Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 63 references

Quantifying Uncertainty in AI Visibility: A Statistical Framework for Generative Search Measurement

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-15 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Single-run citation scores in generative search look precise but often sit inside measurement noise; visibility needs uncertainty estimates.

desk verdict The abstract for 2603.08924 is a sensible measurement note on stochastic generative-search citations; the attached full text is a different paper (UAV–UGV magnetic docking), so we cannot verify the claimed bootstrap, power-law, or rank-stability results. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.08924 v2 pith:GJPGQ7YD submitted 2026-03-09 stat.AP cs.AIcs.IR

Ronald Sielinski This is my paper
classification stat.APcs.AIcs.IR
keywords generativesearchcitationvisibilityuncertaintyquantificationbootstrapconfidenceintervalsrankstabilitypower-lawdistributionssamplesizeguidanceAIanswerengines
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

Generative answer engines are non-deterministic: the same query can cite different domains on different runs. Yet most visibility measurement still reports one-shot citation share or prevalence as if those numbers were fixed. This paper treats those metrics as sample estimators of an underlying response distribution and shows, with repeated sampling on three platforms and three consumer-product topics, that citation patterns follow a power law, vary substantially across samples, and produce unstable ranks across the frequently cited set. Bootstrap confidence intervals put many apparent domain differences inside the noise floor of the measurement process. The practical claim is that single-run visibility scores give a false sense of precision, and that sample sizes and uncertainty reporting are required before domain comparisons can be interpreted.

What carries the argument

Repeated sampling under two regimes (daily over nine days; ten-minute high-frequency draws), power-law characterization of citation distributions, bootstrap confidence intervals on share and prevalence, and distribution-wide rank-stability analysis that tracks rank flips across the frequently cited domain set rather than only the top few.

What would settle it

On held-out topics or platforms, collect the same multi-run samples and check whether bootstrap intervals cleanly separate the leading domains and whether rank order of the frequently cited set stays stable across days and ten-minute windows; stable separation would undercut the claim that single-run metrics are systematically misleading.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Citation visibility in generative search is not a fixed property of a domain; it is a noisy sample from a stochastic response distribution. When that distribution is estimated with repeated queries, many pairwise domain differences fall inside bootstrap confidence intervals, and rank order is unstable not only at the top but throughout the frequently cited set. Single-run point estimates therefore overstate how precisely we know who is visible.

Load-bearing premise

That nine days of daily samples and ten-minute bursts on three consumer-product topics across three platforms are enough to stand in for how generative-search citation behavior varies in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Visibility dashboards that publish only a single citation-share number will often report differences that cannot be distinguished from sampling noise.
  • Domain-to-domain leaderboard comparisons need accompanying confidence intervals before they can support competitive or SEO conclusions.
  • Practitioners need minimum sample sizes (the paper supplies practical guidance) before a visibility change can be treated as real rather than run-to-run fluctuation.
  • Rank-based reporting of “who is most cited” is unreliable across the frequently cited set, not only among the top one or two domains.
  • Measurement protocols for generative search should treat citation metrics as estimators and default to multi-run designs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If citation variability is this large, A/B tests of content or brand strategy aimed at generative engines will need far larger sample budgets than typical SEO tools currently assume.
  • Platform providers that expose citation analytics without uncertainty may systematically mislead publishers about competitive position.
  • Power-law concentration plus rank instability suggests a few domains may dominate mean share while the middle of the pack is effectively unrankable from single runs—raising questions about how “visibility” should be monetized or contracted.
  • The same sampling discipline could be applied to other non-deterministic model outputs (summaries, product recommendations) where single-run scores are still treated as ground truth.
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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission is presented as arXiv:2603.08924, arguing that generative-search citation visibility (citation share/prevalence) must be treated as a sample estimator of a stochastic response distribution rather than a fixed point estimate. From the abstract alone, the claimed contribution is an empirical study on Perplexity Search, OpenAI SearchGPT, and Google Gemini across three consumer-product topics, under daily (nine-day) and high-frequency (ten-minute) sampling, reporting power-law citation distributions, bootstrap confidence intervals that place many domain differences inside measurement noise, and distribution-wide rank instability, with guidance on sample sizes for interpretable CIs. The full manuscript text supplied in the review package, however, is a different paper (infrastructure-less magneto-inductive localization for nano-UAV docking on a quadrupedal UGV, arXiv:2603.08926), with methods, equations, tables, and experiments that do not address generative search, citation metrics, bootstrap CIs, or rank stability.

