Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Occlusion-Aware Ground Target Tracking by a Dubins Vehicle using Visibility Volumes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Dubins UAV can keep a moving ground target in view by flying a time-varying circular orbit, provided a simple curvature bound holds.

desk verdict Solid straight-line feasibility theorems and a useful R ≥ 4 r_min rule, but the continuous-visibility guarantee doesn't cover the turns and inter-sample gaps in the experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03400 v2 pith:7YLGA5EH submitted 2025-06-03 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Collin Hague , Artur Wolek This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY MSC 93C8593D30
keywords Dubinsvehiclevisibilityvolumestandofftargettrackingocclusion-awareplanningline-of-sightsensortime-varyingcircularorbitvectorfieldguidanceurbanUAV
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 proposes a planning-and-control method that lets a fixed-wing-style UAV, modeled as a Dubins vehicle, orbit a ground target moving along a known road through an urban environment while keeping the target in the line of sight of an imaging sensor. The key move is to inscribe a circular orbit with a time-varying radius inside the target's visibility volume, which encodes all positions from which the target is unobstructed and within range. The paper proves a curvature condition under which such a translating, morphing circle is exactly feasible for the Dubins vehicle, and provides an algorithm that places visibility volumes adaptively along the road and constructs the largest such orbit that respects the condition. A vector-field guidance law and a Lyapunov-based steering controller then drive the UAV onto the orbit. If the construction is right, a single UAV can track a target through urban canyons without losing sight of it, something constant-radius orbiting cannot guarantee.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the visibility volume (VV), a mesh of all feasible-airspace points from which the moving target is within sensing range and unobstructed by buildings, sliced at flight altitude into a visibility polygon (VP). The time-varying visibility orbit $O(\theta,t)$ is a circle of radius $R(t)$ centered on the target position $g(t)$; its feasibility is carried by the curvature identity $\kappa = \frac{R\dot{\theta}^2}{v\sqrt{v^2-(\dot{g}\cdot e_r+\dot{R})^2}}$, whose numerator comes from the polar decomposition of the orbit's velocity, and by Lemma 5's bound $|\dot{R}| \leq v - v_g$ on how fast the radius may shrink or grow. Algorithm 1 combines these: it uses a bisection max-inscribed-circle routine to place the largest circle inside each VP and forward/backward passes to enforce the radius-rate and curvature bounds. The guidance law is built from a time-varying vector-field framework, realized here with constant magnitude $v$ by choosing the attraction function $\Phi$, and the steering controller is a proportional-plus-feedforward law whose Lyapunov function establishes local asymptotic attraction to the orbit when the gain satisfies the stated bound.

