Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Multi-Objective Compliance-Integrated Coevolution For Simulated And Real-World Deployment Of Multi-Robot Marine Autonomy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A behavior-mixing framework keeps sim-learned rescue behaviors safe on real boats by adding prescribed maritime rules and a collision filter after training, demonstrated with up to 8 hardware vehicles and 12 simulated vehicles.

desk verdict The integration idea is clean and the hardware demos are a real step forward, but the collision-free claim rests on a CBF guarantee that the paper's own close-encounter data contradict. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26279 v1 pith:T37VW7QB submitted 2026-07-28 cs.RO

Everardo Gonzalez , Tyler M. Paine , Manuel Agraz Vallejo , Gaurav Dixit , Michael R. Benjamin , Kagan Tumer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-robotautonomycooperativecoevolutioncontrolbarrierfunctionsCOLREGsbehavior-basedscalarizationsim-to-realmarinesearchandrescue
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

The paper claims that safety and regulatory compliance need not be learned from scratch. A team of marine robots can first evolve collaborative rescue behavior in simulation via cooperative coevolution, then have prescribed compliance behaviors, such as COLREGs and stay-in-bounds, and a control-barrier-function safety filter blended in at deployment time through a weighted utility sum. This decoupling allows zero-shot adjustment of the performance-versus-compliance tradeoff without retraining. It is demonstrated on real boats with up to 8 vehicles and in simulation with 12, achieving high rescue counts while avoiding collisions. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a practical path for sim-to-real multi-robot autonomy under hard safety constraints.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is behavior-utility scalarization: each vehicle evaluates utilities from a coevolved neural-network behavior, a COLREGs behavior, and a Stay-In-Bounds behavior over the action space, sums them with fixed weights (Eq. 2), and picks the heading and speed with the highest combined utility. A control-barrier-function layer (Eq. 4) then restricts allowable control inputs to keep the vehicle in a safe set defined as staying at least 13 meters from every other vehicle, providing an in-extremis collision override. The difference fitness (Eq. 6) encourages spatial deconfliction by removing credit when two vehicles visit the same swimmer, which reduces redundant travel and c

What would settle it

Run two identical boats directly at each other at full speed in a river current, with one using the MMOCIC control-barrier-function filter, and record whether the separation ever drops below the 13-meter safety boundary; if the vehicles violate the boundary more often than the filter's forward-invariance proof allows, the safety claim fails. Alternatively, measure the tracking error between commanded and actual heading and speed under current and check whether it exceeds the linearization parameter's assumed envelope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Multi-Objective Compliance-Integrated Coevolution (MMOCIC) can produce high-performing, collision-free team behavior by treating learning and compliance as separate layers instead of fusing them during training. Coevolution optimizes only the explicit mission objective, the number of swimmers rescued, using sparse team fitness and difference fitness. At deployment time, prescribed behaviors that encode COLREGs and operating-region limits are combined with the learned behavior through scalarization, and a control-barrier-function filter overrides any command that would lead to an imminent collision. The paper reports that 8-vehicle and 4-vehicle hardware trials match

