure-rate measurements when orientations vary, and no analysis showing how localization error scales with sensor noise; these unquantified assumptions are load-bearing for both the accuracy and speedup claims.

    Authors: The accuracy equivalence and speedup results are obtained from controlled experiments using the specified Raspberry Pi cameras and ArUco markers under the heterogeneous orientation configuration described in the method. These results directly support the claims for the evaluated scenarios. The manuscript does not include separate dynamic-flight error quantification, orientation-failure rates, or explicit sensor-noise scaling curves; we will add a limitations paragraph discussing these assumptions and their potential impact on generalization. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical implementation and comparison with no fitted predictions or self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper describes a hierarchical localization system that directly consumes hardware sensor specifications to generate point clouds from meshes and relies on heterogeneous sensor orientations plus ArUco tracking for line-of-sight. The central claim is an empirical result (accuracy parity with >2x speedup versus a decentralized baseline). No equations, parameter fitting, predictions derived from fitted inputs, or derivation chains appear in the provided text. The accuracy statement is conditioned on external hardware properties rather than being defined in terms of the method's own outputs. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems. This is a standard systems/implementation paper whose results are falsifiable via replication on the stated hardware; the derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond the stated dependence on hardware sensor accuracy.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption FLS sensors can track neighboring FLSs with accuracy sufficient for the claimed localization performance
    Abstract states that accuracy depends on the physical hardware sensors used to track neighbors.
  • domain assumption Heterogeneous sensor orientations guarantee line-of-sight between localizing and anchor FLSs
    Abstract explicitly requires this condition for the heterogeneous mix of FLSs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5692 in / 1293 out tokens · 23448 ms · 2026-05-25T02:10:07.005294+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

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Rohit Bernard, Yang Chen, Trung Phan, Prashant Singh, Shuqin Zhu, Heather Culbertson, and Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2023. Dronevision: An Experimental 3D Testbed for Flying Light Specks. InThe First International Conference on Holodecks (Los Angeles, California)(Holodecks ’23) . Mitra LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/...

    work page doi:10.61981/zfsh2301 2023

  2. [2]

    Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Heather Culbertson, and Shahram Ghande- harizadeh. 2023. An Evaluation of Decentralized Group Formation Techniques for Flying Light Specks. InACM Multimedia Asia (Taipei, Taiwan)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Hamed Alimohammadzadeh and Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2023. SwarMer: A Decentralized Localization Framework for Flying Light Specks. InThe First International Conference on Holodecks (Los Angeles, California)(Holodecks ’23) . Mitra LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.61981/ZFSH2302

    work page doi:10.61981/zfsh2302 2023

  4. [4]

    Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Daryon Mehraban, and Shahram Ghande- harizadeh. 2023. Modeling Illumination Data with Flying Light Specks. InACM Multimedia Systems (Vancouver, Canada)(MMSys ’23). Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587819. 3592544

    work page doi:10.1145/3587819 2023

  5. [5]

    Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Shuqin Zhu, Jiadong Bai, and Shahram Ghande- harizadeh. 2024. Reliability Groups with Standby Flying Light Specks. InACM Multimedia Systems (Bari, Italy)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Martin Brossard, Axel Barrau, and Silvère Bonnabel. 2020. AI-IMU Dead- Reckoning. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 5, 4 (2020), 585–595. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TIV.2020.2980758

    work page doi:10.1109/tiv.2020.2980758 2020

  7. [7]

    Bernard Chazelle. 2000. The Soft Heap: An Approximate Priority Queue with Optimal Error Rate. J. ACM 47, 6 (nov 2000), 1012–1027. https://doi.org/10. 1145/355541.355554

    work page arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    Yang Chen, Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Heather Culbertson, and Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2023. Towards a Stable 3D Physical Human-Drone Interac- tion. InThe First International Conference on Holodecks (Los Angeles, California) (Holodecks ’23) . Mitra LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 34–37. https://doi.org/10. 61981/ZFSH2308

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Yang Chen, Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Shahram Ghandeharizadeh, and Heather Culbertson. 2024. Force-Feedback Through Touch-based Interactions With A Nanocopter. In IEEE Symposium on Haptics (Long Beach, California) (Haptics ’24). IEEE, Long Beach, CA, USA, 7 pages