Significance. If the abstract’s claims were supported by a matching empirical body, the work would be a practically useful methodological contribution to AI-search measurement and SEO/visibility analytics: treating non-deterministic answer engines as sampling processes and requiring uncertainty estimates is a clear improvement over single-run point estimates. That significance cannot be assessed from the materials given, because the load-bearing evidence (power-law fits, bootstrap procedures, rank-stability metrics, sample-size guidance, and platform/topic design) is not present in the supplied manuscript body. The UAV–UGV MI docking paper that was provided instead is a competent systems paper in its own field, but it is not the paper under review.

major comments (2)
  1. Manuscript identity mismatch: the review package labels the paper as 2603.08924 (AI visibility / generative-search citation uncertainty) and supplies that abstract, but the full text is the complete UAV–UGV magneto-inductive docking manuscript (title “Fly, Track, Land…”, arXiv:2603.08926). None of the abstract’s load-bearing claims—power-law citation distributions, bootstrap CIs, rank-stability analysis, daily vs. ten-minute regimes, or sample-size guidance—appear in the body. A technical review of the stated central claim is therefore impossible from the provided materials.
  2. Because the body does not contain the empirical design for 2603.08924, the weakest load-bearing premise of the abstract (that three consumer-product topics, three platforms, and the two sampling regimes adequately represent generative-search citation variability in general) cannot be checked against methods, figures, or tables. Any critique of non-stationarity, query design, or power-law fitting would be speculative rather than evidence-based; the correct action is to request the correct manuscript rather than invent concerns.
minor comments (2)
  1. If the intended submission is the UAV–UGV MI paper that was actually supplied as full text, the package should be re-labeled (title, abstract, paper_id, primary category) so that abstract and body match; the current abstract is unrelated to that work.
  2. If the intended submission is the AI-visibility paper, the full methods, results, tables, and figures for the three-platform / three-topic sampling study must be provided before any technical referee assessment can proceed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the provided full text is a different paper (MI UAV–UGV docking), so the AI-visibility abstract has no derivation chain to reduce; the docking paper’s claims are empirical and self-contained against motion-capture ground truth.

full rationale

The CACHEABLE body is arXiv 2603.08926 (magneto-inductive UAV–UGV docking), not 2603.08924 (generative-search citation uncertainty). There is therefore no methods section, bootstrap procedure, power-law fit, rank-stability analysis, or sample-size guidance for the stated paper against which a circular reduction could be exhibited. Circularity analysis requires a claimed derivation that reduces by construction to its inputs; with no such chain present for 2603.08924, the score is 0 by the hard rule that circularity may only be claimed when a specific reduction can be quoted. Separately, the body that is present (MI docking) is an engineering/empirical paper: dipole model + Nelder–Mead inversion + EKF fusion, validated by Vicon RMSE and landing success rates. Calibration coefficients and measurement noise are fitted once for operation, not re-labeled as independent predictions of the same quantities; self-citations (e.g. [22], [57]) supply prior characterization, not a uniqueness theorem that forces the central docking result. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain appears. Honest non-finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review of 2603.08924. Load-bearing content is empirical measurement assumptions plus standard statistical tools. No free parameters or invented physical entities are stated in the abstract; the main axioms are domain assumptions about stationarity/representativeness of the sampling design and that bootstrap CIs on citation shares are the right uncertainty object for decision-making.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Identical queries to generative answer engines are i.i.d. (or exchangeable) draws from a stable response/citation distribution over the sampling window.
    Required to treat repeated samples as estimators of one underlying distribution and to interpret bootstrap CIs as measurement noise rather than non-stationarity or product updates.
  • domain assumption Citation share and prevalence from finite repeated queries are appropriate sample estimators of domain visibility for the intended use cases.
    Central framing of the paper; if visibility is multi-dimensional (position, answer text, conversion), share alone may not be the right estimand.
  • standard math Bootstrap confidence intervals on citation metrics correctly characterize the noise floor for comparing domains.
    Standard nonparametric inference assumption; validity depends on sample size, dependence across time, and heavy tails (power-law), which the abstract itself flags.
  • ad hoc to paper Three consumer product topics and three platforms sufficiently illustrate general generative-search citation variability.
    Scope choice that supports the general prescription against single-run metrics; not justified beyond the stated study design in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantifying Uncertainty in AI Visibility: A Statistical Framework for Generative Search Measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJPGQ7YD