Load-bearing premise

The control-barrier-function safety guarantee assumes a first-order single-integrator unicycle model with a look-ahead linearization parameter and assumes other vehicles always execute the worst-case control input; if real boat dynamics and river currents break that model, the 'avoiding collisions' part of the claim weakens even if team performance stays high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MMOCIC works as claimed, learned multi-robot coordination can be deployed with regulatory compliance added as a post-hoc layer, removing the need to encode safety norms into the reward or evolution process.
  • Operators can shift the tradeoff between rescue performance and collision avoidance at run time by changing behavior weights, without retraining, as shown by the zero-shot ablation.
  • Difference fitness reduces redundant coverage and total distance traveled, which in turn lowers close-encounter counts among vehicles.
  • The control-barrier-function safety filter provides an in-extremis override when COLREGs alone cannot resolve an imminent collision, giving a safety guarantee even when other vessels' intentions are unknown.
  • In the 12-vehicle simulated mission, coevolved behaviors produce a genuine Pareto front of rescue-versus-compliance tradeoffs, whereas the baseline collapses to a single dominated solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The decoupling principle likely generalizes beyond maritime rescue to any domain with prescribed norms, such as aerial or road traffic, because the same layer-separation argument applies whenever norms are externally specified.
  • Hardware tests with a disruptive human-operated vessel that intentionally violated right-of-way rules still maintained safety, suggesting this layered approach is a practical interim strategy for contested environments while learning algorithms improve.
  • The paper's own data show coevolved vehicles left the operating region more often than the baseline, indicating the Stay-In-Bounds weight must be tuned per mission; online adaptive weighting is a natural next step beyond the fixed scalarization used here.
  • The CBF's worst-case assumption about other vehicles may be overly conservative in sparse open water, so estimating other vessels' likely intents could unlock more aggressive performance while retaining formal guarantees.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 introduces Marine Multi-Objective Compliance-Integrated Coevolution (MMOCIC), a framework that combines cooperative coevolution of neural-network behaviors with prescribed compliance behaviors (COLREGs, stay-in-bounds) through scalarization, and adds a control-barrier-function (CBF) safety filter for hardware deployment. The central claims are that this framework achieves high team performance while avoiding collisions in a collaborative swimmer-rescue mission, demonstrated in hardware with up to 8 vehicles and in simulation with 12 vehicles, and that the scalarization weights permit zero-shot tradeoffs between rescue performance and compliance. The method is evaluated against a hand-designed baseline in three 8-vehicle hardware trials, two 4-vehicle trials with a disruptive agent, and a 50-run simulated ablation study.

