Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 48 references

Disturbance-aware Motion Planning for Over-actuated Underwater Vehicles Exploiting Actuation Redundancy for High-fidelity 3D Reconstruction

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Extra thrusters let underwater robots photograph without stirring up mud

desk verdict Real-time thruster-wake-aware control allocation for ROVs: solid empirical work with one unvalidated modeling assumption at its core. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07139 v1 pith:UYD42JRI submitted 2026-07-08 cs.RO

Yuer Gao , Tongqing Xu , Qingyang Liu , Yi Cai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords underwaterroboticsover-actuatedsystemsredundancyresolutionthrusterwakemodelingdisturbance-awarecontrol3Dreconstructionallocationshared
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

When an underwater robot approaches a coral reef or a cracked pipe to photograph it, its own thrusters blast water at the target, kicking up sediment and creating turbulence that ruins the very images the robot came to capture. Standard six-thruster robots have exactly enough control authority to move in six degrees of freedom and no surplus to do anything else, so the only way to reduce disturbance has been to move slower or wait for particles to settle. This paper exploits the fact that an eight-thruster robot has more control inputs than it strictly needs for motion. The extra degrees of freedom create a null space — a family of different thrust distributions that all produce the same robot movement but differ in how much water they blast at the target. The authors build a fast mathematical model that predicts how much flow velocity each thruster generates at an arbitrary point in space, combining actuator-disk theory with a cosine-to-the-fourth angular decay and a hard cutoff beyond 45 degrees. They validate this model against particle image velocimetry measurements, achieving R-squared of 0.99 along the wake axis. At each control cycle, an optimizer running at 10 Hz searches the null space for the thrust allocation that minimizes total predicted flow disturbance at a designated target region while still producing the commanded robot motion. Across 440 tank trials with artificial coral targets, this approach cut near-target particle velocity by 67 percent and improved 3D reconstruction accuracy from 4.3 mm root-mean-square error to 1.9 mm, achieving a 98.5 percent reconstruction success rate where baselines succeeded between zero and 45 percent of the time. The key conceptual move is redefining what good control means: not tight stability at any cost, but what the authors call gentle stability — holding position accurately while keeping the water around the target calm.

What carries the argument

The method rests on three components. First, a thruster wake model that predicts flow velocity at any spatial point as the product of an axial velocity term (derived from actuator-disk theory, scaling with the square root of thrust), an inverse-square distance decay, and a directional attenuation function g(theta) = cos^4(theta) with a hard cutoff at 45 degrees. Second, an aggregate disturbance metric that sums the squared velocity contributions from all eight thrusters across 150-300 sample points in a target region, with proximity-weighted sampling concentrated near delicate features. Third, a sequential quadratic programming solver that minimizes this disturbance cost plus a thrust-energy

What would settle it

Set up a scenario where two or more thrusters point toward the same target region at converging angles, so their wakes interact strongly in the target zone. If the optimizer's predicted disturbance ranking of candidate allocations diverges from actual PIV-measured disturbance in this configuration — particularly if the allocation the model predicts is best is not actually best — then linear superposition is insufficient and the core optimization mechanism fails in exactly the regime where multiple thrusters are active near a target.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that actuation redundancy in an over-actuated underwater vehicle can be systematically exploited to decouple trajectory tracking from environmental disturbance minimization. By formulating thruster-induced flow at a target region as an explicit optimization cost and searching the null space of thrust allocations that produce identical robot motion, a real-time allocator can reduce target-region particle velocity by 67 percent while maintaining comparable positioning accuracy to a standard dynamic positioning controller. This disturbance reduction directly translates into substantially better 3D reconstruction quality — from 4.3 mm to 1.9 mm RMSE — because the camera ac

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that adding together the flow velocities from eight individual thrusters (linear superposition) gives a reliable enough ranking of total disturbance to guide optimization. In reality, when multiple thruster jets interact, the combined flow can be nonlinear — jets can partially cancel or amplify each other in ways the simple sum does not capture. If these interactions are strong, the optimizer might pick a thrust distribution that looks gentle on paper butis