What would settle it

Simulate or fly the proposed method on a path where the POI makes a sharp 90-degree turn at a node, and after the turn continuously ray-trace the line from the UAV to the POI during the interpolation interval between the two neighboring visibility volumes; if the line is blocked at any time, the central visibility guarantee is refuted. A cheaper check is to compute the true visibility volume at a midpoint between two adaptively placed samples and test whether the linearly interpolated orbit lies inside it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the time-varying orbit $O(\theta,t) = [R(t)\cos\theta + g_x(t),\; R(t)\sin\theta + g_y(t)]$ with a piecewise-linear radius $R(t)$ is feasible for the Dubins vehicle if and only if the unsigned curvature $\kappa = \frac{R\dot{\theta}^2}{v\sqrt{v^2-(\dot{g}\cdot e_r+\dot{R})^2}}$ stays at most $\kappa_{\max}$ (Theorem 1), and that when the target speed $v_g$ is no more than the UAV speed $v$, this reduces to the simple design rule $R \geq 4 r_{\min}$ (Corollary 1). The paper further claims that Algorithm 1, which adaptively places static visibility volumes along the road so that consecutive volumes differ by less than a cutoff and then inscribes the largest circle in each visibility polygon while enforcing the radius-rate bounds of Lemma 5, yields a reference orbit that keeps the UAV inside the target's visibility volume at the sample points. With that orbit as a reference, the proposed vector field and steering controller drive the Dubins vehicle onto the orbit and keep it there, as demonstrated in numerical simulations and in flight tests where the UAV maintained visibility 98–99 percent of the time versus roughly 70 percent for a fixed-radius orbit.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that the UAV always sees the target rests on an explicit assumption, stated in Section VI, that the POI remains visible in the time steps between the adaptively placed visibility volumes; the theorem itself is also proven only for straight-line target motion, and Remark 3 concedes it does not hold when the target turns instantaneously onto a new road edge, even though the numerical study includes such a turn.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A UAV can track a ground target at any speed up to its own speed by orbiting at radius $R \geq 4 r_{\min}$, giving a simple pre-mission turn-radius selection rule.
  • The adaptive placement of visibility volumes keeps the volume-change metric near a chosen cutoff, so the number of expensive VV computations can be balanced against geometry change along the road.
  • The steering controller with the stated gain bound locally asymptotically drives the Dubins vehicle to the morphing orbit, so the UAV can start off-orbit with mismatched heading and still converge.
  • In the flight tests reported here, the visibility-informed orbit kept the virtual point of interest in view 98–99 percent of the time, about 29 percentage points more than a fixed maximum-radius orbit in the same environment.
  • If the POI speed exceeds the UAV speed, or the radius change rate violates Lemma 5, Algorithm 1 declares the path infeasible rather than risking loss of visibility.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit is to replace the piecewise-linear radius with a time-varying polar curve that better hugs the visibility polygon; the same curvature identity would provide the feasibility check.
  • Because VV computation is offline and the POI path is known a priori, the method could be adapted to receding-horizon replanning when the POI trajectory is estimated online, provided the visibility-between-samples assumption is revisited.
  • The visibility-volume difference metric could itself be used online to trigger recomputation or re-planning, turning the adaptive discretization into a feedback mechanism for changing environments.
  • The 29-percentage-point visibility gain in the flight test is environment-specific; in more open areas a fixed radius may already see the target, while in denser canyons the gap could widen, so A/B comparisons across varied urban geometries would test how general the gain is.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a guidance and planning method for a constant-speed Dubins UAV tracking a ground point of interest (POI) that moves along a known road network through an urban environment. A time-varying visibility volume (VV) is approximated by adaptively spaced static VVs, each is sliced at the UAV altitude to obtain a visibility polygon, and the largest inscribed circle centered at the POI is selected. These circles are linearly interpolated in time to form a translating, radially time-varying standoff orbit. The paper proves conditions under which such an orbit is feasible for the Dubins vehicle (Theorem 1, Lemmas 3-5), derives a vector-field guidance law and a Lyapunov-based steering controller, and demonstrates the approach in numerical simulations and a multirotor flight test with a virtual POI.

