Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

AMR-Pose: An Active LED Marker-Based Relative Pose Estimation Framework With Probabilistic Switching PnP for Cooperative AUVs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Active LED markers and a probabilistic switching PnP estimator keep two AUVs' relative pose accurate and smooth even when only some LEDs are visible.

desk verdict Solid engineering integration of active LED markers with a switching EKF, but the evaluation is thin on statistical rigor and the constant-acceleration prior is untested under abrupt maneuvers. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12866 v1 pith:Q5RS2POD submitted 2026-08-13 cs.RO

Zeyu Sha , Xiaorui Wang , Mingyang Yang , Feitian Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords activeLEDmarkersrelativeposeestimationautonomousunderwatervehiclesPerspective-n-PointLiegroupSE(3)probabilisticdataassociationvisibility-adaptivefilteringleader-followercontrol
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 is trying to establish that two cooperating underwater robots can keep an accurate, continuous six-degree-of-freedom estimate of their relative pose even when the active LED marker on the leader is partially hidden, by letting the estimator switch between two measurement modes. Ordinary frame-by-frame PnP pose solving fails in this setting because it needs all four LEDs matched and ignores motion continuity; the proposed PSwPnP estimator instead propagates the pose on the Lie group $SE(3)$, associates detections probabilistically, and uses a pixel-level update when only one to three LEDs are available. The authors support the claim with water-tank experiments: 0.032 m translation RMSE and 0.032 rad rotation RMSE over 45 motion-capture-validated trials, better than frame-wise PnP baselines by large margins, plus a closed-loop leader-follower demonstration. If the claim holds, cooperative underwater navigation and formation control no longer need a full unobstructed marker view at every frame.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a probabilistic switching Perspective-n-Point (PnP) estimator built on three coupled parts. First, the relative pose lives on the Lie group $SE(3)$, with a state of pose, twist, and twist acceleration; a discrete-time constant-acceleration motion model propagates the pose and its covariance between frames. Second, probabilistic marker association scores each detection against four LED trackers using either the tracker's image-plane prediction filter or the rigid-body reprojection prior, then solves a one-to-one assignment with a linear-assignment algorithm, while an existence-aware visibility manager smooths each LED's survival evidence in logit space and decides which LEDs are reliable. Third, the measurement update is visibility-adaptive: pose-level loose coupling for four visible LEDs and pixel-level tight coupling for one to three, so partial observations still constrain the full 6-DoF state through the motion model. The switching is what carries the argument: it lets the filter trade geometric richness of PnP against temporal continuity of direct pixel measurements.