Significance. If the claims are supported, MMOCIC would be a useful contribution to learning-based multi-robot marine autonomy: it addresses the realistic gap between sparse team-level objectives and low-level regulatory/safety constraints, and the decoupling of learning from compliance is conceptually clean. The CBF layer is a sensible way to provide a last-resort safety mechanism in hardware, and the use of difference fitness for implicit credit assignment is well motivated. The paper also provides falsifiable predictions and a concrete deployment study, which are strengths. However, the safety guarantee central to the headline claim is not rigorously established under the stated deployment conditions, and the empirical evidence is too limited and too poorly presented to support the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [V.A, V.D, Eq. (4)] The forward-invariance claim for the CBF safety filter is not established for the actual deployment. Section V.A states that river currents introduce unmodeled disturbances, but Eq. (4) is the standard disturbance-free barrier condition for the model in Eq. (3). With an additive disturbance w, the condition becomes L_f h + L_g h u + (∂h/∂x)·w + α(h) ≥ 0; the disturbance term is never bounded or compensated. The look-ahead parameter γ and the worst-case assumption about other vehicles’ inputs handle model linearization and adversarial intent, not environmental forcing. Therefore the 13 m invariant safe set claimed in Section IV.D is not guaranteed under currents. Either add a bounded-disturbance robustness analysis or temper the collision-free claim to an experimental observation rather than a guarantee.
  2. [Tables III, IV vs. Section IV.D] There is a direct contradiction between the stated CBF safe set and the reported safety metrics. Table III reports close encounters with range <8 m and near misses with range <4 m during hardware runs with CBFs active, yet Section IV.D defines the safe set C as the subset of x,y space 13 m away from every other vehicle. If the CBF maintained this set, such events should never occur. The tables are also internally hard to parse because the column alignment is garbled in the text. The authors must clarify whether the 13 m safe set applies during the recorded phases, whether the encounter metrics exclude CBF activations, or whether the CBF did not actually enforce the invariant set. As written, this undermines the 'avoiding collisions' part of the central claim.
  3. [VII.A, VIII.B] The empirical support for the headline hardware claims is underpowered. The 8-vehicle result rests on three trials and the 4-vehicle result on two trials, with no statistical tests, no confidence intervals, and no released logs. Statements such as 'coevolved behaviors achieve comparable performance to the baseline' and 'the coevolved team experienced fewer than or equal to the number of close encounters' are descriptive only. If the paper is positioned as a feasibility demonstration, that should be stated explicitly; if it is positioned as evidence of superiority or equivalence, statistical support is needed. The garbled tables also prevent independent verification of the numbers.
  4. [Fig. 6, VIII.C] The claim that 'coevolved behaviors always dominate the baseline' in the simulated ablation is stronger than what is shown. Each Pareto point is the average of 50 missions, but no variance or statistical comparison is reported, and the shading for dominated regions is qualitative. Given the stochastic swimmer placement and disruptive-agent behavior, average-based domination could be within noise. Please report error bars or statistical tests, or soften the claim to 'were not dominated in these experiments.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and VII] The abstract says 'up to 8 vehicles in a hardware deployment, and 12 vehicles in simulation,' but the 12-vehicle simulation includes 8 disruptive agents and only 4 rescue vehicles. The wording should be clarified to avoid overstating the scale of the learned team.
  2. [VI.C] For reproducibility, include the CCEA selection mechanism, mutation rate, population size is given (50), and the number of generations or convergence criterion. Currently the training description is incomplete.
  3. [III.A, IV.C] There are typographical and formatting issues: 'I Ris' and 'ceovolved' in Section IV.C, and the equation numbering/formatting around Eq. (7) is garbled. Please proofread the manuscript.
  4. [Tables III, IV] The tables need a clear, aligned format with unambiguous column headers. Also define 'close encounter' and 'near miss' explicitly for the hardware experiments, not only for the simulation ablation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MMOCIC is an empirical framework; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical demonstration: coevolved behaviors are trained in simulation on a sparse team fitness G(T) and evaluated in hardware and simulation. This is a standard train/evaluate procedure, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The scalarization weights in Section V.C and the zero-shot ablation study are explicit design controls, not parameters fitted to the evaluation outcomes. The CBF safety filter (Eq. 4) is taken from external prior work [27], and the safe set (13 m) is prescribed, not inferred from the reported results. Self-citations such as [31] for the CCEA and [2]/[13] for difference fitness describe training machinery but do not act as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the paper's hardware evaluation; the paper also compares against an independent hand-designed baseline. The reported close encounters and near misses in Tables III and IV despite an active CBF raise a validity/consistency question about the safety guarantee, but that is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. No step in the claimed derivation chain is equivalent by construction to an input or to the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's free parameters are mostly standard design choices (network size, sensor radii, training length). The scalarization weights are the key tunable, and in the ablation they are swept to produce the claimed Pareto front; this is the mechanism itself, not a hidden fit. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Scalarization weights w_q = Hardware: fixed (values not specified); Ablation: swept 0-100% COLREGs in 10% steps
    Weights in Eq. 2 determine the tradeoff between coevolved rescue behavior, COLREGs compliance, and Stay-In-Bounds. They are hand-set mission priorities and are swept to generate the Pareto front in Fig. 6.
  • CBF safety distance = 13 m
    Section IV.D: the safe set is defined as 13 meters away from every other vehicle; chosen by the authors as a safety margin.
  • Sensor max and saturation radii = max=100 m, sat=5 m
    Section VI.A: parameters in Eq. 7 determine the ego-centric sector sensing of swimmers and vehicles.
  • Number of sensor sectors = 8
    Section VI.A: the sensor partitions space into 8 sectors, feeding 16 inputs to the network.
  • NN hyperparameters = 16-10-5-2 MLP, tanh, pop 50, 20 configurations
    Section VI.C: architecture and CCEA parameters chosen without systematic tuning reported.
  • CBF look-ahead parameter γ = not specified
    Section V.D: the single-integrator unicycle model uses a look-ahead linearization parameter γ, inherited from [27]; value not disclosed.
  • Training duration = 30,000 missions (hardware teams); 100,000 (ablation team)
    Section VII.A/B: training lengths chosen as implementation details.
  • Capture radius for swimmer rescue = not specified
    Eq. 5 uses an indicator for capture radius but the value is not given in the text.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Scalarization of behavioral objectives (Eq. 2) yields the action that maximizes combined utility.
    Invoked in Section III.A; standard behavior-based autonomy (Brooks 1986, MOOS-IVP).
  • domain assumption Cooperative coevolution (CCEA) can optimize team-level sparse objectives via difference fitness.
    Invoked in Section V.B; based on [2], [31].
  • domain assumption Difference fitness D_i(T) (Eq. 6) correctly credits individual vehicles for team success.
    Invoked in Section IV.B; from [2].
  • domain assumption The prescribed COLREGs and Stay-In-Bounds behaviors adequately encode maritime norms.
    Invoked in Section V.A; from [22], [23]. COLREGs is a complex set of rules, and the MOOS-IVP AvdColregs behavior is a specific approximation.
  • standard math Control Barrier Functions guarantee forward invariance of the safe set (Eq. 4).
    Invoked in Section III.B; from [27].
  • domain assumption Behaviors evolved in simulation transfer to real vehicles.
    The hardware trials test this transfer, but the method design assumes the simulation model captures enough of the real world.
  • domain assumption The 8-sector sensor model (Eq. 7) provides sufficient information for coordination.
    Used in Section VI.A; assumes low-resolution sector sensing is enough to learn and execute rescue behaviors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Objective Compliance-Integrated Coevolution For Simulated And Real-World Deployment Of Multi-Robot Marine Autonomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T37VW7QB