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the disturbance-minimizing null-space search generalizes to open water, low-cost inspection ROVs could achieve reconstruction quality that currently requires expensive specialized equipment like laser scanners or structured-light systems.
  • The same redundancy-resolution principle could extend to other over-actuated platforms — aerial drones with more rotors than needed, or satellite attitude-control systems with redundant thruster clusters — wherever actuator-induced disturbance degrades a downstream sensing objective.
  • Coupling the disturbance model with real-time target detection and segmentation would allow the system to protect whatever it identifies as delicate, removing the current requirement for a known target pose.
  • Multi-robot collaborative scanning could distribute thruster loads across vehicles to further reduce per-target disturbance, though coordinating null-space searches across platforms adds significant complexity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The linear superposition assumption for combining individual thruster wake velocities is the load-bearing simplification. In confined spaces where wakes reflect off walls or when multiple thrusters point toward the same target region, nonlinear jet-on-jet interactions could change the relative disturbance ranking of candidate allocations, causing the optimizer to select a solution that is not actu
  • The 45-degree hard cutoff and cos^4 decay were validated for a specific thruster at specific distances (0.1-0.5 m). Different propeller geometries, duct designs, or operating distances could shift the angular profile enough that the model's disturbance ranking diverges from reality, particularly if the optimizer exploits directions near the cutoff boundary where small model errors have large conse
  • The claim of 67 percent disturbance reduction is measured in a clear-water tank with controlled flow. Real seabeds involve cohesive sediments with different resuspension thresholds, so the same flow-velocity reduction may translate to a different — potentially smaller or larger — improvement in actual water clarity at the camera.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the actuation-to-perception coupling problem in underwater robotics: thruster-induced hydrodynamic disturbances degrade the very sensor data the robot seeks to acquire. The authors exploit actuation redundancy in an eight-thruster ROV to search the null space of thrust allocations that achieve identical vehicle motion, selecting those that minimize a predicted disturbance cost on a task-relevant target region. The disturbance model is derived from actuator-disk theory with a cos^4 directional attenuation term, validated against PIV measurements (R^2 = 0.99 near-axis, R^2 > 0.82 in the primary wake). A real-time SQP-based redundancy-resolving allocator runs at 10 Hz (45 ms/solve). Across 440 trials in a controlled freshwater tank, the method reduces target-region particle velocity by 67% and improves 3D reconstruction RMSE by 55% versus a disturbance-unaware baseline, achieving a 98.5% reconstruction success rate. The framework supports both autonomous scanning (quantitatively evaluated) and operator-assisted teleoperation (demonstrated in supplementary materials).

Significance. The paper tackles a genuine and under-addressed problem: the coupling between robot actuation and downstream perception quality in underwater inspection. The core insight—using over-actuation redundancy to decouple motion tracking from environmental disturbance minimization—is well-motivated and practically relevant for low-cost ROV platforms. The experimental design is thorough, comprising 440 trials across three target models of varying complexity, four comparison methods, an ablation study, and direct PIV validation of the disturbance proxy. The reconstruction quality is measured against independently obtained ground truth (Artec 3D scanner), and the disturbance reduction is measured via PIV rather than relying solely on the model's own predictions. The real-time performance (10 Hz, 45 ms/solve) is credible for embedded deployment. The framework's applicability to both autonomous and teleoperated modes adds practical value.

