Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Novel Pigeon-inspired 3D Obstacle Detection and Avoidance Maneuver for Multi-UAV Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a pigeon-inspired 3D avoidance law that lets a trapped UAV escape vertically from a corridor blocked by a neighbor and a wall.

desk verdict The 3D avoidance claim fails algebraically: the rotation matrices are orthogonal, so Eq. (22) is the same radial potential as Eq. (15), and no out-of-plane force is generated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00443 v1 pith:5ULSN7HS submitted 2025-07-01 cs.RO cs.AIcs.MA

Reza Ahmadvand , Sarah Safura Sharif , Yaser Mike Banad This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.MA
keywords multi-UAVsystemsobstacleavoidancepigeon-inspiredcontrolformationcentroidalVoronoitessellationLloyd'salgorithmartificialpotentialfield3Dmaneuvers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a semi-distributed control architecture for a flock of UAVs that must hold formation while avoiding static and dynamic obstacles. Formation positions come from a centralized probabilistic Lloyd algorithm that computes a centroidal Voronoi tessellation, while each UAV runs a distributed layer for inter-vehicle collision avoidance and obstacle avoidance. The central new claim is a 3D obstacle-avoidance maneuver built by inserting products of 3D rotation matrices into the rotational potential field of a prior pigeon-inspired method, which is supposed to give each UAV an extra degree of freedom to dodge out of the motion plane. The authors argue this prevents the common failure where a UAV is trapped between a neighbor and a wall, and they demonstrate the approach in simulations with 8 UAVs in 2D and 12 UAVs in 3D. If the mechanism works as claimed, urban swarms could pass through narrow corridors without re-planning the whole formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the rotational potential field $U_r = \frac{k_r}{2}\|T_{rx}T_{ry}T_{rz}(\mathbf{p}_i - \mathbf{o}_k)\|^2$, where $T_{rx}, T_{ry}, T_{rz}$ are rotation matrices about the UAV's body axes and $\alpha$ is a detection-range-dependent angle. The paper's intent is that this potential, when added to the obstacle-avoidance control law, redirects the avoidance force out of the planar motion surface. The rest of the architecture is the semi-distributed split: a centralized probabilistic Lloyd's algorithm supplies centroidal Voronoi tessellation goals for formation, and local potential-field controllers handle collisions and obstacles on-board.

What would settle it

Differentiate the rotational potential in Eq. (22) symbolically with respect to $\mathbf{p}_i$ for a single obstacle at $\alpha \in (0, \pi/2)$ and compare the resulting force vector with the planar gradient in Eq. (16); if the two directions coincide for all $\alpha$, the claimed out-of-plane mechanism is absent. A simulation that records the $z$-component of the avoidance command during the corridor passage would provide the same test in closed loop.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, stated on its own terms, is that the planar pigeon-inspired obstacle avoidance law can be extended to non-planar maneuvers by replacing the 2D rotation matrix $T_r$ with a triple product $T_{rx}T_{ry}T_{rz}$ inside the rotational potential, giving the avoidance force a component normal to the flock's motion plane. The product is claimed to give UAVs an extra degree of freedom, so a UAV whose horizontal paths are blocked by a neighbor and a wall can choose a vertical path that is always available. The paper also claims the semi-distributed structure improves scalability: the previous 2D method was limited to 6 or 8 agents, while the 3D version is simulated with 12 UAVs in the presence of buildings, static obstacles, and a moving obstacle, with formation recovery after the passage.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 3D maneuver rests on the idea that rotating the relative-position vector inside the potential field pushes the avoidance force in a new direction; if that rotation leaves the force direction unchanged, the claimed escape route is not produced by this term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A UAV pinned between a neighboring UAV and a wall gains a vertical escape path instead of stalling or waiting.
  • The flock can resolve a local blockage by individual action, so the formation does not need to be globally re-planned to pass a narrow corridor.
  • The avoidance layer remains fully distributed, so the local controller logic does not change as the swarm grows from 8 to 12 UAVs in simulation.
  • Because the control law and main assumptions are unchanged from the 2D version, the stability argument from the prior method is claimed to carry over to the 3D maneuver.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural verification step, not carried out in the paper, is to differentiate Eq. (22) explicitly and compare the force direction with Eq. (16); since the rotation matrices are orthogonal, the squared norm in the potential is invariant, so any real out-of-plane force would have to come from another term or be demonstrated by direct force measurement.
  • If the out-of-plane force is confirmed, the same rotational-potential construction could transfer to ground or marine swarms moving on a 2D manifold embedded in 3D, because the mathematics only requires a normal direction.
  • The semi-distributed Lloyd-based formation layer could be coupled with a local model-predictive planner to make the 3D maneuver proactive rather than purely reactive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-distributed formation controller for multi-UAV systems that combines a centralized Lloyd-algorithm-based deployment with distributed inter-vehicle collision avoidance and obstacle avoidance. Its stated main novelty is a 3D obstacle avoidance maneuver obtained by inserting 3D rotation matrices into the rotational potential of a pigeon-inspired 2D obstacle avoidance method. The paper reports simulations with 8 UAVs (planar maneuvers) and 12 UAVs (3D maneuvers), and concludes that the method is valid, scalable, and capable of avoiding static and dynamic obstacles in urban-like environments.