@misc{pith2026260308924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantifying Uncertainty in AI Visibility: A Statistical Framework for Generative Search Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJPGQ7YD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.08924}
}
read the original abstract

AI-powered answer engines are inherently non-deterministic: identical queries submitted at different times can produce different responses and cite different sources. Despite this stochastic behavior, current approaches to measuring domain visibility in generative search typically rely on single-run point estimates of citation share and prevalence, implicitly treating them as fixed values. This paper argues that citation visibility metrics should be treated as sample estimators of an underlying response distribution rather than fixed values. We conduct an empirical study of citation variability across three generative search platforms--Perplexity Search, OpenAI SearchGPT, and Google Gemini--using repeated sampling across three consumer product topics. Two sampling regimes are employed: daily collections over nine days and high-frequency sampling at ten-minute intervals. We show that citation distributions follow a power-law form and exhibit substantial variability across repeated samples. Bootstrap confidence intervals reveal that many apparent differences between domains fall within the noise floor of the measurement process. Distribution-wide rank stability analysis further demonstrates that citation rankings are unstable across samples, not only among top-ranked domains but throughout the frequently cited domain set. These findings demonstrate that single-run visibility metrics provide a misleadingly precise picture of domain performance in generative search. We argue that citation visibility must be reported with uncertainty estimates and provide practical guidance for sample sizes required to achieve interpretable confidence intervals.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Racer: Rapid collaborative exploration with a decentral- ized multi-uav system,

    B. Zhouet al., “Racer: Rapid collaborative exploration with a decentral- ized multi-uav system,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1816–1835, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Probabilistic modeling and control for multi-uav search over uneven terrain,

    L. Lan ˇcaet al., “Probabilistic modeling and control for multi-uav search over uneven terrain,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 42, pp. 418– 438, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Omni-swarm: A decentralized omnidirectional visual– inertial–uwb state estimation system for aerial swarms,

    H. Xuet al., “Omni-swarm: A decentralized omnidirectional visual– inertial–uwb state estimation system for aerial swarms,”Ieee transac- tions on robotics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3374–3394, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    State-of-the-art and future research challenges in uav swarms,

    S. Javedet al., “State-of-the-art and future research challenges in uav swarms,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 19 023– 19 045, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Energy-aware, collision-free information gathering for heterogeneous robot teams,

    X. Caiet al., “Energy-aware, collision-free information gathering for heterogeneous robot teams,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 2585–2602, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    CERBERUS in the darpa subterranean challenge,

    M. Tranzattoet al., “CERBERUS in the darpa subterranean challenge,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Heterogeneous targets trapping with swarm robots by using adaptive density-based interaction,

    S. Zhanget al., “Heterogeneous targets trapping with swarm robots by using adaptive density-based interaction,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 2729–2748, 2024. 14 Fig. 7:Scenario S3 (Test 1): qualitative time-aligned analysis of dynamic tracking. The numbered markers (1–7) identify key flight phases via synchronized video snapshots and the cor...