major comments (4)
  1. §III-B, Eq. (4): The aggregate disturbance cost uses linear superposition of individual thruster wake velocities, but the PIV validation (Fig. 6) only validates the single-thruster model (Eqs. 1–2). No PIV measurement of the multi-thruster flow field is presented to validate the superposition assumption used in the actual cost function being optimized. The paper acknowledges multi-jet interactions 'can be nonlinear' but asserts this yields a 'conservative bias' (overestimation). This assertion is not demonstrated and is not obviously true: if two thruster wakes destructively interfere at the target, linear superposition would underestimate the cancellation, potentially causing the optimizer to prefer an allocation that is actually worse than alternatives. The optimizer's correctness depends on the superposition model preserving the relative ordering of disturbance across candidate thrust
  2. §III-B, Eq. (4): The 'conservative overestimation' claim is internally inconsistent with the stated optimization objective. If linear superposition systematically overestimates disturbance, the optimizer still selects the allocation with the lowest predicted disturbance, which should correspond to the lowest actual disturbance if the relative ordering is preserved. However, if nonlinear interactions cause the relative ordering to change (not just the absolute magnitude), the optimizer could converge to a suboptimal allocation. The paper does not test whether the relative ordering is preserved. A targeted experiment measuring PIV flow fields for two or more candidate allocations (e.g., the optimizer's selected allocation vs. a rejected alternative) would directly validate whether the optimizer is selecting near-optimal allocations rather than merely adequate ones. The empirical 67%
  3. §IV-A and Table IV: The success rate metric conflates two distinct failure modes. Table IV reports a 98.3% success rate (59/60) for the full method in Phase 1 and 98.5% (197/200) in Phase 2, but the success criterion (RMSE < 3.0 mm AND completeness > 85%) is defined only in Phase 2's description. For Phase 1, the text states that quality metrics are 'computed from evaluable reconstructions only' and that trials without evaluable reconstructions are 'counted as failures.' It is unclear whether the Phase 1 success rate uses the same RMSE < 3.0 mm AND completeness > 85% threshold or simply whether a registered model was produced. Clarifying this distinction is important because the 0% success rate for manual teleoperation (0/60) could reflect complete SfM/NeRF pipeline failures (no registered model at all) rather than quality threshold failures, which is a different claim. The paper should
  4. §III-C, Eq. (6)–(7): The optimization formulation includes a collision avoidance constraint (||x(t) - x_obs|| >= d_safe) implemented via a log-barrier, but no obstacles are mentioned in the experimental setup (§IV-A). If this constraint was inactive during all experiments, it should be stated explicitly. If it was active, the obstacle configuration should be described. Additionally, the formulation uses a soft position target p_target = p_current + v_des * T, which converts an instantaneous velocity command into a position target over horizon T. The sensitivity of the disturbance minimization to the choice of T (2 s) is not discussed; a shorter horizon might not capture enough of the disturbance trajectory, while a longer horizon increases computational cost. A brief sensitivity analysis or justification for T = 2 s would strengthen the claim that the framework is robustly tunable.
minor comments (8)
  1. Abstract and §I: The abstract states 'improves 3D reconstruction RMSE by 55% versus a disturbance-unaware baseline (1.9 ± 0.4 mm vs. 4.3 ± 1.8 mm),' but Figure 7's caption reports 'RMSE: 8.7 ± 3.2 mm' for the baseline and '78% improvement.' Table IV reports the baseline at 4.3 ± 1.8 mm. The 8.7 ± 3.2 mm figure in Fig. 7 appears to correspond to manual teleoperation, not the disturbance-unaware planner. The caption should clarify which baseline is shown.
  2. §III-B, Eq. (1): The variable r_ref is introduced as 'reference distance r_ref = 1 m for dimensional consistency,' but its role in the equation is unclear. The term r_ref^2 / r_i^2 suggests normalization, but if r_ref = 1 m and r_i is in meters, this is just 1/r_i^2. The purpose of r_ref should be clarified—is it a tuning parameter or purely for unit consistency?
  3. Table I: The 'Real-Time Optimization' column lists MPC Planning as 'No/Limited' with a footnote about embedded hardware struggles. This is a broad claim; some MPC implementations do run in real-time on embedded systems. The characterization could be more precise (e.g., 'limited for high-frequency nonlinear MPC on low-cost embedded hardware').
  4. §IV-C: The 'gentle stability' experiment uses a standard DP controller with specific PID gains (Kp = 150, Kd = 80, Ki = 20). These gains are quite high and may represent an unfairly aggressive baseline. A comparison with a moderately tuned DP controller would better isolate the contribution of the disturbance-aware allocation from the effect of simply reducing control aggressiveness.
  5. §V (Discussion): The paper states 'We conservatively expect 3–5 mm RMSE for similar targets under moderate conditions (visibility > 3 m; current < 0.5 m/s).' This prediction is not grounded in any field data or simulation. It would be more appropriate to frame this as a hypothesis for future validation rather than a conservative estimate.
  6. Figures 3 and 4: Figure 3 references 'Fig. 4' for the mechanical design, but the exploded view in Fig. 4 lacks labels for key components mentioned in the text (e.g., thruster positions, sensor locations). Adding labels would improve reproducibility.
  7. §III-B, Eq. (5): The spatial decay constant sigma = 0.05 m is described as 'approximately one-third of the typical coral branch spacing in our target models.' This ties a control parameter to a specific biological geometry. For general infrastructure inspection (e.g., pipeline cracks), the appropriate sigma would differ. The paper should note that sigma is task-dependent and provide guidance on its selection.
  8. References: Several references appear to be from 2025–2026 (e.g., [4], [40]), which is unusual for a reviewed manuscript. If these are preprints, they should be marked as such. Reference [7] (Liu et al., Nature Communications 2024) is cited for qualitative observation of thruster wakes impacting seabeds, but the Nature Communications paper may contain quantitative data that could strengthen the motivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: disturbance model derived from actuator-disk theory and validated against external PIV measurements; reconstruction quality measured against independent ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The thruster wake model (Eqs. 1–2) is derived from actuator-disk theory with a directional attenuation function justified by established propeller wake theory (cos⁴(θ) from momentum theory, 45° cutoff from submerged jet studies). The model parameters are validated against external PIV measurements (R²=0.99 near-axis, R²=0.82 primary wake), not fitted to the downstream reconstruction results. The aggregate disturbance metric (Eq. 4) uses linear superposition of individual thruster velocities—an approximation the paper explicitly acknowledges as potentially inaccurate for multi-jet interactions, framing it as a conservative bias rather than claiming it as a derived result. The 67% disturbance reduction is measured via independent PIV tracer particles, and the 55% RMSE improvement is measured against ground truth from an Artec Space Spider 3D scanner. The pose estimation ground truth cites [40] (Gao & Cai, 2025), which is a self-citation, but it provides an independent measurement system (visual-inertial EKF fused with optical tracking) whose validity does not depend on the present paper's disturbance model or optimization results. No step in the derivation chain is defined in terms of its own output, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives. The skeptic's concern about unvalidated linear superposition is a correctness risk (the optimizer may not be selecting truly optimal allocations if nonlinear interactions reorder candidates), not a circularity issue—the model is an approximation with stated assumptions, not a tautological restatement of inputs. This is a standard empirical paper with independent validation against external benchmarks, warranting a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. The wake model uses standard actuator-disk theory with empirically validated parameters. Free parameters are tuning constants for the optimization framework, not fundamental constants of nature.