What would settle it

Run the same water-tank protocol but replace the smooth 30-degree yaw maneuvers with abrupt, high-jerk heading steps or a sudden dive that begins inside the three-LED segment, and check the estimates against motion-capture ground truth. Sharp error spikes during those segments would show that the constant-acceleration prior, not the switching visibility mechanism, is doing the work, whereas uninterrupted low error would strengthen the paper's claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that relative pose estimation between an active-marker-carrying leader and a camera-carrying follower can be made resilient to marker occlusion and detection clutter by fusing a Lie-group motion prior with visibility-adaptive measurements inside one recursive estimator, PSwPnP. When all four LEDs are reliably observed, the estimator solves a PnP problem and uses the result as a pose-level measurement; when one to three LEDs are observed, it uses their raw pixel projections in a tight-coupling update; when none are observed, it keeps only the $SE(3)$ prediction. Marker identity is maintained by probabilistic association and per-LED existence probabilities, so LEDs that disappear and reappear keep their labels. The experiments report that this design reduces translation RMSE to 0.032 m and rotation RMSE to 0.032 rad across 45 trials, while frame-wise PnP methods incur translation errors above 0.4 m and rotation errors near 0.9 rad under the same conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The filter's continuity during partial visibility rests on the assumption that the leader's relative motion acceleration stays nearly constant between camera frames, with only small random disturbances; if the leader accelerates sharply while only one or two LEDs are visible, the predicted pose can drift and the few pixel measurements may not be enough to correct it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A follower AUV can continue estimating the leader's six-degree-of-freedom pose while the leader turns and occludes two of its four LEDs, instead of freezing the last pose or dropping to dead reckoning.
  • Probabilistic association and logit-smoothed existence probabilities keep LED identities stable across disappearances and reappearances, so a recovered LED rejoins the estimate with its true label.
  • Temporal propagation on $SE(3)$, rather than any single-frame PnP solver, is the component that prevents pose jitter: removing it raises rotation RMSE from 0.032 rad to 0.587 rad in the reported trials.
  • The estimated pose is accurate and smooth enough to close a real-time leader-follower control loop, as demonstrated by the follower holding a roughly 1.8 m following distance while the leader translates and rotates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The switching structure is not specific to four LEDs or to water; any sparse active or passive marker set with partial occlusion could use the same pose-level/pixel-level switching, provided a motion model for the target exists.
  • The experiments cover smooth yaw maneuvers in clear tank water; open-water turbidity, variable lighting, and abrupt leader accelerations remain untested, and those are the conditions most likely to break the brightness- and color-based LED segmentation.
  • When no LEDs are visible the filter keeps only the motion prediction, so the estimator degrades to dead reckoning; the paper does not quantify how long that prediction remains usable, which is a natural extension.
  • A direct observability analysis of one- and two-LED pixel updates could tell practitioners when the tight-coupling update is genuinely informative and when it only slows the drift of the motion prior.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes AMR-Pose, a hardware-plus-estimation system for 6-DoF relative pose estimation between a follower AUV and a leader AUV that carries an active LED marker array (one red central LED and three blue peripheral LEDs). The estimation layer, PSwPnP, is an SE(3) Lie-group EKF with a constant-twist-acceleration motion model, probabilistic marker association, existence-aware visibility management, and measurement updates that switch between a pose-level PnP update when all four LEDs are visible and a pixel-level tight-coupling update when one to three LEDs are visible. The paper reports water-tank experiments with motion-capture ground truth over 45 trials, including ablations, comparisons with frame-wise EPnP-LM and GMLPnP baselines, annotated 4-3-4 visibility transitions, and a closed-loop leader-follower experiment. The headline results are an overall translation RMSE of 0.032 m and rotation RMSE of 0.032 rad for PSwPnP.