Significance. If the 3D maneuver worked as claimed, it would address a genuine limitation of planar artificial potential fields in urban canyon scenarios, where a UAV can become stuck between a wall and a neighbor. The Lloyd-based formation controller and the conical FOV detection rule are sensible incremental components, and the simulation setup is documented with a code repository, which is commendable. However, the central mathematical claim is invalid: because the rotation matrices in Eq. (22) are orthogonal, the rotational potential is norm-invariant and cannot produce any out-of-plane force; the claimed 3D escape maneuver reduces, by construction, to the prior 2D radial repulsion. The paper therefore does not deliver its headline contribution, and the significance beyond the existing planar method is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-E (Eqs. 22-26)] The claimed 3D maneuver is not realized. Each T_rx, T_ry, and T_rz in Eq. (22) is an orthogonal matrix (T_rx in Eq. (23) is in fact the identity), so ||T_rx T_ry T_rz (p_i - o_k)|| = ||p_i - o_k|| for every value of alpha. Consequently U_r in Eq. (22) is identically (k_r/2)||p_i - o_k||^2 and independent of alpha. The gradient expression in Eq. (26) is not the derivative of Eq. (22); the correct gradient is k_r (p_i - o_k), obtained by the chain rule and T^T T = I. The avoidance term in Eq. (19) therefore supplies only radial repulsion in the original direction, and the 'extra degree of freedom' and non-planar escape maneuver described in Section II-E and Fig. 4 do not exist in the controller as defined.
  2. [II-E (Eqs. 13-14)] The translational potential gradient is also algebraically incorrect. For k_v = diag(k_x^o, k_y^o), which is not an orthogonal matrix, the gradient of ||k_v (p_i - o_k)|| is k_v^T k_v (p_i - o_k) / ||k_v (p_i - o_k)||, not the radial unit vector (p_i - o_k)/||p_i - o_k||. Eq. (14) omits this factor, and the same error propagates into Eq. (19) and Algorithm 3. This affects the planar avoidance baseline as well, not only the proposed 3D extension.
  3. [II-E, paragraph following Eq. (26)] The stability assertion is unsupported. The sentence 'since we neither change the control law nor change the main assumptions, the stability conditions presented in [4] will not change' is not valid: the control law is changed through the redefined rotational potential in Eq. (22) and the new conical detection conditions in Eqs. (20)-(21). Moreover, because the actual gradient of Eq. (22) collapses to the radial repulsion of the planar method, the analysis in [4] does not cover the claimed 3D dynamics. A Lyapunov or other stability proof for the 3D case with correct gradients is missing.
  4. [III, Case-Study 2] The scalability claim to 12 UAVs rests on a single unblinded simulation for each scenario. The paper provides no statistical repetition, no sensitivity analysis over random initial conditions or obstacle configurations, and no comparison against the prior 6-UAV baseline of [4] or the 8-UAV planar case under identical conditions. The relative-distance plots in Figs. 9 and 11 show that collisions are avoided, but they do not establish that the 3D maneuver, rather than the planar radial repulsion plus formation controller, is responsible for the successful passage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II-E, Eq. (12)] The quantity d_i^fly is not defined; the authors should define the flight-direction angle used in the planar FOV condition.
  2. [II-E, Eq. (23)] The text says T_rx is a rotation matrix around the x_b axis, but Eq. (23) sets it to the identity matrix. The accompanying note 'we considered an identity matrix' is contradictory and should be clarified.
  3. [Algorithm 3] The line for the rotational potential gradient writes k_r T_rx T_ry T_rz (||(p_i - o_k)||) ∇(||p_i - o_k||), which is dimensionally inconsistent and repeats the algebraic error of Eq. (26).
  4. [Table I] The entry r_ok lists units as (m/s) but r_ok is a radius; it should be meters.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous grammatical and typesetting errors, including a placeholder line 'REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER' in the header and 'ceilings' in the Section III-B discussion of Fig. 10. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The claimed 3D rotational potential is norm-invariant under the inserted rotation matrices, so the central obstacle-avoidance 'maneuver' reduces by construction to the prior planar radial repulsion.