free parameters (8)
  • w_track = 5.0
    Empirically tuned via grid search over {1,2,5,10,20} to trade off tracking fidelity vs disturbance minimization (Section III-C)
  • w_D = not specified
    Disturbance cost weight in optimization; value not explicitly stated in the paper
  • w_u = not specified
    Thrust effort penalty weight; value not explicitly stated
  • sigma = 0.05 m
    Spatial decay constant for feature weighting, chosen to match coral branch spacing (Section III-B)
  • r_ref = 1.0 m
    Reference distance for velocity normalization in wake model (Eq. 1)
  • 45-degree cutoff = 45 degrees
    Angular cutoff for directional attenuation function, based on submerged jet half-angle (Eq. 2)
  • rho (penalty) = 100
    Soft constraint penalty for rate limits (Section III-C)
  • N (sample points) = 150-300
    Number of target region sample points, chosen by target complexity
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Actuator disk theory accurately predicts downstream flow velocity from a thruster
    Used in Eq. 1 to model individual thruster wake; validated against PIV with R²=0.82-0.99
  • domain assumption Linear superposition of individual thruster wake velocities is a valid approximation for multi-thruster vehicles
    Assumed in Eq. 4 for computational efficiency; acknowledged as potentially inaccurate for interacting wakes
  • domain assumption cos^4(theta) directional attenuation captures the dominant angular decay of thruster disturbance
    Derived from momentum theory where velocity decays as cos^2 and force scales with velocity squared; supported by cited experimental literature
  • domain assumption SQP with warm-starting reliably finds near-global optima for the non-convex disturbance cost
    Authors observe <5% variation across random restarts but do not prove global optimality
  • domain assumption Target pose is known for disturbance region definition
    R_target requires known target position; acknowledged as a limitation for field deployment

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disturbance-aware Motion Planning for Over-actuated Underwater Vehicles Exploiting Actuation Redundancy for High-fidelity 3D Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UYD42JRI

@misc{pith2026260707139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disturbance-aware Motion Planning for Over-actuated Underwater Vehicles Exploiting Actuation Redundancy for High-fidelity 3D Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UYD42JRI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07139}
}
abstract