Significance. If the central guarantee is valid, the paper makes a useful contribution: it combines visibility-volume geometry with Dubins-vehicle curvature constraints in a computationally tractable way, and it provides an explicit feasibility condition plus a controller structure. The main theoretical derivation in Section IV.A is largely self-contained and does not rely on fitted physical parameters; the orbit radii come from visibility-polygon geometry, and the free parameters (beta, k_psi, d_cutoff) do not feed back into the feasibility theorem. The flight test and the open-source implementation are also strengths. However, the advertised continuous-visibility guarantee is not actually proven for the piecewise trajectories used in the simulations and experiments, and one of the algorithm's feasibility checks appears to have the inequality reversed. These issues affect the central claim and require correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI and Remark 3] The central claim that following the orbit keeps the POI in line of sight is only proven at the sampled visibility-volume locations, not between them. The paper states explicitly in Section VI: 'With the assumption that the POI remains visible during the time steps between the sampled orbits.' This is an assumption, not a consequence of Theorem 1 or of the adaptive metric (56). The metric bounds the symmetric-difference volume between neighboring VV meshes, but visibility volumes are non-convex and can change rapidly near building corners, so the linearly interpolated circle need not lie inside the true time-varying VV at intermediate times. Moreover, Remark 3 excludes exactly the instantaneous POI heading changes that occur in the numerical study (the POI turns from northeast to southeast in Fig. 10) and in the flight test, where the path is approximated by constant-velocity sections with an instantaneous velocity change at the junction. The authors should either prove inter-sample containment under explicit assumptions on the VV geometry and sampling density, or replace the 'guarantee' language with a conditional statement and add a conservative safety margin. As written, the visibility guarantee is supported only at sampled instants.
  2. [Section IV.C, Algorithm 1 line 15, and Lemma 6] The feasibility check in Algorithm 1 appears to use the wrong inequality. Lemma 6 derives, up to notation, an upper bound on the trajectory curvature of the form max curvature <= (1/R)(v_g/v + 1)^2. Feasibility requires this bound to be no larger than kappa_max, i.e. R >= (1/kappa_max)(v_g/v + 1)^2. However, Algorithm 1 line 15 returns 'Infeasible' when R_i > (1/kappa_max)(v_g/v + 1)^2, which is the opposite condition. For the first numerical example, v=20 m/s, v_g=5 m/s, and r_min=50 m give (1/kappa_max)(1+v_g/v)^2 = 78.125 m; the initial orbit radius R_i=158 m would therefore be declared infeasible by the algorithm as written, even though the simulation runs successfully. This is a load-bearing error in the proposed planning method and should be corrected. The proof of Lemma 6 should also be completed: the current argument relies on an unshown symbolic Jacobian and 'an analysis of plots' to identify the global maximum, which is not sufficient for a lemma on which Corollary 1 and Algorithm 1 depend.
  3. [Section V.D and Lemma 7] The turn-rate constraint is not covered by the Lyapunov analysis. Lemma 7 proves local asymptotic attraction only when the bound (2) is not considered, and Section V.D addresses the bound with a grid search for one particular parameter set (Fig. 9). The paper phrases this as a 'strategy for tuning the controller to satisfy the maximum turn-rate constraint,' which is acceptable as a practical contribution, but the text should not imply a formal guarantee that the controller respects (2) throughout the mission. In particular, the grid search is performed for a single R and dR/dt; the same procedure would need to be repeated over the whole locus of orbits, and the discontinuity of dR/dt at orbit transition points (visible as control spikes in Fig. 11) is not analyzed. The authors should state clearly that constraint satisfaction is verified online or over a finite grid, not proven.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II] The abstract and introduction contain a grammatical error: 'maintains an unobstructed LOS to the a POI' should read 'to the POI' or 'to a POI.'
  2. [Section IV.A, Lemma 6] The statement of Lemma 6 writes 'kappa_max <= ...' where the derivation actually bounds the trajectory curvature kappa by the same expression. This notation should be fixed throughout the lemma, Corollary 1, and Algorithm 1 to avoid confusion between the vehicle's maximum curvature and the orbit's curvature.
  3. [Section VI] The phrase 'With the assumption that the POI remains visible during the time steps between the sampled orbits' should be moved from a parenthetical in the results section to a clearly labeled assumption in the problem formulation, since it is an unproved condition that bounds the validity of the main claim.
  4. [Fig. 10] The caption lists 'POI Trajectory Next Visibility' but the figure appears to show the current and next visibility polygons and the POI path; the caption would be clearer if it named the dashed green curves as visibility polygons and identified the time instants precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the orbit-feasibility derivation is self-contained; the inter-sample visibility gap is a stated assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation—Theorem 1, Lemmas 1–6, and Algorithm 1—is a self-contained mathematical development from the Dubins kinematics (1), the orbit parametrization (5), and the piecewise-linear radius (12). The curvature bound (31) is derived from the constant-speed constraint (17) and the polar curvature identity (20); no fitted parameter or output visibility statistic is fed back into the feasibility result. Algorithm 1 constructs each radius as the largest inscribed circle inside a static visibility polygon, then imposes the rate bound (50) and curvature check (53); this is construction, not prediction-from-fit. The VV meshes are inputs from prior work by the authors [3,4], but they are data-generation tools, not an imported uniqueness theorem that forces the paper's conclusions, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular way. The vector-field controller is adapted from the external framework [26], and the Lyapunov analysis in Lemma 7 is self-contained. Two genuine limitations, however, should not be misread as circularity: Section VI states 'With the assumption that the POI remains visible during the time steps between the sampled orbits,' so the continuous-visibility guarantee between adaptively placed VVs is assumed rather than proven; and Remark 3 excludes instantaneous POI direction changes that occur in the numerical study and in the flight-test path's 'instantaneous velocity change'. These are correctness and scope gaps in the advertised guarantee, not reductions of the derivation to its own inputs. The empirical visibility percentages are demonstrations, not quantities predicted from fitted parameters. Overall circularity score: 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central feasibility theorem is derived from the kinematics of a constant-speed point on a translating, morphing circle and does not depend on fitted parameters. The listed free parameters are controller and discretization tuning choices. The main unproved input is the inter-sample visibility assumption, which is load-bearing for the full guarantee.

