Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

A Planning Framework for Persistent, Multi-UAV Coverage with Global Deconfliction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents a centralized planning framework that maintains persistent multi-UAV coverage with globally deconflicted, kinodynamically feasible paths in real time.

desk verdict Solid engineering integration for persistent multi-UAV coverage; the real-world collision-free claim is not fully demonstrated due to unaccounted execution deviation, but the framework is honest, useful, and deserves review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09236 v3 pith:R6V6OKSJ submitted 2019-08-25 cs.RO cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

Tushar Kusnur , Shohin Mukherjee , Dhruv Mauria Saxena , Tomoya Fukami , Takayuki Koyama , Oren Salzman , Maxim Likhachev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords persistentcoveragemulti-UAVplanningglobaldeconflictionprioritizedkinodynamiccriticalitystate-latticefrontier-basedgoalassignment
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 sets out to solve persistent multi-UAV coverage—keeping a fleet repeatedly visiting an area whose coverage quality decays over time—as a single practical planning problem rather than a collection of disconnected subroutines. It claims to be the first framework that runs goal assignment, kinodynamic path planning, prioritized multi-robot planning, and full collision avoidance in one continuous loop, and that the resulting plans are globally deconflicted: no new committed plan ever intersects another in space and time. The authors argue that this matters because real deployments need answers to all four questions at once, and weaker local collision-checking schemes risk deadlocks or collisions. They support the claim with simulation and real-world experiments showing average cell criticality staying below one when enough UAVs are available, graceful decay when they are not, and negligible extra planning cost for global deconfliction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the committed plan: the portion of a UAV's trajectory it is bound to execute, kept to a bounded duration tmax. The Prioritized Planner iterates over UAVs round-robin, the Goal Assigner proposes a next cell via a pseudo-goal graph whose edge costs encode remaining lifetime minus age, and the Goal Planner searches a state lattice with weighted A*, discarding every transition that collides in space or time with any existing committed plan. Appending only a partial new path holds the global deconfliction invariant—no new committed plan intersects any other committed plan—by construction, which is what converts a collection of myopic planning decisions into a collision-free persistent coverage loop.

What would settle it

In a real-world run, record each UAV's actual trajectory alongside its committed plan; if any two UAVs ever come within the dmin = 10 m threshold despite their committed plans being deconflicted, or if the measured deviation from the planned path exceeds the planner's assumed buffer, the central claim fails. A direct simulation stress test would deliberately inflate tracking noise until the first inter-UAV distance drops below dmin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a tractable prioritized planning loop, built on the notion of committed plans, can maintain the invariant of global deconfliction in real time for persistent coverage. Each UAV commits to a plan segment of bounded duration tmax; the Goal Assigner selects the next cell to cover using a pseudo-goal Dijkstra search that trades distance against cell urgency, and the Goal Planner computes a kinodynamically feasible path on a state lattice while pruning any transition that would intersect another UAV's committed plan in space or time. Only a portion of each newly computed path is appended to the committed plan, so the invariant holds by construction across planning cycles. The paper reports that with sufficient UAVs the average criticality—age divided by lifetime, averaged over the priority map—stays below one over mission durations of up to an hour, and that when resources are insufficient coverage decays slowly rather than collapsing. It also reports that this globally deconflicted scheme costs negligibly more in planning time than schemes that ignore collisions or treat other UAVs as static obstacles, while avoiding both collisions and excessive stopping.