Underwater robots often operate near delicate targets where high-power thrusters resuspend sediments and induce turbulence, degrading image quality at the sensor input. Conventional controllers optimize vehicle-centric objectives, such as tracking and stability, without accounting for the impact of actuation on sensing. We address this actuation-to-perception coupling by exploiting redundancy in over-actuated platforms. For an eight-thruster ROV, multiple thrust allocations can yield the same motion; we search this null space to minimize predicted disturbance in a task-relevant target region while enforcing motion constraints. Our method uses a control-oriented thruster-wake proxy derived from actuator-disk theory with directional attenuation and validated by PIV ($R^2 = 0.99$ near the wake axis; $R^2 > 0.82$ in the primary wake region), together with a real-time redundancy-resolving allocator running at 10 Hz (45 ms/solve). Across 440 trials, the approach reduces target-region particle velocity by 67% ($p < 0.001$), improves 3D reconstruction RMSE by 55% versus a disturbance-unaware baseline ($1.9 \pm 0.4$ mm vs. $4.3 \pm 1.8$ mm), and achieves a 98.5% reconstruction success rate. The framework supports autonomous scanning, which is quantitatively evaluated, and operator-assisted inspection, which is demonstrated in the supplementary materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07139 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thruster-induced disturbance comparison. (a) Conventional ROV with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed framework and evaluation pipeline. (a) Reconstruction-based evaluation pipeline (used for evaluation only). (b) Hemispherical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System architecture of the disturbance-aware shared control framework. The human operator provides velocity commands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Validation of disturbance model. (a) Predicted vs. measured velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The electrical and communication architecture of the robotic system, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal comparison of water quality and reconstruction performance under different control strategies. Row (a): Baseline method (manual/disturbance-Unaware) showing progressive water disturbance at three time points (t = 0s, 5s, 10s), resulting in suspended particles,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comprehensive comparison of reconstruction quality under different motion planning algorithms. (a) Manual teleoperation results in chaotic trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Temporal comparison of thrust commands and target disturbance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Modeling sediment resuspension and transport processes induced by propeller wash from ship traffic,

    P. M. Craig, J. Y . Jung, Z. Mausolff, L. A. Bastidas, T. Mathis, and P.-F. Wang, “Modeling sediment resuspension and transport processes induced by propeller wash from ship traffic,”Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 149, no. 5, p. 04023009, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    In situ measurement of sediment resuspension caused by propeller wash with an underwater particle image velocimetry and an acoustic doppler velocimeter,

    Q. Liao, B. Wang, and P.-F. Wang, “In situ measurement of sediment resuspension caused by propeller wash with an underwater particle image velocimetry and an acoustic doppler velocimeter,”Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, vol. 41, pp. 1–9, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Non-uniform de- scattering and de-blurring of underwater images,

    Y . Li, H. Lu, K.-C. Li, H. Kim, and S. Serikawa, “Non-uniform de- scattering and de-blurring of underwater images,”Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 352–362, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Investigation of outdoor environmental and human factors of rov operation for novice user: a survey,

    P. Chauhan, A. Shrivastava, and S. K. Dwivedy, “Investigation of outdoor environmental and human factors of rov operation for novice user: a survey,”Ergonomics, pp. 1–18, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    T. I. Fossen,Handbook of Marine Craft Hydrodynamics and Motion Control. John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Antonelli,Underwater Robots, 3rd ed

    G. Antonelli,Underwater Robots, 3rd ed. Springer, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    A maneuverable underwater vehicle for near-seabed observation,

    K. Liu, M. Ding, B. Panet al., “A maneuverable underwater vehicle for near-seabed observation,”Nature Communications, vol. 15, p. 10284, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Enhancing the scientific value of industry remotely operated vehicles (rovs) in our oceans,

    D. L. McLean, M. J. Parsons, A. R. Gates, M. C. Benfield, T. Bond, D. J. Booth, M. Bunce, A. M. Fowler, E. S. Harvey, P. I. Macreadieet al., “Enhancing the scientific value of industry remotely operated vehicles (rovs) in our oceans,”Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 7, p. 220, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Carlton,Marine propellers and propulsion

    J. Carlton,Marine propellers and propulsion. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Demand- driven optimization method for thruster configuration of underwater vehicles considering capability boundary and system efficiency,