  1. self definitional [Section II-E, Nonplanar Velocity Adjustment (3D), Eqs. (22)-(26) and Eq. (19)]
    "Thus, we can consider a new rotational potential function as below: 𝑈𝑟(𝒑𝑖, 𝒐𝑘) = { 𝑘𝑟/2 (||𝑻𝑟𝑥𝑻𝑟𝑦𝑻𝑟𝑧(𝒑𝑖 − 𝒐𝑘)||)^2 , detected; 0, otherwise } (22) ... Note that, the presented potential function here now has the ability to adjust the velocity vector direction for the directions outside the motion-plane ... Next, differentiation with respect to 𝒑𝑖 yields to the following: 𝛻𝑈𝑟 = {𝑘𝑟𝑻𝑟𝑥𝑻𝑟𝑦𝑻𝑟𝑧(||(𝒑𝑖 − 𝒐𝑘)||)𝛻(||𝒑𝑖 − 𝒐𝑘||) , detected; 0, otherwise } (26)"

    The matrices 𝑻𝑟𝑥, 𝑻𝑟𝑦, and 𝑻𝑟𝑧 are orthogonal, with 𝑻𝑟𝑥 = 𝐼 and the other two standard rotation matrices, so their product 𝑻 satisfies 𝑻^𝑇𝑻 = 𝐼. Hence Eq. (22) is identically (𝑘𝑟/2)||𝒑𝑖 − 𝒐𝑘||², independent of 𝛼; the rotations cancel inside the norm. The true gradient of Eq. (22) is therefore 𝑘𝑟(𝒑𝑖 − 𝒐𝑘), not the rotated vector claimed in Eq. (26). Since Eq. (19) uses that gradient as the obstacle-avoidance force, the proposed maneuver provides only the original radial repulsion of the planar method. The 'extra degree of freedom' for non-planar 3D avoidance is an artifact of the notation, not a property derived from the potential; the new result is the old potential in disguised form.