Load-bearing premise

The whole collision-free guarantee rests on each UAV executing its committed plan closely enough that the planned trajectories remain valid; if real-world tracking error exceeds the planner's assumed tolerance, the global deconfliction invariant can fail between planning cycles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployment can maintain persistent coverage with average criticality below one whenever the fleet is large enough for the map, and degrade gracefully when it is not.
  • Global deconfliction removes the need for reactive local collision avoidance in the planner, since conflicts are excluded by construction rather than repaired after the fact.
  • The committed-plan length tmax is a tunable trade-off: longer plans reduce replanning frequency but add redundant coverage; shorter plans increase reactivity but risk plan thrashing and stopping maneuvers.
  • Dynamic addition or removal of UAVs is supported without breaking the feasibility or deconfliction properties, at the cost of coverage quality.
  • Planning times stay within a 4-second budget in the tested maps, with total stoppage time at most a few percent of mission time, indicating real-time operation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the goal assignment and path planning are decoupled and greedy, the framework is myopic; a natural extension is to couple them or add learned macro-actions, which the paper itself identifies as future work.
  • The global deconfliction guarantee is only as strong as the UAVs' tracking accuracy; deliberately injecting larger wind disturbances or controller noise would reveal the deviation threshold at which the invariant breaks, a testable stress boundary not covered by the reported experiments.
  • The same pseudo-goal priority scheme could be transferred to heterogeneous fleets with different sensor radii or speeds, since the costs already average over covered cells and the planner is centralized.
  • A quantitative comparison of average criticality against an optimal or offline persistent coverage plan would show how much optimality is sacrificed for online global deconfliction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a centralized planning framework for persistent multi-UAV coverage. In each planning cycle, a Prioritized Planner iterates over the UAVs in round-robin order; a Goal Assigner selects the next cell via a multi-goal Dijkstra search with pseudo-edge costs encoding cell urgency, and a Goal Planner computes a kinodynamically feasible path on a state lattice using weighted A*. The planner maintains committed plans of bounded duration and enforces global deconfliction by pruning any candidate trajectory that intersects another UAV's committed plan in space or time. The framework is evaluated in simulation and on real UAVs, with dynamic UAV removal, and the authors claim graceful coverage (average criticality below one when enough UAVs are available) and a negligible computational price for global deconfliction compared with weaker local collision-checking schemes.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper offers a practical integration of goal assignment, kinodynamic planning, prioritized multi-robot planning, and inter-robot deconfliction for persistent coverage, and the real-world experiments with dynamic UAV removal are valuable. The architecture is clearly described (Alg. 1), the criticality metric is defined independently rather than fitted, and the authors make falsifiable claims about average criticality and planning times. However, the empirical base is thin in places, and the central real-world claim of collision-free operation is not directly demonstrated because tracking error between planning cycles is not measured and is explicitly deferred to future work. These issues are repairable, but they affect load-bearing statements in the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.3 / Sec. 4.2, Alg. 1] The paper's global-deconfliction invariant (Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.2) is time-stamped: a newly planned trajectory is pruned only if it intersects another committed plan 'in space or time.' The real-world experiments, however, rely on the assumption that executed trajectories follow committed plans. The paper itself states that 'UAVs can deviate from their planned paths' and that 'accounting for large deviations from planned paths requires replanning and is part of future work' (Sec. 5). Alg. 1 (lines 4-6) only clips executed portions using the latest U_loc; it does not re-time or reconstruct the remaining committed plans from the actual UAV state. A lateral or temporal deviation, including the stopping maneuvers measured at up to 7.12% of mission time (Table 2), can therefore bring two executed trajectories closer than dmin = 10 m even when all committed plans are pairwise deconflicted. Because Sec. 5.3 does not report tracking error or minimum achieved pairwise distance, the claim that the framework provides collision-free real-world operation is not actually demonstrated. I ask the authors either to report per-run tracking-error and inter-UAV-distance statistics, or to implement a receding-horizon replan that re-times committed plans from the observed state, before claiming that the P2 hard constraint is satisfied in the real world.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Table 1, Table 2, Fig. 6] The quantitative claims rest on very few executions. Table 1 reports a single simulated run per configuration, Fig. 6 explicitly states that each curve is a single mission execution with no confidence intervals, and Table 2 gives averages over eight real-world runs without variance or confidence intervals. The prose draws strong conclusions from these numbers—for example, that global deconfliction 'incurs a negligibly higher price' and that average criticality is kept below one. With a single run, an observed difference in goal-planning time or stopped time cannot be distinguished from run-to-run variance. I request multiple independent runs with reported variance (or at least min/max) for the headline metrics (average criticality, tGP, tstopped), and, for the real-world results, a per-run breakdown of criticality and stopping time.
  3. [Sec. 3, Sec. 5.2, Eq. (1)] Property P3 (Sec. 3) is stated as a per-cell guarantee: 'the age of each cell is smaller or equal to its lifetime.' The evaluation in Sec. 5.2, however, uses only the spatial average C̄_t (Eq. 1), and Fig. 5 (right) shows that a non-negligible fraction of cells expire even in runs that are otherwise described as successful (spikes reaching roughly 8% at the 5/10/15-minute lifetime boundaries). An average below one is compatible with systematic violations of P3 for particular zones, so the statement that the framework 'maintains persistent coverage' given sufficient UAVs should be qualified as maintaining low average criticality, not guaranteeing per-cell persistence. Either report the per-cell violation statistics or soften the wording accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'enviornment' should be 'environment.'
  2. [Sec. 5.2] The reference to 'Eq. (5.1)' should be 'Eq. (1)' (or 'Sec. 5.1').
  3. [Table 2] The caption states that tstopped is the maximum over all runs while the other columns are averages; please clarify this mixed reporting in the table caption or in the text.
  4. [Fig. 8(b)] The caption refers to a black curve with confidence intervals for the simulated experiments but does not state how many simulation runs were used to form those intervals; please specify.
  5. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 6] The description of the collision-checking schemes would be clearer if the meaning of 'Quarter, Half and Full Plan (static)' were defined in the text rather than only in the figure caption, and if the color/line style correspondence were stated explicitly in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's claims are empirical evaluations of an integrated planner with independently defined metrics.