    D. Xu, Z. Yan, H. Xie, L. Lu, Z. Xiao, and B. Han, “Demand- driven optimization method for thruster configuration of underwater vehicles considering capability boundary and system efficiency,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 310, p. 118749, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Enhancing underwater images and videos by fusion,

    C. Ancuti, C. O. Ancuti, T. Haber, and P. Bekaert, “Enhancing underwater images and videos by fusion,” in2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, 2012, pp. 81–88

    2012

  4. [12]

    Seathru-nerf: Neural radiance fields in scattering media,

    D. Levy, A. Peleg, N. Pearl, D. Rosenbaum, D. Akkaynak, S. Korman, and T. Treibitz, “Seathru-nerf: Neural radiance fields in scattering media,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 56–65

    2023

  5. [13]

    Experimentation of structured light and stereo vision for underwater 3d reconstruction,

    F. Bruno, G. Bianco, M. Muzzupappa, S. Barone, and A. V . Razionale, “Experimentation of structured light and stereo vision for underwater 3d reconstruction,”ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 508–518, 2011

    2011

  6. [14]

    A multi- camera system for the integrated documentation of underwater cultural heritage of high structural complexity; the case study of m/s helma wreck,

    E. Diamanti, H. S. Løv ˚as, M. K. Larsen, and Ø. Ødeg ˚ard, “A multi- camera system for the integrated documentation of underwater cultural heritage of high structural complexity; the case study of m/s helma wreck,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 16, pp. 422–429, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Structure-from-motion revisited,

    J. L. Schonberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 4104–4113

    2016

  8. [16]

    Multi-view stereo: A tutorial,

    Y . Furukawa, C. Hern ´andezet al., “Multi-view stereo: A tutorial,” Foundations and trends® in Computer Graphics and Vision, vol. 9, no. 1-2, pp. 1–148, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A critical analysis of nerf-based 3d reconstruction,

    F. Remondino, A. Karami, Z. Yan, G. Mazzacca, S. Rigon, and R. Qin, “A critical analysis of nerf-based 3d reconstruction,”Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 14, p. 3585, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Integrated path planning and tracking control of an auv: A unified receding horizon optimization approach,

    C. Shen, Y . Shi, and B. Buckham, “Integrated path planning and tracking control of an auv: A unified receding horizon optimization approach,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1163–1173, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Second-order sliding-mode controller for autonomous underwater vehicle in the presence of unknown disturbances,

    H. Joe, M. Kim, and S.-c. Yu, “Second-order sliding-mode controller for autonomous underwater vehicle in the presence of unknown disturbances,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 183–196, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Dynamic positioning with model predictive control,

    A. Veksler, T. A. Johansen, F. Borrelli, and B. Realfsen, “Dynamic positioning with model predictive control,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1340–1353, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    H∞ robust control design for dynamic ship positioning,

    M. Katebi, M. Grimble, and Y . Zhang, “ H∞ robust control design for dynamic ship positioning,”IEE Proceedings-Control Theory and Applications, vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 110–120, 1997

    1997

  15. [23]

    Adaptive disturbance observer for trajectory tracking control of underwater vehicles,

    J. Guerrero, J. Torres, V . Creuze, and A. Chemori, “Adaptive disturbance observer for trajectory tracking control of underwater vehicles,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 200, p. 107080, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Disturbance-observer-based control and related methods—an overview,

    W.-H. Chen, J. Yang, L. Guo, and S. Li, “Disturbance-observer-based control and related methods—an overview,”IEEE Transactions on industrial electronics, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 1083–1095, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Inspection and maintenance of industrial infrastructure with autonomous underwater robots,

    F. Nauert and P. Kampmann, “Inspection and maintenance of industrial infrastructure with autonomous underwater robots,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 10, p. 1240276, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Visual servo control. i. basic ap- proaches,

    F. Chaumette and S. Hutchinson, “Visual servo control. i. basic ap- proaches,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 82–90, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Virtual fixtures: Perceptual tools for telerobotic manipulation,

    L. B. Rosenberg, “Virtual fixtures: Perceptual tools for telerobotic manipulation,” inProceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium. Ieee, 1993, pp. 76–82

    1993

  20. [28]

    Learning from physical human feedback: an object-centric one-shot adaptation method,

    A. Shek, B. Y . Su, R. Chen, and C. Liu, “Learning from physical human feedback: an object-centric one-shot adaptation method,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04951, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Autonomous robotic intervention using rov,