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Pablo Corbalán, Gian Pietro Picco, and Sameera Palipana. 2019. Chorus: UWB Concurrent Transmissions for GPS-like Passive Localization of Countless Tar- gets. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Process- ing in Sensor Networks (Montreal, Quebec, Canada)(IPSN ’19) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 133–1...

    work page arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Massimiliano Corsini, Paolo Cignoni, and Roberto Scopigno. 2012. Efficient and Flexible Sampling with Blue Noise Properties of Triangular Meshes.IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 6 (2012), 914–924. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.34

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2012.34 2012

  12. [12]

    H. Fan, H. Su, and L. Guibas. 2017. A Point Set Generation Network for 3D Object Reconstruction from a Single Image. In2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2463–2471. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.264

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.264 2017

  13. [13]

    Garrido-Jurado, R

    S. Garrido-Jurado, R. Muñoz-Salinas, F.J. Madrid-Cuevas, and M.J. Marín- Jiménez. 2014. Automatic Generation and Detection of Highly Reliable Fidu- cial Markers under Occlusion. Pattern Recognition 47, 6 (2014), 2280–2292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2014.01.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2014.01.005 2014

  14. [14]

    Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2021. Holodeck: Immersive 3D Displays Using Swarms of Flying Light Specks. InACM Multimedia Asia (Gold Coast, Australia). ACM Press, New York, NY, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3469877.3493698

    work page doi:10.1145/3469877.3493698 2021

  15. [15]

    Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2022. Display of 3D Illuminations using Flying Light Specks. In ACM Multimedia. ACM Press, New York, NY, 2996–3005

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Shahram Ghandeharizadeh and Vincent Oria. 2023. Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Holograms and Holodecks. InThe First International Con- ference on Holodecks (Los Angeles, California)(Holodecks ’23) . Mitra LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 38–40. https://doi.org/10.61981/ZFSH2304

    work page doi:10.61981/zfsh2304 2023

  17. [17]

    Francisco Javier Gonzalez-Castano, Felipe Gil-Castineira, David Rodriguez- Pereira, Jose Angel Regueiro-Janeiro, Silvia Garcia-Mendez, and David Candal- Ventureira. 2020. Self-corrective Sensor Fusion for Drone Positioning in Indoor Facilities.IEEE Access 9 (2020), 2415–2427

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence15(9), 850–863 (1993).https://doi.org/10.1109/34.232073

    D.P. Huttenlocher, G.A. Klanderman, and W.J. Rucklidge. 1993. Comparing Im- ages Using the Hausdorff Distance.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 15, 9 (1993), 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.232073

    work page doi:10.1109/34.232073 1993

  19. [19]

    Karger, Philip N

    David R. Karger, Philip N. Klein, and Robert E. Tarjan. 1995. A Randomized Linear-Time Algorithm to Find Minimum Spanning Trees.J. ACM 42, 2 (mar 1995), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1145/201019.201022

    work page doi:10.1145/201019.201022 1995

  20. [20]

    Alex Kushleyev, Daniel Mellinger, Caitlin Powers, and Vijay Kumar. 2013. To- wards a Swarm of Agile Micro Quadrotors. Autonomous Robots 35 (11 2013), 573–7527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-013-9349-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10514-013-9349-9 2013

  21. [21]

    S. Lloyd. 1982. Least Squares Quantization in PCM.IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 28, 2 (1982), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.1982.1056489 1982

  22. [22]

    K Nirmal, AG Sreejith, Joice Mathew, Mayuresh Sarpotdar, Ambily Suresh, Ajin Prakash, Margarita Safonova, and Jayant Murthy. 2016. Noise Modeling and Analysis of an IMU-based Attitude Sensor: Improvement of Performance by Fil- tering and Sensor Fusion. InAdvances in optical and mechanical technologies for telescopes and instrumentation II , Vol. 9912. SPI...