full rationale

This is an integration-and-evaluation paper rather than a derivation: the central claims are experimental observations (Tables 1–2; Figs. 5, 6, 8), not consequences of a fitted model. The criticality measure C_t(i,j) = a(i,j)/l(i,j) in Eq. 1 is defined directly from mission-specified lifetimes and measured cell ages; the goal-assignment edge costs use (l-a) as a heuristic priority, but nothing in that definition guarantees the reported C_t<1 curves, which in fact fail for the one-UAV case. The global-deconfliction property is enforced algorithmically by pruning transitions that collide with other committed plans in space or time (Sec. 4.4); this is an implementation invariant, not a prediction derived from data, and the paper's caveat that real UAVs can deviate from planned paths (Sec. 5) is an acknowledged execution-robustness limitation, not a circular reuse of the conclusion. Self-citations (Butzke and Likhachev; Likhachev and Ferguson; Thakur et al.) are cited only for standard search/lattice components and related work; none is used as the sole justification for the framework's claimed novelty or for the empirical results. No equation is both input and output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not depend on fitting any parameter to data, but several hand-chosen values (planning timeout, committed-plan horizon, heuristic inflation) shape the demonstrated performance. The framework assumes standard robotics abstractions: double-integrator dynamics, same-altitude flight, circular sensor footprints, and reliable centralized communication. No new physical entities are introduced; the pseudo-goal used in goal assignment is a standard graph construction, not a postulated entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Committed plan horizon tmax
    Chosen by hand per mission; the paper discusses the trade-off between reactivity and deconfliction but specifies no automatic rule, and it directly controls the strength of the global deconfliction guarantee.
  • Goal-assignment pseudo-edge cost lower limit
    Sec. 4.3 says pseudo-edge costs are lower-limited by a constant to keep them strictly positive, but the constant value is not reported.
  • Velocity incentive and hover penalty weights
    Sec. 4.4 states that increasing-velocity actions are incentivized and hovering heavily penalized, but no numeric weights are given, so the planner behavior depends on unspecified hand-chosen values.
  • Search heuristic inflation = 5
    Reported in Sec. 5 as the Weighted-A* inflation factor; a hand-picked constant that trades optimality for speed.
  • Goal Planner timeout = 4 s
    A hand-picked timeout that, if exceeded, forces the system to fall back to stopping maneuvers, which can degrade persistence and deconfliction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption UAVs can be modeled as double-integrator systems with the given motion primitives.
    Sec. 4.4 assumes double-integrator dynamics to generate feasible motion primitives, which is a standard but idealized model for real UAVs.
  • domain assumption All UAVs fly at the same altitude and collision is defined by a 2D distance threshold dmin.
    Sec. 3, property P2, restricts the problem to same-altitude flight so that collision checking reduces to 2D separation, which may not hold in general multi-UAV operations.
  • domain assumption Coverage of a cell is determined by a circular sensor footprint of radius rk around the UAV's 2D location.
    Sec. 3 defines a cell as covered if any point is within rk of the UAV's location; this is a simplification of real sensor footprints.
  • domain assumption A centralized planner has reliable communication with all UAVs through the System Manager and always receives up-to-date locations and map states.
    Sec. 4.1 assumes the SM sends and receives complete information each planning cycle; communication delays or failures are not addressed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Planning Framework for Persistent, Multi-UAV Coverage with Global Deconfliction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R6V6OKSJ

@misc{pith2026190809236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Planning Framework for Persistent, Multi-UAV Coverage with Global Deconfliction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R6V6OKSJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09236}
}
read the original abstract