    I. Rist-Christensen, “Autonomous robotic intervention using rov,” Mas- ter’s thesis, NTNU, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Intervention auvs: the next challenge,

    P. Ridao, M. Carreras, D. Ribas, P. J. Sanz, and G. Oliver, “Intervention auvs: the next challenge,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 40, pp. 227– 241, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Real-time adaptive multi- robot exploration with application to underwater map construction,

    A. C. Kapoutsis, S. A. Chatzichristofis, L. Doitsidis, J. B. De Sousa, J. Pinto, J. Braga, and E. B. Kosmatopoulos, “Real-time adaptive multi- robot exploration with application to underwater map construction,” Autonomous robots, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 987–1015, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    An efficient sampling-based method for online informative path planning in unknown environments,

    L. Schmid, M. Pantic, R. Khanna, L. Ott, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “An efficient sampling-based method for online informative path planning in unknown environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1500–1507, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Application of robotics in offshore oil and gas industry—a review part ii,

    A. Shukla and H. Karki, “Application of robotics in offshore oil and gas industry—a review part ii,”Robotics and autonomous systems, vol. 75, pp. 508–524, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Hydrodynamic analysis-based modeling and experimental verification of a new water-jet thruster for an amphibious spherical robot,

    X. Hou, S. Guo, L. Shi, H. Xing, Y . Liu, H. Liu, Y . Hu, D. Xia, and Z. Li, “Hydrodynamic analysis-based modeling and experimental verification of a new water-jet thruster for an amphibious spherical robot,”Sensors, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 259, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Numerical study of scale effect on the wake dynamics of a propeller,

    S. Sun, C. Wang, C. Guo, Y . Zhang, C. Sun, and P. Liu, “Numerical study of scale effect on the wake dynamics of a propeller,”Ocean Engineering, vol. 196, p. 106810, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Diffusion of submerged jets,

    M. Albertson, Y . Dai, R. A. Jensen, and H. Rouse, “Diffusion of submerged jets,”Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 639–664, 1950

    1950

  29. [37]

    6-dof modelling and control of a remotely operated vehi- cle,

    C.-J. Wu, “6-dof modelling and control of a remotely operated vehi- cle,” Ph.D. dissertation, Flinders University, College of Science and Engineering., 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    A policy-blending formalism for shared control,

    A. D. Dragan and S. S. Srinivasa, “A policy-blending formalism for shared control,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 790–805, 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Osqp: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,

    B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd, “Osqp: An operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 637–672, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Real-time millimeter-accurate underwater pose estimation via tightly-coupled fusion of vision and optical tracking,

    Y . Gao and Y . Cai, “Real-time millimeter-accurate underwater pose estimation via tightly-coupled fusion of vision and optical tracking,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    VINS-Mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “VINS-Mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    ORB-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual- inertial, and multimap SLAM,

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard´os, “ORB-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual- inertial, and multimap SLAM,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    A study of vicon system positioning performance,

    P. Merriaux, Y . Dupuis, R. Boutteau, P. Vasseur, and X. Savatier, “A study of vicon system positioning performance,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 7, p. 1591, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Design, implementation, and evaluation of an external pose-tracking system for underwater cameras,

    D. Nakath, M. She, Y . Song, and K. K¨oser, “Design, implementation, and evaluation of an external pose-tracking system for underwater cameras,” PFG–Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science, vol. 91, pp. 407–423, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Real-time monoc- ular visual odometry for turbid and dynamic underwater environments,

    M. Ferrera, J. Moras, P. Trov ´e-Peloux, and V . Creuze, “Real-time monoc- ular visual odometry for turbid and dynamic underwater environments,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 3, p. 687, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    UVS: Underwater visual SLAM—a robust monocular visual SLAM system for lifelong underwater operations,

    J. Drupt, A. I. Comport, C. Dune, and V . Hugel, “UVS: Underwater visual SLAM—a robust monocular visual SLAM system for lifelong underwater operations,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 47, pp. 1267–1287, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Pixel- wise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo,

    J. L. Sch ¨onberger, E. Zheng, M. Pollefeys, and J.-M. Frahm, “Pixel- wise view selection for unstructured multi-view stereo,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 102:1–102:15, Jul. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3528223.3530127 Yuer Gao (Student Member, IEEE...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.