    2024

  8. [8]

    Ultra-lightweight collaborative slam for robot swarms,

    V . Niculescuet al., “Ultra-lightweight collaborative slam for robot swarms,”IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    A survey on swarm microrobotics,

    L. Yanget al., “A survey on swarm microrobotics,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1531–1551, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Unmanned-aerial-vehicle routing problem with mobile charging stations for assisting search and rescue missions in postdisaster scenarios,

    R. G. Ribeiroet al., “Unmanned-aerial-vehicle routing problem with mobile charging stations for assisting search and rescue missions in postdisaster scenarios,”IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cyber- netics: Systems, vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 6682–6696, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Land & localize: An infrastructure-free and scalable nano-drones swarm with uwb-based localization,

    M. Pourjabaret al., “Land & localize: An infrastructure-free and scalable nano-drones swarm with uwb-based localization,” in2023 19th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Smart Systems and the Internet of Things (DCOSS-IoT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 654–660

    2023

  4. [12]

    Exploring beyond earth using space robotics,

    S. A. Chienet al., “Exploring beyond earth using space robotics,” Science Robotics, vol. 9, no. 91, p. eadi6424, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,

    X. Zhouet al., “Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,”Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm5954, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    A relative infrastructure-less localization algorithm for decentralized and autonomous swarm formation,

    D. Schindleret al., “A relative infrastructure-less localization algorithm for decentralized and autonomous swarm formation,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 5288–5295

    2023

  7. [15]

    Performance comparison between decawave dw1000 and dw3000 in low-power double side ranging applications,

    T. Polonelliet al., “Performance comparison between decawave dw1000 and dw3000 in low-power double side ranging applications,” in2022 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  8. [16]

    Toward the future generation of railway localiza- tion exploiting rtk and gnss,

    D. Mikhaylovet al., “Toward the future generation of railway localiza- tion exploiting rtk and gnss,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–10, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    An integrated uwb-vision framework for autonomous ap- proach and landing of uavs in gps-denied environments,

    J. Liuet al., “An integrated uwb-vision framework for autonomous ap- proach and landing of uavs in gps-denied environments,”Mathematical Foundations of Computing, vol. 8, pp. 710–724, 1 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Low-complexity control for vision-based landing of quadrotor uav on unknown moving platform,

    J. Linet al., “Low-complexity control for vision-based landing of quadrotor uav on unknown moving platform,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 5348–5358, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Vision-based autonomous landing for unmanned aerial and ground vehicles cooperative systems,

    G. Niuet al., “Vision-based autonomous landing for unmanned aerial and ground vehicles cooperative systems,”IEEE robotics and automa- tion letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6234–6241, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Autonomous landing on a moving platform using vision-based deep reinforcement learning,

    P. Ladoszet al., “Autonomous landing on a moving platform using vision-based deep reinforcement learning,”IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4575–4582, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    An advanced unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) approach via learning-based control for overhead power line monitoring: A comprehensive review,

    H. A. Foudehet al., “An advanced unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) approach via learning-based control for overhead power line monitoring: A comprehensive review,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 130 410–130 433, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fusion of uwb and magnetic ranging systems for robust positioning,

    V . Brunacciet al., “Fusion of uwb and magnetic ranging systems for robust positioning,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 73, pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Wireless-sensor communication based wireless- charging coil positioning system for uavs with maximum power point tracking,

    P. K. Chittooret al., “Wireless-sensor communication based wireless- charging coil positioning system for uavs with maximum power point tracking,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 8175–8182, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Aage: Air-assisted ground robotic autonomous ex- ploration in large-scale unknown environments,

    L. Zhenget al., “Aage: Air-assisted ground robotic autonomous ex- ploration in large-scale unknown environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Learning robust perceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild,

    T. Mikiet al., “Learning robust perceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild,”Science robotics, vol. 7, no. 62, p. eabk2822, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    One filter to deploy them all: Robust safety for quadrupedal navigation in unknown environments,

    A. Linet al., “One filter to deploy them all: Robust safety for quadrupedal navigation in unknown environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 42, pp. 545–560, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Anymal parkour: Learning agile navigation for quadrupedal robots,