Planning for multi-robot coverage seeks to determine collision-free paths for a fleet of robots, enabling them to collectively observe points of interest in an environment. Persistent coverage is a variant of traditional coverage where coverage-levels in the environment decay over time. Thus, robots have to continuously revisit parts of the environment to maintain a desired coverage-level. Facilitating this in the real world demands we tackle numerous subproblems. While there exist standard solutions to these subproblems, there is no complete framework that addresses all of their individual challenges as a whole in a practical setting. We adapt and combine these solutions to present a planning framework for persistent coverage with multiple unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Specifically, we run a continuous loop of goal assignment and globally deconflicting, kinodynamic path planning for multiple UAVs. We evaluate our framework in simulation as well as the real world. In particular, we demonstrate that (i) our framework exhibits graceful coverage given sufficient resources, we maintain persistent coverage; if resources are insufficient (e.g., having too few UAVs for a given size of the enviornment), coverage-levels decay slowly and (ii) planning with global deconfliction in our framework incurs a negligibly higher price compared to other weaker, more local collision-checking schemes. (Video: https://youtu.be/aqDs6Wymp5Q)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The System Manager (SM) communicates with all UAVs; it sends up-to-date copies of committed plans to corresponding UAVs and updates them using information received from the Prioritized Planner (PP) (b) Prioritized planning framework: For each UAV, the Goal Assigner (GA) selects the next goal using the up-to-date map from the PP and the Goal Planner (GP) then plans a feasible path to this goal, which is appended … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of a mission-map M, where each cell is colored according to its lifetime. For example, a green cell with a lifetime of 15 minutes implies that no more than 15 minutes should pass between two consecutive times a UAV covers it. is the time passed since the cell was last covered by a UAV, while its lifetime is a desired bound on its age (as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two successive executions of the GA-GP loop (the map M is colored with 50% opacity). (a) The solid yellow and blue lines show committed plans for both UAVs. (b) A new goal is as￾signed to the yellow UAV. (c) A path planned is for the yellow UAV (the old committed plan is a dotted line, the new committed plan is a solid line, and the discarded part of the new plan is a dashed line). (d) The same as (b) but for the bl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multi-goal Dijkstra search for goal assignment finds the least-cost path to a pseudo-goal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Average criticality of cells in MP during simulated experiments. Right: Spikes occur at 5, 10, 15 minutes since these are the three different cell lifetimes in the initial MP . Colors are consistent across the two plots. 4. Quarter, Half and Full Plan (static): T…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of changing the committed plan length for different collision checking mechanisms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) UAV used in the experiments. (b) The two UAVs (circled in red) executing a mission. (c) GUI showing a satellite image of the mission site along with UAV data overlay. (d) Map used for experiments (big; coverage zone roughly 400m×400m). (e) Map used for experiments …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Coverage criticality over time in the real-world: unless explicitly pointed to by arrows, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, pp

    Ademoye, T.A., Davari, A.: Trajectory planning for multiple autonomous systems using mixed integer linear programming. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, pp. 175–179. IEEE (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Journal of Field Robotics 31(6), 912–939 (2014)

    Adler, B., Xiao, J., Zhang, J.: Autonomous exploration of urban environments using unmanned aerial vehicles. Journal of Field Robotics 31(6), 912–939 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Discrete Applied Mathematics 55(3), 197–218 (1994)

    Arkin, E.M., Hassin, R.: Approximation algorithms for the geometric covering salesman prob- lem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 55(3), 197–218 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    The Knowl- edge Engineering Review 27(3), 291–307 (2012)

    Barnier, N., Allignol, C.: Trajectory deconfliction with constraint programming. The Knowl- edge Engineering Review 27(3), 291–307 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Bellingham, J.S.: Coordination and control of UA V fleets using mixed-integer linear program- ming. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    In: IROS, pp

    Butzke, J., Likhachev, M.: Planning for multi-robot exploration with multiple objective utility functions. In: IROS, pp. 3254–3259 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Numerische mathematik 1(1), 269–271 (1959) 14

    Dijkstra, E.W.: A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische mathematik 1(1), 269–271 (1959) 14

    work page 1959

  8. [8]

    Algorithmica2(1-4), 477 (1987)

    Erdmann, M., Lozano-Perez, T.: On multiple moving objects. Algorithmica2(1-4), 477 (1987)

    work page 1987

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    In: CDC, pp

    Franco, C., L ´opez-Nicol´as, G., Sag¨u´es, C., Llorente, S.: Persistent coverage control with vari- able coverage action in multi-robot environment. In: CDC, pp. 6055–6060 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61(12), 1258–1276 (2013)