Significance. The proposed framework is a reasonable integration of existing techniques: active LED fiducials, Lie-group EKF prediction, probabilistic data association, and visibility-based measurement selection. The experimental methodology has real strengths: external motion-capture ground truth, a dedicated 4-3-4 visibility transition study, and ablation variants that isolate components. The estimator derivation follows standard Lie-group EKF literature and appears internally consistent, and the closed-loop demonstration is useful evidence of practical deployability. However, the significance is limited by the absence of parameter values and trial-level variance, by a motion model that is only tested on smooth yaw maneuvers, and by baselines that are not competitive by design. If the missing information is supplied and the robustness claims are appropriately scoped, the paper would be a useful contribution to cooperative AUV perception; in its current form, the quantitative claims are not fully supportable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C (Eq. 16) and Section IV-A/E, Tables I-II] The key robustness claim for partial visibility rests on the constant-twist-acceleration random-walk prior in Eq. (16). With 1-3 visible LEDs, each pixel measurement provides at most 2m_k scalar constraints, so the unconstrained translational and rotational DOFs are supplied largely by the predicted pose. The experiments, however, only exercise a scripted 50 s yaw maneuver with smooth 30-degree rotations and hover segments; no step changes in acceleration, rapid translation, or high-bandwidth disturbance is included. Under an abrupt leader maneuver the prior can bias the few pixel residuals, and the visible LEDs cannot fully correct drift, so the reported mid-3-LED accuracy (Table II: e_t=0.036 m, e_r=0.042 rad) is evidence for the prior plus measurement combination only in the smooth-maneuver regime. Please add experiments with aggressive or step maneuvers, or explicitly restrict the claimed partial-visibility robustness to smooth relative motion.
  2. [Section IV-A and Table I] All PSwPnP parameters are declared fixed for all experiments but never listed: Q_v, Q_a, R_proj, R_pix, R_det, lambda_clutter, p_survive, p_D, beta, sigma_pix, E_use, E_delete, E_confirm, and the initialization acceptance threshold in Eq. (8). Without these values the results cannot be reproduced, and it is impossible to assess whether the reported 0.032 m / 0.032 rad RMSE is robust or was tuned to the test conditions. Please provide a table of all parameter values and a sensitivity analysis, or at least an explicit statement of how the parameters were chosen on separate validation data.
  3. [Tables I and II (Section IV-D/E)] All quantitative comparisons are reported as single averages over 45 trials, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. Some improvements are large, but metrics such as P_{4->3}, P_{3->4}, ID agreement, and per-segment RMSEs can vary substantially across trials and target locations; the reader cannot judge whether differences are stable or dominated by a few trials. Please report trial-level variability (e.g., standard deviations, box plots, or per-location tables) and, where relevant, significance tests.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-B and Table I] The frame-wise PnP baselines are not allowed any temporal filtering and freeze the previous pose when fewer than four LEDs are visible, so their poor performance under partial visibility is partly by construction; I recommend reframing these comparisons as sanity checks and foregrounding the w/o EKF ablation, which is the informative control for the value of the Lie-group predictor.
  2. [Section IV-A, Fig. 5] The motion-capture settings in Fig. 5 list 'Shutter Speed: 90Hz'; this appears to be a frame rate rather than a shutter speed and should be corrected.
  3. [Section V and Section IV-A] The 'real-time' feasibility claim would be strengthened by reporting the per-frame processing time and camera frame rate; currently no runtime numbers are given.
  4. [Section III-F, Eq. (52)] The notation in Eq. (52) is confusing: H_{iℓ,k} is defined as ∂π/∂p_c times ∂p_c/∂δξ_ℓ, and then H_{iξ,k} is written as H_{iℓ,k} J_ℓ(ξ̂); please clarify which quantity is the measurement Jacobian and define δξ_ℓ explicitly before first use.
  5. [Throughout] Please correct the typos: 'tranlation' in the Table I note, 'markder' in Section IV-C, 'intermdediate' in Section IV-A, and 'PIgment' in Fig. 2.
  6. [References] References [20] and [21] are the same paper (Kim and Eustice, 'Real-time visual SLAM for autonomous underwater hull inspection using visual saliency') and should be merged into one entry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the estimator is validated against external motion capture and its components are standard, independently checkable building blocks.

full rationale

I found no load-bearing step in which a predicted quantity is equivalent to an input by construction. The pose filter propagates a constant-twist-acceleration model (Eqs. 15-16) and fuses either pose-level PnP residuals (Eqs. 42-49) or pixel-level projection residuals (Eqs. 51-55); the measurements entering these updates are image centroids, and the benchmark is an independent underwater motion-capture system, not the estimator's own inputs. The ablation variants and frame-wise PnP baselines are evaluated on the same external ground truth, so the central accuracy claim (0.032 m / 0.032 rad RMSE) is not derived from the definition of PSwPnP. The only self-citation is [35], which identifies the OpenAUV platform used in the experiments; it supplies no estimation equations, uniqueness argument, or ansatz, and therefore is not circular. The constant-acceleration assumption and the fixed parameter statement ('The parameters of PSwPnP were fixed for all reported experiments') are correctness and robustness concerns, not equation-level reductions; no step in the paper reduces its predictions to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The estimator relies on standard Lie-group identities, a strong smooth-motion prior, and well-calibrated sensing. The many tuning parameters are not reported, so the reader cannot tell how much of the reported performance is due to the framework versus careful parameter selection.