@misc{pith2026260726279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Objective Compliance-Integrated Coevolution For Simulated And Real-World Deployment Of Multi-Robot Marine Autonomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T37VW7QB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26279}
}
read the original abstract

Collaborative robots are well-suited to maritime missions that benefit from coordination, such as the exploration of unknown reef structures, inspection of subsea infrastructure, or search-and-rescue operations. These missions typically provide sparse feedback signals for measuring progress and require adherence to safety and regulatory norms, turning a mission into a multi-objective optimization problem. Coevolutionary algorithms can process these sparse feedback signals to generate coordinated behaviors, and in some cases extend behaviors to multiple objectives. However, incorporating high-level team objectives with low-level compliance considerations on the fly to balance norm adherence with team performance remains elusive. This paper introduces a multi-objective framework that blends coevolved behaviors with compliance behaviors to achieve a balance between maximizing team progress and minimizing norm violations. The key insight is to decouple learning from compliance since operational norms are prescribed rather than discovered. We demonstrate that our framework achieves high team performance while avoiding collisions on a collaborative swimmer rescue mission with up to 8 vehicles in a hardware deployment, and 12 vehicles in simulation. The key contribution of this paper is Marine Multi-Objective Compliance-Integrated Coevolution (MMOCIC), a framework that blends team-wide optimization with established norms for real-world deployments of learning-based coordination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26279 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Problem Setting. Team success depends on each ve￾hicle (yellow Heron) simultaneously rescuing swimmers and adhering to maritime regulations. A mission objective drives a coevolved behavior to efficiently navigate toward swim￾mers, potentially requiring maneuvering through surrounding traffic. Compliance requirements, informed by COLREGs, prescribe interactions that govern safe passage relative to nearby vessels (red… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Collaborative swimmer rescue mission. Buoys are placed at the locations of swimmers (marked with green triangles). A team of autonomous vehicles (marked with yellow ovals) must coordinate to rescue randomly placed swimmers in a fixed time. Buoys were removed for experiments, but help provide an intuitive sense of scale. We introduce a taxonomy of mission and behavioral objectives in Table I. Mission objectives are s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of MMOCIC. A) Cooperative coevolution produces a set of coevolved behavioral objectives B) The vehicle aggregates input state information for each behavioral objective. C) Behavioral objectives produce utilities across the vehicle’s action space. D) Scalarization produces a combined utility from behavioral objectives to determine the desired action. E) Control filtering prevents collisions in safety-critica… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A) Sector sensor model. Green shading indicates swimmers are sensed in a sector. Red shading indicates other vehicles. Vehicles do not sense swimmers that have already been rescued. B) 8-vehicle, 40 swimmer experiment. 8 vehicles coordinate in a tight operating region …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training Curves. Coevolution produces collaborative rescue strategies through training that are competitive with a baseline behavior designed using domain expertise. Our hardware deployments are risk-averse since collisions could halt further testing. In simulation, we…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation Study. Here we see how the best possible tradeoffs between different team level outcomes change throughout a simulated deployment. We see consistently better tradeoff options from the coevolved behaviors compared to the baseline. In fact, the coevolved behavio…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Washington, DC: U.S

    United States Coast Guard,Navigation Rules and Regulations Hand- book. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2024, as amended September 18, 2020 (85 FR 58268). This handbook supersedes COMDTINST M16672.2D