    D. Hoelleret al., “Anymal parkour: Learning agile navigation for quadrupedal robots,”Science Robotics, vol. 9, no. 88, p. eadi7566, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Legged locomotion in challenging terrains using egocentric vision,

    A. Agarwalet al., “Legged locomotion in challenging terrains using egocentric vision,” inConference on robot learning. PMLR, 2023, pp. 403–415

    2023

  21. [29]

    Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small-scale quadruped robot,

    D. Kimet al., “Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small-scale quadruped robot,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2464–2470

    2020

  22. [30]

    Uwb and imu-based uav’s assis- tance system for landing operations in wind turbine inspection,

    A. Ochoa-de-Eribe-Landabereaet al., “Uwb and imu-based uav’s assis- tance system for landing operations in wind turbine inspection,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 7, p. 2599, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Learning-based legged locomotion: State of the art and future perspectives,

    S. Haet al., “Learning-based legged locomotion: State of the art and future perspectives,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1396–1427, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    A review of collaborative air-ground robots research,

    C. Liuet al., “A review of collaborative air-ground robots research,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 2022 106:3, vol. 106, pp. 60–, 10 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Sensor planning for a symbiotic UA V and UGV sys- tem for precision agriculture,

    P. Tokekaret al., “Sensor planning for a symbiotic UA V and UGV sys- tem for precision agriculture,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1498–1511, Dec. 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    An open platform for efficient drone-to-sensor wire- less ranging and data harvesting,

    T. Polonelliet al., “An open platform for efficient drone-to-sensor wire- less ranging and data harvesting,”Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, vol. 35, p. 100734, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Tightly-coupled perception and navigation of heteroge- neous land-air robots in complex scenarios,

    Y . Yueet al., “Tightly-coupled perception and navigation of heteroge- neous land-air robots in complex scenarios,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 10 052–10 058

    2021

  28. [36]

    Heterogeneous multirobot team: Maritime in- spection and intervention in global navigation satellite system-denied scenarios,

    B. A. Ferreiraet al., “Heterogeneous multirobot team: Maritime in- spection and intervention in global navigation satellite system-denied scenarios,”IEEE robotics & automation magazine, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Flexible layouts for fiducial tags,

    M. Krogiuset al., “Flexible layouts for fiducial tags,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2019. 15

    2019

  30. [38]

    Practical challenges in landing a uav on a dynamic target,

    A. Salagameet al., “Practical challenges in landing a uav on a dynamic target,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14465, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A quadrotor aerial docking system utilizing both vision and magnetic field,

    X. Yuet al., “A quadrotor aerial docking system utilizing both vision and magnetic field,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    Persistent charging system for crazyflie platform,

    N. P. Nguyenet al., “Persistent charging system for crazyflie platform,” Drones, vol. 6, no. 8, p. 212, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Uav-ugv collaborative localisation with minimum sensing,

    A. E. De Silvaet al., “Uav-ugv collaborative localisation with minimum sensing,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 14, p. 4629, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Air-ground collaborative robots for fire and rescue missions: Towards mapping and navigation perspective,

    Y . Zhanget al., “Air-ground collaborative robots for fire and rescue missions: Towards mapping and navigation perspective,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20699, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Viral-fusion: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar sensor fusion approach,

    T.-M. Nguyenet al., “Viral-fusion: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar sensor fusion approach,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 958–977, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Autonomous landing of a uav on a moving platform using model predictive control,

    Y . Fenget al., “Autonomous landing of a uav on a moving platform using model predictive control,”Drones, vol. 2, no. 4, p. 34, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Autonomous landing on a moving vehicle with an unmanned aerial vehicle,

    T. Bá ˇcaet al., “Autonomous landing on a moving vehicle with an unmanned aerial vehicle,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 874–891, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Self-spin enabled docking and detaching of a uav-ugv system for aerial-terrestrial amphibious and independent locomotion,

    L. Denget al., “Self-spin enabled docking and detaching of a uav-ugv system for aerial-terrestrial amphibious and independent locomotion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2454–2461, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Comparison of controller performance for ugv- landing platform self-leveling,