free parameters (3)
  • beta (vector-field attraction gain) = 0.025 (Simulation 1), 0.5 (Simulation 2 and flight test)
    Selected by grid search to keep |psi_dot_d + u_lyap| below the turn-rate limit (Section V.D). It shapes the transient response and turn-rate saturation, but does not enter the feasibility theorem.
  • k_psi (steering proportional gain) = 20 (Simulation 1), 40 (Simulation 2)
    Must satisfy the Lemma 7 bound (87); in practice chosen for fast heading convergence. It is a controller tuning parameter rather than a fitted scientific constant.
  • d_cutoff (visibility-volume similarity threshold) = 2e7 m^3 (Simulation 1), 5e5 m^3 (Simulation 2), 1e5 m^3 (flight test)
    Ad hoc threshold for the adaptive discretization algorithm. It trades computational cost against resolution of VV changes, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The POI trajectory is known and piecewise straight with constant speed (Definition 1).
    The feasibility proof in Theorem 1 applies only while gdot is constant; Remark 3 explicitly excludes turns between road edges, yet simulations include turns.
  • ad hoc to paper Between sampled visibility volumes, the interpolated orbit remains inside the true time-varying visibility volume.
    Assumed in Section VI with the sentence about the POI remaining visible between sampled orbits. No proof is given, and it is needed for the continuous-visibility guarantee.
  • domain assumption Buildings are static, 2.5D extruded polygons with no terrain elevation, and the environment is known a priori.
    This is the environment model in Section III.B, and the Conclusion states known environment and known POI motion as limitations.
  • domain assumption The visibility volume computation from [3,4] produces correct triangular meshes.
    The paper uses VV meshes as inputs from its own prior work; errors in that computation would propagate directly into the inscribed orbit radii.
  • standard math Barbalat's lemma and the Lyapunov stability tools from [28] apply to the constructed Lyapunov function V2.
    Used in Lemma 7 to establish local asymptotic attraction to the orbit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Occlusion-Aware Ground Target Tracking by a Dubins Vehicle using Visibility Volumes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YLGA5EH

@misc{pith2026250603400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Occlusion-Aware Ground Target Tracking by a Dubins Vehicle using Visibility Volumes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YLGA5EH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03400}
}
read the original abstract

This paper considers the problem of tracking a point of interest (POI) moving along a known trajectory on the ground with an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) modeled as a Dubins vehicle using a line-of-sight (LOS) sensor through an urban environment that may occlude the POI. A visibility volume (VV) encodes a time-varying, three-dimensional representation of the sensing constraints for a particular POI position. A constant-altitude, translating, and radially time-varying circular standoff orbit is then inscribed within the dynamically changing VV centered at the POI position. The time-varying VV is approximated by placing static VVs along the POI's trajectory using an adaptive metric that restricts the volume change of consecutive VVs to below a specified rate. The time-varying circular standoff orbit is proven to be feasible for a Dubins vehicle and approximated with a piecewise set of linearly interpolated circular orbits inside the static VVs. A steering controller is derived that drives the UAV to the time-varying standoff orbit. Numerical simulations and a flight test illustrate the proposed approach.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Vector Fields for Robot Navigation Along Time-Varying Curves in𝑛-Dimensions,

    Goncalves, V. M., Pimenta, L. C. A., Maia, C. A., Dutra, B. C. O., and Pereira, G. A. S., “Vector Fields for Robot Navigation Along Time-Varying Curves in𝑛-Dimensions,”Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 26, 2010, pp. 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2010.2053077. 27

    arXiv 2010

  2. [1]

    Auto Filmer: Autonomous Aerial Videography Under Human Interaction,

    Zhang, Z., Zhong, Y., Guo, J., Wang, Q., Xu, C., and Gao, F., “Auto Filmer: Autonomous Aerial Videography Under Human Interaction,”Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 8, 2023, pp. 784–791. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2022.3231828

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    An Autonomous Drone for Search and Rescue in Forests using Airborne Optical Sectioning,

    Schedl, D. C., Kurmi, I., and Bimber, O., “An Autonomous Drone for Search and Rescue in Forests using Airborne Optical Sectioning,”Science Robotics, Vol. 6, No. 55, 2021, p. eabg1188. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abg1188

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abg1188 2021

  4. [4]

    Planning Visual Inspection Tours for a 3D Dubins Airplane Model in an Urban Environment,

    Hague, C., Willis, A., Maity, D., and Wolek, A., “Planning Visual Inspection Tours for a 3D Dubins Airplane Model in an Urban Environment,”SCITECH Forum, AIAA, 2023, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-0108

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2023-0108 2023

  5. [5]

    OnCurves of Minimal Length witha Constraint on Average Curvature, and with Prescribed Initial and Terminal PositionsandTangents,