full rationale

The central contribution advertised by the paper is a novel 3D obstacle detection and avoidance maneuver that gives UAVs an extra degree of freedom to escape vertically when planar paths are blocked. That claim rests entirely on the rotational potential in Eq. (22) and its gradient in Eq. (26). The reduction is direct and quotable: every inserted matrix is a rotation matrix, so the product is orthogonal and the squared norm in Eq. (22) collapses to ||𝒑𝑖 − 𝒐𝑘||². Consequently the potential is exactly the planar radial repulsion with no dependence on the rotation angle 𝛼, and the gradient expression in Eq. (26) is not the derivative of Eq. (22); the correct gradient is the unfactored radial vector 𝑘𝑟(𝒑𝑖 − 𝒐𝑘). This makes the paper's primary novelty claim circular in the definitional sense: the 'new 3D potential' is the old 2D potential rewritten with rotations that cancel by construction, and the predicted direction-changing behavior does not exist. The Lloyd/Voronoi formation controller and the conical FOV detection conditions in Eqs. (20)-(21) are independent incremental pieces and are not themselves circular; the stability transfer from [4] would be legitimate for the actual, unchanged control law. But those pieces do not rescue the central 3D maneuver claim, so the overall circularity score is high, though not maximal because the paper also contains non-circular components that could stand on their own.

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

The central claim depends on a set of hand-tuned gains, on an unproved transfer of the stability proof from [4], and on the implicit assumption that rotating a distance vector inside a norm changes the force, which is false. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (11)
  • K_p = diag([3,3,3])
    Formation tracking gain in Eq. (8), tuned by trial and error.
  • K_v = diag([5,5,5])
    Formation damping gain in Eq. (8), tuned by trial and error.
  • k_v = diag([0.1,0.5,0.1])
    Scaling matrix in the translational potential Eq. (13), tuned by trial and error.
  • k_r = 0.5
    Gain of the rotational potential in Eqs. (15) and (22), tuned by trial and error.
  • k_o1 = 5
    Gain on the translational potential gradient in Eq. (19), tuned.
  • k_o2 = 1
    Damping gain on UAV velocity in Eq. (19), tuned.
  • r_s = 1 m
    Safety range for inter-vehicle collision avoidance, chosen.
  • r_d = 2 m
    Detection range for obstacles, chosen.
  • theta_FOV = 60 deg
    Half-angle of the conical field of view, chosen.
  • r_ok = 1 m
    Assumed radius of obstacle spheres, chosen.
  • Lloyd parameters S_num, alpha1, alpha2, beta1, beta2
    Required by Algorithm 1 but no numerical values are given in the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stability proof of [4] remains valid for the modified 3D control law.
    Stated in Section II-E: 'since we neither change the control law nor change the main assumptions, the stability conditions presented in [4] will not change', but the control law is changed to the 3D potential.
  • domain assumption The simplified double-integrator model (Eqs. 2-3) is adequate for validating high-level formation and avoidance.
    The paper drops attitude dynamics and inner-loop control, citing common practice in the literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The gradient of the rotational potential is given by Eq. (26).
    Eq. (26) is not the correct derivative of Eq. (22); the correct gradient is k_r (p_i - o_k) because the rotation matrices are orthogonal.
  • standard math The multicentre cost and CVT definitions from [22] define optimal formation.
    Borrowed from [22] without reproof; used for Eq. (5)-(7).
  • ad hoc to paper Rotating the relative position vector inside the potential norm changes the force direction.
    Implicit in the design of Eq. (22); false because all the T matrices are orthogonal and norm-preserving.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Novel Pigeon-inspired 3D Obstacle Detection and Avoidance Maneuver for Multi-UAV Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ULSN7HS

@misc{pith2026250700443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Novel Pigeon-inspired 3D Obstacle Detection and Avoidance Maneuver for Multi-UAV Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ULSN7HS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00443}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in multi-agent systems manipulation have demonstrated a rising demand for the implementation of multi-UAV systems in urban areas, which are always subjected to the presence of static and dynamic obstacles. Inspired by the collective behavior of tilapia fish and pigeons, the focus of the presented research is on the introduction of a nature-inspired collision-free formation control for a multi-UAV system, considering the obstacle avoidance maneuvers. The developed framework in this study utilizes a semi-distributed control approach, in which, based on a probabilistic Lloyd's algorithm, a centralized guidance algorithm works for optimal positioning of the UAVs, while a distributed control approach has been used for the intervehicle collision and obstacle avoidance. Further, the presented framework has been extended to the 3D space with a novel definition of 3D maneuvers. Finally, the presented framework has been applied to multi-UAV systems in 2D and 3D scenarios, and the obtained results demonstrated the validity of the presented method in dynamic environments with stationary and moving obstacles.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Brain-inspired spike-timing plasticity for reliable label-efficient event-camera vision