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Michael Norman, Vince Kellen, Shava Smallen, Brian DeMeulle, Shawn Strande, Ed Lazowska, Naomi Alterman, Rob Fatland, Sarah Stone, Amanda Tan, Kather- ine Yelick, Eric Van Dusen, and James Mitchell. 2021. CloudBank: Managed Services to Simplify Cloud Access for Computer Science Research and Educa- tion. InPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Compu...

    work page doi:10.1145/3437359.3465586 2021

  24. [24]

    Trung Phan, Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, Heather Culbertson, and Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2023. An Evaluation of Three Distance Measurement Tech- nologies for Flying Light Specks. InInternational Conference on Intelligent Meta- verse Technologies and Applications (iMETA2023) (Tartu, Estonia)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    James Preiss, Wolfgang Honig, Gaurav Sukhatme, and Nora Ayanian. 2017. Crazyswarm: A Large Nano-Quadcopter Swarm. In IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . 3299–3304. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICRA.2017.7989376

    work page arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Müller, Markus Hehn, and Raffaello D’Andrea

    Robin Ritz, Mark W. Müller, Markus Hehn, and Raffaello D’Andrea. 2012. Co- operative Quadrocopter Ball Throwing and Catching. In2012 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . 4972–4978. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/IROS.2012.6385963

    work page doi:10.1109/iros.2012.6385963 2012

  27. [27]

    Nel Samama. 2008. Global Positioning: Technologies and Performance . https: //doi.org/10.1002/9780470241912

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470241912 2008

  28. [28]

    K. Siwiak. 2001. Ultra-wide Band Radio: Introducing a New Technology. In IEEE VTS 53rd Vehicular Technology Conference, Spring 2001. Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37202), Vol. 2. 1088–1093 vol.2. https://doi.org/10.1109/VETECS.2001. 944546

    work page doi:10.1109/vetecs.2001 2001

  29. [29]

    Janis Tiemann and Christian Wietfeld. 2017. Scalable and Precise Multi-UA V Indoor Navigation using TDOA-based UWB Localization. In2017 international conference on indoor positioning and indoor navigation (IPIN) . IEEE, 1–7

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Jiang Wang and William J Wilson. 1992. 3D Relative Position and Orientation Estimation using Kalman Filter for Robot Control. InProceedings 1992 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE Computer Society, 2638– 2639

    work page 1992

  31. [31]

    Zong-Sheng Wang, Jung Lee, Chang Geun Song, and Sun-Jeong Kim. 2020. Data- Driven Point Sampling with Blue-noise Properties for Triangular Meshes. InPro- ceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (Beijing, China)(CSSE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3403746.3403908 2020

  32. [32]

    Brian White, Jay Lepreau, Leigh Stoller, Robert Ricci, Shashi Guruprasad, Mac Newbold, Mike Hibler, Chad Barb, and Abhijeet Joglekar. 2002. An Integrated Experimental Environment for Distributed Systems and Networks.SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev. 36, SI, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/844128.844152 MM ’24, October 28-November 1, 2024, Melbourne, VIC, Australia...

    work page doi:10.1145/844128.844152 2002

  33. [33]

    Seong-hoon Peter Won, Wael William Melek, and Farid Golnaraghi. 2009. a Kalman/Particle Filter-based Position and Orientation Estimation Method using a Position Sensor/Inertial Measurement Unit Hybrid System.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 57, 5 (2009), 1787–1798

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Hao Xu, Luqi Wang, Yichen Zhang, Kejie Qiu, and Shaojie Shen. 2020. Decentral- ized Visual-Inertial-UWB Fusion for Relative State Estimation of Aerial Swarm. In 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 8776–8782

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Dong-Ming Yan, Jian-Wei Guo, Bin Wang, Xiao-Peng Zhang, and Peter Wonka

    work page

  36. [36]

    A Survey of Blue-Noise Sampling and Its Applications.Journal of Computer Science and Technology 30, 3 (2015), 439–452

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Nima Yazdani, Hamed Alimohammadzadeh, and Shahram Ghandeharizadeh

    work page

  38. [38]

    In The First International Conference on Holodecks (Los An- geles, California) (Holodecks ’23)

    A Conceptual Model of Intelligent Multimedia Data Rendered using Fly- ing Light Specks. In The First International Conference on Holodecks (Los An- geles, California) (Holodecks ’23) . Mitra LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.61981/ZFSH2309

    work page doi:10.61981/zfsh2309

  39. [39]

    Shuqin Zhu and Shahram Ghandeharizadeh. 2023. Flight Patterns for Swarms of Drones. InThe First International Conference on Holodecks (Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia)(Holodecks ’23) . Mitra LLC, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 29–33. https://doi. org/10.61981/ZFSH2303

    work page doi:10.61981/zfsh2303 2023