    Dubins, L. E., “OnCurves of Minimal Length witha Constraint on Average Curvature, and with Prescribed Initial and Terminal PositionsandTangents,”AmericanJournalofMathematics,Vol.79,No.3,1957,pp.497–516. https://doi.org/10.2307/2372560

    doi:10.2307/2372560 1957

  6. [6]

    Curvature-Constrained Lyapunov Vector Field for Standoff Target Tracking,

    Pothen, A. A., and Ratnoo, A., “Curvature-Constrained Lyapunov Vector Field for Standoff Target Tracking,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 40, 2017, pp. 2729–2736. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G002281

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g002281 2017

  7. [7]

    Over-Flight and Standoff Tracking of a Ground Target with a Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Based on a Unified Sliding Mode Guidance Law,

    Lin, C., Shi, J., Lyu, Y., and Wang, Y., “Over-Flight and Standoff Tracking of a Ground Target with a Fixed-Wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Based on a Unified Sliding Mode Guidance Law,”Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, Vol. 44, 2022, pp. 410–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/01423312211037618

    work page doi:10.1177/01423312211037618 2022

  8. [8]

    Standoff Target Tracking using Line-of-Sight Distance Bifurcation,

    Srinivasu, N., and Ratnoo, A., “Standoff Target Tracking using Line-of-Sight Distance Bifurcation,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, 2022, pp. 1934–1945. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G006781

    doi:10.2514/1.g006781 2022

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Finite-TimeStandoffTargetTrackinginthePresence of Wind,

    Anand,P.,Niturkar,P.,Aguiar,A.P.,Agarwal,R.,Mishra,M.,andSujit,P.,“Finite-TimeStandoffTargetTrackinginthePresence of Wind,”European Conference on Mobile Robots, 2023, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECMR59166.2023.1025F6384. 26

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ground Moving Target Tracking Filter Considering Terrain and Kinematics,

    Kim, D. U., Lee, W. C., Choi, H. L., Park, J., An, J., and Lee, W., “Ground Moving Target Tracking Filter Considering Terrain and Kinematics,”Sensors, Vol. 21, 2021, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21206902

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Vision-Based Reactive Planning for Aggressive Target Tracking while Avoiding Collisions and Occlusions,

    Penin, B., Giordano, P. R., and Chaumette, F., “Vision-Based Reactive Planning for Aggressive Target Tracking while Avoiding Collisions and Occlusions,”Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 3, 2018, pp. 3725–3732. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2018. 2856526

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    Road Target Search and Tracking with Gimballed Vision Sensor on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,

    Skoglar, P., Orguner, U., Törnqvist, D., and Gustafsson, F., “Road Target Search and Tracking with Gimballed Vision Sensor on an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,”Remote Sensing, Vol. 4, 2012, pp. 2076–2111. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4072076

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    Cooperative Mapping and Target Search Over an Unknown Occupancy Graph using Mutual Information,

    Wolek, A., Cheng, S., Goswami, D., and Paley, D. A., “Cooperative Mapping and Target Search Over an Unknown Occupancy Graph using Mutual Information,”Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 5, 2020, pp. 1071–1078. https: //doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.2966394

    2020

  6. [14]

    Intelligent Cooperative Control for Urban Tracking,

    Cook, K., Bryan, E., Yu, H., Bai, H., Seppi, K., and Beard, R., “Intelligent Cooperative Control for Urban Tracking,”Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, Vol. 74, 2014, pp. 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-013- 9896-5

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Optimal Guidance Design for UAV Visual Target Tracking in an Urban Environment,

    Watanabe, Y., and Fabiani, P., “Optimal Guidance Design for UAV Visual Target Tracking in an Urban Environment,” InternationalFederationofAutomaticControlProceedingsVolumes,Vol.43,2010,pp.69–74.https://doi.org/10.3182/20100906- 5-JP-2022.00013

    2010

  8. [16]

    Occlusion-Aware Multi-Robot 3D Tracking,

    Hausman, K., Kahn, G., Patil, S., Muller, J., Goldberg, K., Abbeel, P., and Sukhatme, G. S., “Occlusion-Aware Multi-Robot 3D Tracking,”International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2016, pp. 1863–1870. https...

    2016

  9. [18]

    NMPC-Based UAV 3D Target Tracking in the Presence of Obstacles and Visibility Constraints,

    Tyagi, P., Kumar, Y., and Sujit, P. B., “NMPC-Based UAV 3D Target Tracking in the Presence of Obstacles and Visibility Constraints,”International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2021, pp. 858–867. https://doi.org...