free parameters (11)
  • Q_v = not reported
    Process noise covariance for twist; controls trust in the constant-twist prediction in Eq. (16).
  • Q_a = not reported
    Process noise covariance for twist acceleration; controls how quickly the model allows acceleration changes.
  • R_proj = not reported
    Projection noise covariance used in the reprojection prior for association in Eq. (28).
  • R_pix = not reported
    Pixel measurement noise covariance in the tight-coupling update in Eq. (54).
  • R_det = not reported
    Detection measurement covariance for image-plane Kalman trackers in Eq. (38).
  • lambda_clutter = not reported
    Clutter intensity used in initialization acceptance (Eq. 8) and association likelihood (Eq. 30).
  • p_survive = not reported
    Survival probability in the existence model, Eq. (33).
  • p_D = not reported
    Detection probability in the existence posterior, Eq. (35).
  • beta = not reported
    Logit-space smoothing factor for existence probability, Eq. (37).
  • sigma_pix = not reported
    Pixel noise standard deviation in the initialization hypothesis score, Eq. (6).
  • E_use, E_delete, E_confirm = not reported
    Thresholds for existence probability that gate reliable markers, trigger deletion, and confirm lost trackers in Section III-E.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Lie group SE(3) properties, left Jacobian, adjoint, and first-order BCH approximation from [31], [32].
    Used throughout Section III-C for pose prediction and Jacobian derivation.
  • domain assumption The leader's twist acceleration is constant between sampling instants with Gaussian noise (Eq. 16).
    Central motion prior for prediction; supports continuity under partial visibility.
  • domain assumption Camera intrinsics, extrinsics, and LED geometry are accurately calibrated (Section IV-A).
    Pose estimation assumes known 3D marker coordinates and camera model.
  • domain assumption HSV segmentation and morphological filtering correctly extract LED centroids and their red/blue labels (Section II-B).
    The entire observation pipeline depends on this; no failure cases are analyzed.
  • domain assumption Clutter and missed detections follow the modeled uniform Poisson process with intensity lambda_clutter (Eqs. 8, 30).
    Association and initialization probabilities assume this noise model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AMR-Pose: An Active LED Marker-Based Relative Pose Estimation Framework With Probabilistic Switching PnP for Cooperative AUVs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5RS2POD

@misc{pith2026260812866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AMR-Pose: An Active LED Marker-Based Relative Pose Estimation Framework With Probabilistic Switching PnP for Cooperative AUVs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5RS2POD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12866}
}
abstract

Reliable relative pose estimation between autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) is critical for cooperative ocean exploration, sampling, and multi-robot coordination. However, achieving robust vision-based relative localization in underwater environments remains challenging due to severe optical degradation, including turbidity, illumination variations, reflections, and intermittent feature occlusions. This paper presents AMR-Pose, an active LED marker-based relative pose estimation framework for cooperative AUVs. A compact marker module consisting of one red central LED and three blue peripheral LEDs is developed and integrated onto the leader AUV to provide distinctive visual features under complex underwater conditions. Building upon the detected marker observations, a probabilistic switching Perspective-n-Point estimator (PSwPnP) is developed by combining Lie-group pose propagation on $SE(3)$, probabilistic marker association, and visibility-adaptive measurement fusion for robust six-degree-of-freedom relative pose estimation. The proposed framework dynamically adapts the estimation process according to marker visibility, maintaining geometric consistency and temporal stability during partial observations and visibility transitions. Extensive water-tank experiments with motion-capture ground truth validate that AMR-Pose achieves accurate, smooth, and robust relative pose estimation under challenging underwater conditions. Closed-loop leader-follower experiments further demonstrate its feasibility for real-time relative pose feedback in cooperative underwater robotics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed AMR-Pose framework. AMR-Pose inte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Design and fabrication of the proposed active LED marker module. The module integrates a pressure-resistant housing, LED emitters, a driver circuit, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System integration of the active LED marker module with the AUV. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the proposed AMR-Pose framework. The estimator integrates Lie-group pose prediction, probabilistic marker association, existence-aware [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental setup, including the water tank, underwater motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative 6-DoF relative pose estimation results at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Representative 4–3–4 marker visibility transition at the (1.4, 0) m test location during target yaw rotation. 2) Effect of Existence Probability: As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Closed-loop leader–follower experiment with AMR-Pose deployment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I-AUV mechatronics integration for the TRIDENT FP7 project,

    D. Ribas, P. Ridao, A. Turetta, C. Melchiorri, G. Palli, J. J. Fern ´andez, and P. J. Sanz, “I-AUV mechatronics integration for the TRIDENT FP7 project,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 2583–2592, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Robust adaptive tracking control of underwater vehicles: Design, stability analysis, and experi- ments,

    A. S. Tijjani, A. Chemori, and V . Creuze, “Robust adaptive tracking control of underwater vehicles: Design, stability analysis, and experi- ments,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 897–907, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    A collision-free planning and control framework for a biomimetic underwater vehicle in dynamic environments,

