Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Aucamp: An Underwater Camera-Based Multi-Robot Platform with Low-Cost, Distributed, and Robust Localization

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Aucamp, an underwater multi-robot platform built from sub-$50 monocular cameras, achieves distributed global localization with relative error below 0.4 percent by combining clarity-based depth estimation, a…

desk verdict A genuine underwater multi-robot testbed whose 'distributed' claim is contradicted by its own star-topology architecture, and whose depth model is calibrated rather than independently validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09876 v1 pith:4O2QMG46 submitted 2025-06-11 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Jisheng Xu , Ding Lin , Pangkit Fong , Chongrong Fang , Xiaoming Duan , Jianping He This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords underwatermulti-robotplatformmonocularcameradepthestimationclarityfeatureTenengradfunctiondistributedlocalizationconsensusprotocolorientationcontrolrobotics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents Aucamp, an underwater multi-robot platform that tries to achieve distributed localization with inexpensive monocular cameras instead of costly acoustic or active optical sensors. Each robot estimates distance to a target by sweeping the camera focus and reading the focus position where the Tenengrad clarity score peaks, then converts that distance through the thin-lens equation into a 3D position. A distributed consensus update lets the estimate spread across the robot network, so any single robot seeing the target eventually gives the whole platform a common global fix. A pressure-sensor-driven orientation controller keeps robots horizontal under disturbance, which the paper says is necessary for the camera-based estimates to remain valid. The reported result is a relative localization error below 0.4 percent in tank experiments, and the paper argues this makes low-cost underwater sensing, tracking, and 3D reconstruction practical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is monocular ranging from the clarity focus sweep. For each image region $R$, the modified Tenengrad function $T(R)$ is single-peaked in focus-motor position $\rho$; the peak locates the in-focus object distance through the calibrated relation $h(\rho) = f\kappa\rho/(\kappa\rho - f) + c$, where $f$ is the equivalent focal length and $\kappa, c$ are fitted camera constants. Supporting this are two further mechanisms: the distributed update rule (5), an average-consensus-style iteration with an $\epsilon$-greedy step size that propagates and averages local estimates across the robot graph, and a PI orientation controller that maps four pressure-sensor depth readings through a linear mixing matrix to four central-thruster speeds, keeping the robot level. The camera intrinsic matrix is recalibrated underwater so that refraction effects are absorbed into the model.

What would settle it

Take a calibrated Aucamp robot in a tank, move a textured target from 0.3 m to 1.5 m in increasingly turbid water, and compare clarity-based depth estimates with ground truth; if the fitted $h(\rho)$ error grows beyond the reported 0.4 percent relative error or the Tenengrad peak shifts with lighting or turbidity, the central ranging claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Aucamp is the first underwater multi-robot platform systematically designed for distributed localization with low-cost monocular cameras, and that combining clarity-based depth estimation, a distributed update protocol, and robust orientation control yields accurate global positioning. The depth estimate rests on the empirical relation $h(\rho) = f\kappa\rho/(\kappa\rho - f) + c$, fitted once per camera, which maps the focus-motor position at maximum Tenengrad clarity to object distance. Distributed localization follows the update rule $x_i^{t+1} = \sum_{j \in N_i \cap S_t} (1-\alpha_i^t) w_{ij} x_j^t + \alpha_i^t \hat{x}_i^t$, with the step size $\alpha_i^t$ shrinking like $O(1/t)$, so robots that never see the target still converge to its true position through neighbors. The paper reports that the full system achieves relative error under 0.4 percent and that a robot regains horizontal posture within about 2 seconds after a forced disturbance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the clarity-based focus sweep gives accurate object distance through the fitted linear model $h(\rho) = f\kappa\rho/(\kappa\rho - f) + c$, and that this calibration, done once on a static board in a tank, remains valid for arbitrary targets, robot motion, and changing water conditions; the paper also assumes, without proving, that the consensus protocol in equation (5) converges to the true target position under the stated $\alpha$ schedule.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claimed accuracy holds, underwater localization no longer requires expensive sonar or active optical sensors; a sub-$50 camera per robot is enough.
  • With at least one robot seeing the target, the distributed protocol propagates the estimate to all robots, and they converge to a common position that averages away part of the measurement noise.
  • The orientation controller keeps the camera stable enough for perception even after external pushes, so the localization pipeline is not limited to perfectly calm water.
  • The platform can be combined with NeRF for distributed underwater 3D reconstruction and with a tracking algorithm to follow marine organisms, because global target positions are shared across robots.
  • Because the depth estimate uses relative clarity rather than absolute color features, the same ranging approach can keep working where feature-matching and binocular stereo fail underwater.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is whether the fitted $h(\rho)$ calibration transfers from the 1.5 m tank to longer, more turbid open-water ranges; the paper only validates the fit at tank scale.
  • The convergence argument for the distributed protocol is inherited from consensus theory for a static target; extending the same guarantee to moving targets would require a modified protocol or a new proof, although the tracking demonstration suggests it works empirically.
  • Because the experiments use tethered robots and a ground computer as the communication medium, a stronger distributed demonstration would run the same update onboard each robot with wireless or acoustic links.
  • The clarity-focus method may transfer to other scattering media such as fog or smoke, since clarity differences are relative features that survive where absolute image features do not.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper describes Aucamp, an underwater multi-robot platform with three cable-connected robots in a water tank. Each robot carries a low-cost monocular camera with manual focus, four pressure sensors, and eight thrusters. The authors propose monocular depth estimation by sweeping the focus position and locating the Tenengrad clarity peak, then deriving object position via the pinhole model in Eq. (4). A distributed update protocol in Eq. (5) is claimed to propagate target-position estimates through the robot network and converge to the true target position. A PI orientation controller using four pressure sensors is designed and tested under external disturbances. The paper reports a relative localization error below 0.4% and demonstrates applications in underwater 3D reconstruction and creature tracking.