    Galceran, E., Carreras, M.: A survey on coverage path planning for robotics. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 61(12), 1258–1276 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Golden, B.L., Raghavan, S., Wasil, E.A.: The vehicle routing problem: latest advances and new challenges, vol. 43. Springer Science & Business Media (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 4(2), 100–107 (1968)

    Hart, P.E., Nilsson, N.J., Raphael, B.: A formal basis for the heuristic determination of min- imum cost paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 4(2), 100–107 (1968)

    1968

  5. [13]

    Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 86(3-4), 663–680 (2017)

    Kapoutsis, A.C., Chatzichristofis, S.A., Kosmatopoulos, E.B.: DARP: divide areas algorithm for optimal multi-robot coverage path planning. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 86(3-4), 663–680 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Computers & Operations Research (2016)

    Keller, J.F.: Path planning for persistent surveillance applications using fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles. Computers & Operations Research (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Leahy, K., Zhou, D., Vasile, C.I., Oikonomopoulos, K., Schwager, M., Belta, C.: Persistent surveillance for unmanned aerial vehicles subject to charging and temporal logic constraints. Auton. Robots 40(8), 1363–1378 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    IJRR 28(8), 933–945 (2009)

    Likhachev, M., Ferguson, D.: Planning long dynamically feasible maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. IJRR 28(8), 933–945 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    In: CDC, pp

    Mellone, A., Franzini, G., Pollini, L., Innocenti, M.: Persistent coverage control for teams of heterogeneous agents. In: CDC, pp. 2114–2119 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Robotics5(4), 26 (2016)

    Nedjati, A., Izbirak, G., Vizvari, B., Arkat, J.: Complete coverage path planning for a multi- UA V response system in post-earthquake assessment. Robotics5(4), 26 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    In: IROS, pp

    Pivtoraiko, M., Kelly, A.: Generating near minimal spanning control sets for constrained mo- tion planning in discrete state spaces. In: IROS, pp. 3231–3237 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Artificial intelligence 1(3-4), 193–204 (1970)

    Pohl, I.: Heuristic search viewed as path finding in a graph. Artificial intelligence 1(3-4), 193–204 (1970)

    1970

  13. [21]

    IJRR 28(3), 357–375 (2009)

    Schwager, M., Rus, D., Slotine, J.J.: Decentralized, adaptive coverage control for networked robots. IJRR 28(3), 357–375 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    JFR 28(5), 714– 741 (2011)

    Smith, R.N., Schwager, M., Smith, S.L., Jones, B.H., Rus, D., Sukhatme, G.S.: Persistent ocean monitoring with underwater gliders: Adapting sampling resolution. JFR 28(5), 714– 741 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1102.0603 (2011)

    Smith, S.L., Schwager, M., Rus, D.: Persistent robotic tasks: Monitoring and sweeping in changing environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1102.0603 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM 2nd international workshop on Video surveillance & sensor networks, pp

    Srinivasan, S., Latchman, H., Shea, J., Wong, T., McNair, J.: Airborne traffic surveillance systems: video surveillance of highway traffic. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2nd international workshop on Video surveillance & sensor networks, pp. 131–135 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, pp

    Stump, E., Michael, N.: Multi-robot persistent surveillance planning as a vehicle routing prob- lem. In: IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, pp. 569–575 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    In: AAMAS, pp

    Sun, X., Koenig, S., Yeoh, W.: Generalized adaptive A*. In: AAMAS, pp. 469–476. Interna- tional Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    In: FSR, pp

    Teixeira, L., Alzugaray, I., Chli, M.: Autonomous aerial inspection using visual-inertial robust localization and mapping. In: FSR, pp. 191–204. Springer (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    In: IROS, pp

    Thakur, D., Likhachev, M., Keller, J., Kumar, V ., Dobrokhodov, V ., Jones, K., Wurz, J., Kaminer, I.: Planning for opportunistic surveillance with multiple robots. In: IROS, pp. 5750– 5757 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    SIAM (2002)

    Toth, P., Vigo, D.: The vehicle routing problem. SIAM (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    European Journal of Operational Research 209(1), 1–10 (2011)

    Vansteenwegen, P., Souffriau, W., Van Oudheusden, D.: The orienteering problem: A survey. European Journal of Operational Research 209(1), 1–10 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    In: Agents, vol

    Yamauchi, B., et al.: Frontier-based exploration using multiple robots. In: Agents, vol. 98, pp. 47–53 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    In: ICTAI, pp

    Zhu, C., Ding, R., Lin, M., Wu, Y .: A 3D frontier-based exploration tool for MA Vs. In: ICTAI, pp. 348–352 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.