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Local STDP modules enable label-efficient event-camera detection with 78.6% mAP on drone benchmarks and better drift handling than k-means.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [4]

    Distributed cooperative obstacle avoidance and formation reconfiguration for multiple quadrotors: Theory and experiment,

    J. Guo, J. Qi, M. Wang, C. Wu, Y. Ping, S. Li and J. Jin, "Distributed cooperative obstacle avoidance and formation reconfiguration for multiple quadrotors: Theory and experiment," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 136, p. 108218, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    A review on representative swarm intelligence algorithms for solving optimization problems: Applications and trends,

    J. Tang, G. Liu and Q. Pan , "A review on representative swarm intelligence algorithms for solving optimization problems: Applications and trends," IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, pp. 1627-1643, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Drone swarm strategy for the detection and tracking of occluded targets in complex environments,

    R. J. Amala Arokin Nathan , I. Kurmi and O. Bimber , "Drone swarm strategy for the detection and tracking of occluded targets in complex environments," Communications Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 55, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Game - Theoretic Shared Control Strategy for Cooperative Collision Avoidance Under Extreme Conditions,

    W. Guo, X. Song, W. Zhang, J. Li and X. Wu, "Game - Theoretic Shared Control Strategy for Cooperative Collision Avoidance Under Extreme Conditions," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 246-262, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Distributed Fuzzy Leader -Follower Vehicular Formation Control With Appointed -Time Performances and Obstacle Avoidance,

    W. D. Xu, X. G. Guo, J. L. Wang, Z. G. Wu and X. P. Xie, "Distributed Fuzzy Leader -Follower Vehicular Formation Control With Appointed -Time Performances and Obstacle Avoidance," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 152-165, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Computationally Efficient Visibility Graph -Based Generation Of 3D Shortest Collision-Free Path Among Polyhedral Obstacles For Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

    S. Huang and R. S. H. Teo, "Computationally Efficient Visibility Graph -Based Generation Of 3D Shortest Collision-Free Path Among Polyhedral Obstacles For Unmanned Aerial Vehicles," in 2019 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , 2019, (pp. 1218-1223)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Y. I. Jenie, E. J. Kampen, C. C. de Visser, J. Ellerborek and J. M. Hoekstra, "Selective velocity 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 time(s) 0 5 10 15 20 |dij| (m) d12 d13 d14 d15 d16 d17 d18 d19 d1(10) d1(11) d1(12) UAV1 Safety Range 11 > REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MANUSCRIPT ID NUMBER (DOUBLE -CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < obstacle method for deconflicting maneuvers ap...

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Modified artificial potential field method for online path planning applications,

    F. Bounini, D. Gingras, H. Pollart and D. Gruyer, "Modified artificial potential field method for online path planning applications," in 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), (pp. 180-185), 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Predictive control of aerial swarms in cluttered environments,

    E. Soria, F. Schiano and D. Floreano, "Predictive control of aerial swarms in cluttered environments," Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 545 - 554, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    A potential field -based model predictive path-planning controller for autonomous road vehicles,

    Y. Rasekhipour, A. Khajepour, S. K. Chen and B. Litkouhi, "A potential field -based model predictive path-planning controller for autonomous road vehicles," IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1255 -1267, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    A Novel Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Path Planning of UAVs,

    Z. Yu, Z. Si, X. Li, D. Wang and H. Song, "A Novel Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Path Planning of UAVs," IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 9, no. 22, pp. 22547-22558, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Chaos Particle Swarm Optimization Enhancement Algorithm for UAV Safe Path Planning,

    H. Chu, J. Yi and F. Yang, "Chaos Particle Swarm Optimization Enhancement Algorithm for UAV Safe Path Planning," Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 18, p. 8977, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Path Planning Method With Improved Artificial Potential Field —A Reinforcement Learning Perspective,