    2024

  2. [2]

    Efficient evaluation functions for multi- rover systems,

    A. Agogino and K. Tumer, “Efficient evaluation functions for multi- rover systems,” inGenetic and Evolutionary Computation – GECCO 2004, K. Deb, Ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 1–11

    2004

  3. [3]

    Cooperative coevolution: An architecture for evolving coadapted subcomponents,

    M. A. Potter and K. A. De Jong, “Cooperative coevolution: An architecture for evolving coadapted subcomponents,”Evol. Comput., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1–29, Mar. 2000

    2000

  4. [4]

    Environment driven dynamic decomposition for cooperative coevolution of multi-agent systems,

    L. Kelly, M. Masek, and C.-P. Lam, “Environment driven dynamic decomposition for cooperative coevolution of multi-agent systems,” inProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, ser. GECCO ’22. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2022, p. 1218–1226. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3512290.3528759

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Learning autonomous ma- rine behaviors in moos-ivp,

    A. Gupta, M. Novitzky, and M. Benjamin, “Learning autonomous ma- rine behaviors in moos-ivp,” inOCEANS 2018 MTS/IEEE Charleston, 2018, pp. 1–10

    2018

  6. [6]

    Data-driven performance-prescribed reinforcement learning control of an unmanned surface vehicle,

    N. Wang, Y . Gao, and X. Zhang, “Data-driven performance-prescribed reinforcement learning control of an unmanned surface vehicle,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 5456–5467, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Learn to navigate: Cooperative path planning for unmanned surface vehicles using deep reinforcement learning,

    X. Zhou, P. Wu, H. Zhang, W. Guo, and Y . Liu, “Learn to navigate: Cooperative path planning for unmanned surface vehicles using deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 165 262–165 278, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    A sim-to-real transfer framework for enhancing marine vehicle performance in ocean environments,

    Z. Zheng, Z. Wang, and W. Xie, “A sim-to-real transfer framework for enhancing marine vehicle performance in ocean environments,” in 2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2025, pp. 1558–1565

    2025

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Marinegym: A high-performance reinforcement learning platform for underwater robotics,

    S. Chu, Z. Huang, Y . Li, M. Lin, D. Li, I. Carlucho, Y . R. Petillot, and C. Yang, “Marinegym: A high-performance reinforcement learning platform for underwater robotics,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2025, pp. 17 146–17 153

    2025

  2. [10]

    L. Hu, W. Naeem, E. Rajabally, G. Watson, T. Mills, Z. Bhuiyan, and I. Salter, “Colregs-compliant path planning for autonomous surface vehicles: A multiobjective optimization approach**the authors should like to thank innovate uk, grant reference, tsb 102308, for the funding o...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Evolutionary reinforcement learning for sparse rewards,

    S. Zhu, F. Belardinelli, and B. G. Le ´on, “Evolutionary reinforcement learning for sparse rewards,” inProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, ser. GECCO ’21. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021, p. 1508–1512. [On...

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Evolutionary computation for sparse multi-objective optimization: A survey,

    S. Shao, Y . Tian, Y . Zhang, S. Yang, P. Zhang, C. He, X. Zhang, and Y . Jin, “Evolutionary computation for sparse multi-objective optimization: A survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 57, no. 11, Jun

  5. [13]

    D++: Structural credit assignment in tightly coupled multiagent domains,

    A. Rahmattalabi, J. J. Chung, M. Colby, and K. Tumer, “D++: Structural credit assignment in tightly coupled multiagent domains,” in2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2016, pp. 4424–4429

    2016

  6. [14]

    Global optimal path planning for multi-agent flocking: A multi-objective optimization approach with nsga-iii,

    A. Kesireddy, W. Shan, and H. Xu, “Global optimal path planning for multi-agent flocking: A multi-objective optimization approach with nsga-iii,” in2019 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI), 2019, pp. 64–71

    2019

  7. [15]

    Multi-objective multi- criteria evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective multi-task optimiza- tion,