    J. Lv, Y . Wang, S. Wang, X. Bai, R. Wang, and M. Tan, “A collision-free planning and control framework for a biomimetic underwater vehicle in dynamic environments,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1415–1424, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Underwater per- ception and autonomous operation for underwater vehicle-manipulator systems: Methodology and experiment,

    C. Jiang, X. Xiong, X. Xiang, Z. Zeng, and F. Zhang, “Underwater per- ception and autonomous operation for underwater vehicle-manipulator systems: Methodology and experiment,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 5029–5040, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Development of an underwater manipulator and its free-floating autonomous operation,

    Y . Wang, S. Wang, Q. Wei, M. Tan, C. Zhou, and J. Yu, “Development of an underwater manipulator and its free-floating autonomous operation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 815–824, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A passivity-based model-free force–motion control of underwater vehicle- manipulator systems,

    E. Olgu ´ın-D´ıaz, G. Arechavaleta, G. Jarqu ´ın, and V . Parra-Vega, “A passivity-based model-free force–motion control of underwater vehicle- manipulator systems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1469–1484, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Optimizing constrained search patterns for remote mine-hunting vehicles,

    M. Couillard, J. Fawcett, and M. Davison, “Optimizing constrained search patterns for remote mine-hunting vehicles,”IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 75–84, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    The application of fully unmanned robotic systems for inspection of subsea pipelines,

    A. G. Rumson, “The application of fully unmanned robotic systems for inspection of subsea pipelines,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 235, p. 109214, 2021. 11

    work page 2021

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Real time map generation using sidescan sonar scanlines for unmanned underwater vehicles,

    E. Chen and J. Guo, “Real time map generation using sidescan sonar scanlines for unmanned underwater vehicles,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 91, pp. 252–262, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Adaptive neural control of flight-style AUV for subsea cable tracking under electromagnetic local- ization guidance,

    J. Zhang, X. Xiang, W. Li, and Q. Zhang, “Adaptive neural control of flight-style AUV for subsea cable tracking under electromagnetic local- ization guidance,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2976–2987, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Nonlinear rise-based control of an autonomous underwater vehicle,

    N. Fischer, D. Hughes, P. Walters, E. M. Schwartz, and W. E. Dixon, “Nonlinear rise-based control of an autonomous underwater vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 845–852, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Large-area visually augmented navigation for au- tonomous underwater vehicles,

    R. M. Eustice, “Large-area visually augmented navigation for au- tonomous underwater vehicles,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts In- stitute of Technology, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Multi- AUV cooperative underwater multi-target tracking based on dynamic- switching-enabled multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    S. Wang, C. Lin, G. Han, S. Zhu, Z. Li, Z. Wang, and Y . Ma, “Multi- AUV cooperative underwater multi-target tracking based on dynamic- switching-enabled multi-agent reinforcement learning,”IEEE Transac- tions on Mobile Computing, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4296–4311, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    3D detection and tracking of a moving object by an autonomous underwater vehicle with a multibeam imaging sonar: Toward continuous observation of marine life,

    S. Chun, C. Kawamura, K. Ohkuma, and T. Maki, “3D detection and tracking of a moving object by an autonomous underwater vehicle with a multibeam imaging sonar: Toward continuous observation of marine life,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3037– 3044, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    AQUA-SLAM: Tightly coupled un- derwater acoustic-visual-inertial SLAM with sensor calibration,

    S. Xu, K. Zhang, and S. Wang, “AQUA-SLAM: Tightly coupled un- derwater acoustic-visual-inertial SLAM with sensor calibration,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 2785–2803, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    A multi- AUV collaborative mapping system with bathymetric cooperative active SLAM algorithm,

    C. Qi, T. Ma, Y . Li, Y . Ling, Y . Liao, and Y . Jiang, “A multi- AUV collaborative mapping system with bathymetric cooperative active SLAM algorithm,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 12 441–12 452, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Binocular vision-based motion planning of an AUV: A deep reinforcement learning approach,

    J. Yan, K. You, W. Cao, X. Yang, and X. Guan, “Binocular vision-based motion planning of an AUV: A deep reinforcement learning approach,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 5299–5315, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    An accurate calibration method for multilayer refractive imaging in underwater 3-D scanning,