    Q. Yao, Z. Zheng, L. Qi, H. Yuan, X. Guo, M. Zhao, Z. Liu and T. Yang , "Path Planning Method With Improved Artificial Potential Field —A Reinforcement Learning Perspective," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 135513-135523, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    An Improved Artificial Potential Field Method for Path Planning and Formation Control of the Multi -UAV Systems,

    Z. Pan, C. Zhang, Y. Xia, H. Xiong and X. Shao, "An Improved Artificial Potential Field Method for Path Planning and Formation Control of the Multi -UAV Systems," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1129-1133, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Uav path planning based on improved artificial potential field method,

    G. Hao, Q. Lv, Z. Huang, H. Zhao and W. Chen, "Uav path planning based on improved artificial potential field method," Aerospace, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 562, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    B -APFDQN: A UAV path planning algorithm based on deep Q - network and artificial potential field,

    F. Kong, Q. Wang, S. Gao and H. Yu, "B -APFDQN: A UAV path planning algorithm based on deep Q - network and artificial potential field," IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 44051-44064, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Through the eyes of a bird: modelling visually guided obstacle flight,

    H. T. Lin, I. G. Ros and A. A. Biewener, "Through the eyes of a bird: modelling visually guided obstacle flight," Journal of the Royal Society Interface, vol. 11, no. 96, p. 20140239, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Live-fly experimentation for pigeon -inspired obstacle avoidance of quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicles,

    M. Huo, H. Duan, Q. Yang, D. Zhang and H. Qiu, "Live-fly experimentation for pigeon -inspired obstacle avoidance of quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicles," Science China Information Sciences, vol. 62, pp. 1 -8, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Multiobjective Spherical Vector -Based Particle Swarm Optimisation for 3D UAV Path Planning,

    M. Zhang, K. Ma, L. Liu and W. Zhang, "Multiobjective Spherical Vector -Based Particle Swarm Optimisation for 3D UAV Path Planning," in 2024 6th International Conference on Data -driven Optimization of Complex Systems (DOCS) , (pp. 427 - 432), 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    A Multiobjective Optimization Algorithm for Safety and Optimality of 3 -D Route Planning in UAV,

    M. Abdel -Basset, R. Mohamed, K. M. Sallam, I. M. Hezam, K. Munasinghe and A. Jamalipour, "A Multiobjective Optimization Algorithm for Safety and Optimality of 3 -D Route Planning in UAV," IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Voronoi tessellations and their application to climate and global modeling,

    L. Ju, T. Ringler and M. Gunzburger, "Voronoi tessellations and their application to climate and global modeling," in Numerical techniques for global atmospheric models, Springer, 2011, pp. 313-342

    2011

  14. [22]

    Computationally - efficient distributed algorithms of navigation of teams of autonomous UAVs for 3D coverage and flocking,

    T. Elmokadem and A. V. Savkin, "Computationally - efficient distributed algorithms of navigation of teams of autonomous UAVs for 3D coverage and flocking," Drones, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 124, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hexagonal territories,

    G. W. Barlow, "Hexagonal territories," Animal Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 876-IN1, 1974

    1974

  16. [24]

    Coverage control for mobile sensing networks,

    J. Cortes, S. Martinez, T. Karatas and F. Bullo, "Coverage control for mobile sensing networks," IEEE Transactions on robotics and Automation, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 243-255, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    Flocking for multi -agent dynamic systems: Algorithms and theory,

    R. Olafti -Saber, "Flocking for multi -agent dynamic systems: Algorithms and theory," IEEE Transactions on automatic control, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 401 -420, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Spatially - distributed coverage optimization and control with limited-range interactions,

    A. Cortes, S. Martinez and F. Bullo, "Spatially - distributed coverage optimization and control with limited-range interactions," ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 691-719, 2005

    2005

  19. [27]

    Attitude Dynamics and Control,

    B. Wie, "Attitude Dynamics and Control," in Space Vehicle Dyamics and Control , Amaerican Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1998, pp. 307-322

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.