    K.-J. Du, J.-Y . Li, H. Wang, and J. Zhang, “Multi-objective multi- criteria evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective multi-task optimiza- tion,”Complex & Intelligent Systems, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1211–1228, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Multi-usv deep reinforcement learning for distributed cooperative target tracking,

    C.-C. Wang, Y .-L. Wang, and C. Peng, “Multi-usv deep reinforcement learning for distributed cooperative target tracking,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS), 2022, pp. 242–247

    2022

  9. [17]

    Autonomous environmental exploration and target tracking control for unmanned surface vehicles in uncertain environment,

    K. Zhu, S. Kong, F. Wu, J. Sun, and J. Yu, “Autonomous environmental exploration and target tracking control for unmanned surface vehicles in uncertain environment,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR), 2024, pp. 172–177

    2024

  10. [18]

    Cooperative target fencing of uncertain multi-usvs: A reinforcement learning-based approach,

    G. Gong, D. Zhao, Z. Luo, and G. Wen, “Cooperative target fencing of uncertain multi-usvs: A reinforcement learning-based approach,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 8006–8017, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Evaluating collaborative autonomy in opposed environments using maritime capture-the-flag competitions,

    J. Beason, M. Novitzky, J. Kliem, T. Errico, Z. Serlin, K. Becker, T. Paine, M. Benjamin, P. Dasgupta, P. Crowley, C. O’Donnell, and J. James, “Evaluating collaborative autonomy in opposed environments using maritime capture-the-flag competitions,” 2024. [Online]. Available: h...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Nested autonomy for unmanned marine vehicles with moos-ivp,

    M. R. Benjamin, H. Schmidt, P. M. Newman, and J. J. Leonard, “Nested autonomy for unmanned marine vehicles with moos-ivp,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 834–875, Novem- ber/December 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    A study on the effectiveness of moos-ivp for unmanned surface vehicle,

    T. Kim, Y . Lee, J. Park, and H.-T. Choi, “A study on the effectiveness of moos-ivp for unmanned surface vehicle,” in2017 IEEE Underwater Technology (UT), 2017, pp. 1–3

    2017

  14. [22]

    Moos-ivp avdcolregs behavior,

    M. Benjamin, “Moos-ivp avdcolregs behavior,” 2025, https: //oceanai.mit.edu/ivpman/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=BHV .Colregs [Accessed: 2025-09-15]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Moos-ivp opregion behavior,

    ——, “Moos-ivp opregion behavior,” 2025, https://oceanai.mit.edu/ ivpman/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=BHV .OpRegion [Accessed: 2025-09- 15]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Safety-critical model-free control for multi-target tracking of usvs with collision avoidance,

    S. Gao, Z. Peng, H. Wang, L. Liu, and D. Wang, “Safety-critical model-free control for multi-target tracking of usvs with collision avoidance,”IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1323–1326, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Coordinated landing control for cross-domain uav-usv fleets using heterogeneous-feature matching,

    J. Ding, H.-T. Zhang, and B.-B. Hu, “Coordinated landing control for cross-domain uav-usv fleets using heterogeneous-feature matching,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 12 041–12 047

    2024

  18. [26]

    A robust layered control system for a mobile robot,

    R. Brooks, “A robust layered control system for a mobile robot,”IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 14–23, 1986

    1986

  19. [27]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861–3876, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    I. M. Organization,COLREG: Convention on the International Regu- lations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972. IMO, 2003

    1972

  21. [29]

    Fullest colregs evaluation using fuzzy logic for collaborative decision-making analysis of autonomous ships in complex situations,

    A. Bakdi and E. Vanem, “Fullest colregs evaluation using fuzzy logic for collaborative decision-making analysis of autonomous ships in complex situations,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 18 433–18 445, 2022. [30]Autonomous Ship Nav...

    2022

  22. [31]

    Gonzalez, G

    E. Gonzalez, G. Dixit, and K. Tumer,Dynamic Influence For Coevo- lutionary Agents. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 368–376

    2025

  23. [32]

    Adversarial resilience for sampled-data systems using control barrier function methods,

    J. Usevitch and D. Panagou, “Adversarial resilience for sampled-data systems using control barrier function methods,” in2021 American Control Conference (ACC), 2021, pp. 758–763

    2021

  24. [2025]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3734865

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3734865

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.