    J.-h. Zhang, W.-l. Li, R. Chen, X.-s. Zheng, Y .-m. Tian, B. Yang, and Y . Wan, “An accurate calibration method for multilayer refractive imaging in underwater 3-D scanning,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1107–1118, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Russo: Robust underwater SLAM with sonar optimization against visual degradation,

    S. Pan, Z. Hong, Z. Hu, X. Xu, W. Lu, and L. Hu, “Russo: Robust underwater SLAM with sonar optimization against visual degradation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 5456– 5467, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Real-time visual SLAM for autonomous underwater hull inspection using visual saliency,

    A. Kim and R. M. Eustice, “Real-time visual SLAM for autonomous underwater hull inspection using visual saliency,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 719–733, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Real-time visual SLAM for autonomous underwater hull inspection using visual saliency,

    Kim, Ayoung and Eustice, Ryan M., “Real-time visual SLAM for autonomous underwater hull inspection using visual saliency,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 719–733, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Underwater space suit performance assessments part 1: Motion capture system development and validation,

    Y . Hernandez, K. H. Kim, E. Benson, S. Jarvis, I. Meginnis, and S. Ra- julu, “Underwater space suit performance assessments part 1: Motion capture system development and validation,”International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 72, pp. 119–127, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Dual- type marker fusion-based underwater visual localization for autonomous docking,

    C. Zhao, H. Dong, J. Wang, T. Qiao, J. Yu, and J. Ren, “Dual- type marker fusion-based underwater visual localization for autonomous docking,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1–11, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Robust underwater positioning system using LED markers and Perspective-n-point solver,

    E. Kitano, T. Ebihara, N. Wakatsuki, and Y . Maeda, “Robust underwater positioning system using LED markers and Perspective-n-point solver,” in2025 IEEE Underwater Technology (UT), 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  17. [25]

    AUV docking experiments based on vision positioning using two cameras,

    Y . Li, Y . Jiang, J. Cao, B. Wang, and Y . Li, “AUV docking experiments based on vision positioning using two cameras,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 110, pp. 163–173, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    A stereo visual navigation method for docking autonomous underwater vehicles,

    S. Xu, Y . Jiang, Y . Li, B. Wang, T. Xie, S. Li, H. Qi, A. Li, and J. Cao, “A stereo visual navigation method for docking autonomous underwater vehicles,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 374–395, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    EPnP: An accurate O(n) solution to the PnP problem,

    V . Lepetit, F. Moreno-Noguer, and P. Fua, “EPnP: An accurate O(n) solution to the PnP problem,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 155–166, 2009

    2009

  20. [28]

    A temporal perspective n-point problem with model uncertainties for cooperative pose estima- tion in a heterogeneous robot team,

    F. Steidle, S. Boche, W. St ¨urzl, and R. Triebel, “A temporal perspective n-point problem with model uncertainties for cooperative pose estima- tion in a heterogeneous robot team,” in2023 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR), 2023, pp. 1–7

    2023

  21. [29]

    Depth-based efficient PnP: A rapid and accurate method for camera pose estimation,

    X. Xie and D. Zou, “Depth-based efficient PnP: A rapid and accurate method for camera pose estimation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 9287–9294, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Generalized maximum likelihood estimation for Perspective-n-point problem,

    T. Zhan, C. Xu, C. Zhang, and K. Zhu, “Generalized maximum likelihood estimation for Perspective-n-point problem,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1752–1759, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics,

    J. Sol `a, J. Deray, and D. Atchuthan, “A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    T. D. Barfoot,State Estimation for Robotics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Associating uncertainty with three- dimensional poses for use in estimation problems,

    T. D. Barfoot and P. T. Furgale, “Associating uncertainty with three- dimensional poses for use in estimation problems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    The hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The hungarian method for the assignment problem,”Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1–2, pp. 83–97, 1955

    1955

  27. [35]

    A portable au- tonomous underwater vehicle with multi-thruster propulsion: Design, development, and vision-based tracking control,

    Z. Sha, X. Wang, M. Yang, H. Lei, and F. Zhang, “A portable au- tonomous underwater vehicle with multi-thruster propulsion: Design, development, and vision-based tracking control,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 3046–3053, 2025. Zeyu Sha(Student Membe...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.