    M. N. Alghanimet al., “Comparison of controller performance for ugv- landing platform self-leveling,” in2020 28th Mediterranean conference on control and automation (MED). IEEE, 2020, pp. 471–478

    2020

  40. [48]

    An induction-based localisation technique for wirelessly charged drones,

    L. Lanet al., “An induction-based localisation technique for wirelessly charged drones,” in2020 IEEE PELS Workshop on Emerging Technolo- gies: Wireless Power Transfer (WoW). IEEE, 2020, pp. 275–277

    2020

  41. [49]

    Landing of a quadrotor on a moving target using dynamic image-based visual servo control,

    P. Serraet al., “Landing of a quadrotor on a moving target using dynamic image-based visual servo control,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1524–1535, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    High speed safe autonomous landing marker tracking of fixed wing drone based on deep learning,

    B. Yuanet al., “High speed safe autonomous landing marker tracking of fixed wing drone based on deep learning,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 80 415–80 436, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    A novel framework of visual detection, tracking and landing for uavs utilizing ar markers,

    C. V . Nguyenet al., “A novel framework of visual detection, tracking and landing for uavs utilizing ar markers,” in2023 International Conference on Control, Robotics and Informatics (ICCRI). IEEE, 2023, pp. 81–85

    2023

  44. [52]

    Implementation of ir lock on poledrone (polman drone education) for precision landing with ros,

    H. Khoirunnisaet al., “Implementation of ir lock on poledrone (polman drone education) for precision landing with ros,” in2023 IEEE 15th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communi- cation Networks (CICN). IEEE, 2023, pp. 584–590

    2023

  45. [53]

    Parallel robotic automated docking method for realizing space segment assembly,

    D. Sunet al., “Parallel robotic automated docking method for realizing space segment assembly,”Scientific Reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 5754, 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    Distortion rejecting magneto-inductive 3-d local- ization,

    T. E. Abrudanet al., “Distortion rejecting magneto-inductive 3-d local- ization,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2380–2390, 2015

    2015

  47. [55]

    Underground localization in 3-d using magneto- inductive tracking,

    A. Markhamet al., “Underground localization in 3-d using magneto- inductive tracking,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1809– 1818, 2012

    2012

  48. [56]

    A magnetic induction based underground localization system for miner safety,

    A. Chavdaet al., “A magnetic induction based underground localization system for miner safety,” in2023 IEEE Sensors, 2023, pp. 1–4

    2023

  49. [57]

    Comparison of measurement models for 3d mag- netic localization and tracking,

    G. D. Angeliset al., “Comparison of measurement models for 3d mag- netic localization and tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 2543–2555, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    Wireless power and data transfer via a common inductive link using frequency division multiplexing,

    J. Wuet al., “Wireless power and data transfer via a common inductive link using frequency division multiplexing,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 7810–7820, 2015

    2015

  51. [59]

    Analysis of simultaneous 3d positioning and attitude estimation of a planar coil using inductive coupling,

    A. Moschittaet al., “Analysis of simultaneous 3d positioning and attitude estimation of a planar coil using inductive coupling,” in2017 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  52. [60]

    Magnetic calibration system with interference compensation,

    M. Janoseket al., “Magnetic calibration system with interference compensation,”IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Landing uav on moving surface vehicle: Visual tracking and motion prediction of landing deck,

    T.-T. Nguyenet al., “Landing uav on moving surface vehicle: Visual tracking and motion prediction of landing deck,” in2024 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII). IEEE, 2024, pp. 827–833

    2024

  54. [62]

    An approximate electromagnetic model for optimizing wireless charging of biomedical implants,

    K. van Oosterhoutet al., “An approximate electromagnetic model for optimizing wireless charging of biomedical implants,”IEEE Transac- tions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1954–1963, 2022

    1954

  55. [63]

    Comparison of measurement models for 3d magnetic localization and tracking,

    G. De Angeliset al., “Comparison of measurement models for 3d magnetic localization and tracking,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 11, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

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