    2021

  10. [19]

    Nonlinear Guidance Law for Target Enclosing with Arbitrary Smooth Shapes,

    Sinha, A., and Cao, Y., “Nonlinear Guidance Law for Target Enclosing with Arbitrary Smooth Shapes,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 45, 2022, pp. 2182–2192. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G006957

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    Distributed Cooperative Path Planning for Tracking Ground Moving Target by Multiple Fixed-wing UAVs via DMPC-GVD in Urban Environment,

    Hu, C., Meng, Z., Qu, G., Shin, H. S., and Tsourdos, A., “Distributed Cooperative Path Planning for Tracking Ground Moving Target by Multiple Fixed-wing UAVs via DMPC-GVD in Urban Environment,”International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, Vol. 19, 2021, pp. 823–836...

    2021 doi

  12. [21]

    Model Predictive Control for Target Tracking in 3D with a Downward Facing Camera Equipped Fixed Wing Aerial Vehicle,

    Mali, P., Singh, A. K., Krishnal, M., and Sujit, P., “Model Predictive Control for Target Tracking in 3D with a Downward Facing Camera Equipped Fixed Wing Aerial Vehicle,”International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, 2020, pp. 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1109...

    2020

  13. [22]

    Multi-UAVs Collaborative Tracking of Moving Target with Maximized Visibility in Urban Environment,

    Wang, J., Wu, Y. X., Chen, Y. Q., and Ju, S., “Multi-UAVs Collaborative Tracking of Moving Target with Maximized Visibility in Urban Environment,”Journal of the Franklin Institute, Vol. 359, 2022, pp. 5512–5532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin. 2022.05.004

    2022 doi

  14. [23]

    Model-In-the-Loop Testing of Control Systems and Path Planner Algorithms for QuadRotor UAVs,

    de Pierrepont Franzetti, I. D. D. M., Carminati, D., Scanavino, M., and Capello, E., “Model-In-the-Loop Testing of Control Systems and Path Planner Algorithms for QuadRotor UAVs,”International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Eng...

    2020

  15. [24]

    3D Model Retrieval Based on 2D Slice Similarity Measurements,

    Jiantao, P., Yi, L., Guyu, X., Hongbin, Z., Weibin, L., and Uehara, Y., “3D Model Retrieval Based on 2D Slice Similarity Measurements,”International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2004, p...

    2004 arXiv

  16. [25]

    An Effective Determination of the Minimum Circumscribed Circle and Maximum Inscribed Circle using the Subzone Division Approach,

    Huang, J., Yang, R., Ge, H., and Tan, J., “An Effective Determination of the Minimum Circumscribed Circle and Maximum Inscribed Circle using the Subzone Division Approach,”Measurement Science and Technology, Vol. 32, 2021. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1361-6501/abf803

    2021 doi

  17. [27]

    Darling, R.,Differential Forms and Connections, Differential Forms and Connections, Cambridge University Press, 1994, Chap. 1, pp. 17–21

    1994

  18. [28]

    E., and Li, W.,Nonlinear Applied Control, Prentice-Hall, 1991, Chap

    Slotine, J.-J. E., and Li, W.,Nonlinear Applied Control, Prentice-Hall, 1991, Chap. 4, pp. 122–126

    1991

  19. [29]

    Planet Dump Retrieved from

    OpenStreetMap contributors, “Planet Dump Retrieved from "https://planet.osm.org",” https://www.openstreetmap.org, 2017

    2017

  20. [30]

    A Family of Embedded Runge-Kutta Formulae,

    Dormand, J., and Prince, P., “A Family of Embedded Runge-Kutta Formulae,”Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, pp. 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3

    1980 doi

  21. [31]

    Design and Flight Demonstration of a Quadrotor for Urban Mapping and Target Tracking Research,

    Hague, C., Kakavitsas, N., Zhang, J., Beam, C., Willis, A., and Wolek, A., “Design and Flight Demonstration of a Quadrotor for Urban Mapping and Target Tracking Research,”SoutheastCon, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2024, pp. 559–564. https://doi.org/1...

    2024

  22. [32]

    ArduPilot - Versatile, Trusted, Open,

    Ardupilot contributors, “ArduPilot - Versatile, Trusted, Open,” https://ardupilot.org/, 2024

    2024

  23. [33]

    ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System,

    Quigley, M., Gerkey, B., Conley, K., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., Berger, E., Wheeler, R., and Ng, A., “ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System,”International Conference on Robotics and Automation: Workshop on Open Source Robotic, Institute of Electrical and Electronics...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.