Significance. If the central claims held, the platform would be a useful low-cost testbed for underwater multi-robot localization: the hardware is real and reasonably priced, the clarity-based ranging idea is original, and the pressure-sensor orientation controller is a practical low-cost mechanism with qualitative disturbance-rejection experiments. However, the load-bearing claims are not supported. The system architecture in Section 2 contradicts the headline 'distributed' contribution because all camera images are processed by a ground-station computer connected by cables, making perception and communication centralized. The convergence of Eq. (5) is asserted with a citation to standard consensus literature rather than proved. The depth model is calibrated and then validated on the same setup, making the reported accuracy largely a measure of curve fit. These issues affect the central claims of the paper, not merely its presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 (Control system) and Section 6 (first paragraph)] The paper's headline claim of distributed localization is contradicted by the implementation it describes. Section 2 states that 'all the control modules of every robots are connected to the base station computer via cables,' that 'camera image data, which is too memory-intensive, is processed by the ground computer to derive object positioning data,' and that the ground station 'serves as a medium for communication among robots.' Section 6 repeats that the three robots are connected to a ground computer that acts as the communication medium, 'thereby forming a distributed network' in a fully connected topology. This is a star network with a single point of failure for both perception and communication, which is exactly the centralized architecture that Section 1 argues against ('the loss of connection with the central node could result in the collapse of the entire platform'). Only the numerical update in Eq. (5) is distributed; the platform as built does not support the claim of being 'systematically designed for distributed localization.'
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (5)] The convergence claim 'according to [19], it is easy to prove ... x_i^t -> x*' is not supported by the cited reference. Reference [19] is standard average consensus with fixed or switching topologies and no persistent measurement injection. Eq. (5) is a different algorithm: it has time-varying step sizes alpha_i^t with different schedules depending on membership in the valid set S^t, it injects fresh noisy measurements xhat_i^t at every iteration rather than using them only as initial conditions, and it does not include the self-loop term x_i^t in the consensus sum for agents in S^t. Even under the Gaussian noise assumption in Eq. (7), consensus algorithms do not by themselves converge to the true position x*; one needs a proof, or at least a simulation study, for this specific update rule, including the joint effect of alpha_i^t -> 0, the expanding set S^t, and measurement noise. As written, the central convergence guarantee is asserted, not established.
  3. [Section 3.2.2 and Section 6.1, Eq. (3)] The validation of the depth model is circular. The function h(rho) in Eq. (3) is calibrated in Section 6.1 by fitting curves to optimal focus positions measured on a calibration board in the same water tank (Figure 10), and the reported R-squared = 0.99 and RMSE = 3.43 quantify the fit to those same calibration data. The depth estimation result in Figure 11 then uses that same fitted h to produce depths, and the localization experiments in Section 6.2 inherit this calibration. Consequently, the claimed relative error below 0.4% largely reflects how well the calibration board was fit, not how well the method predicts depth for unseen targets, distances, or water conditions. An independent evaluation using hold-out distances, a different object, or different water turbidity is needed before the localization accuracy claim can be accepted.
  4. [Section 6.2] The experimental evidence for the central localization claim is under-reported. The text says only that 'the relative error is less than 0.4%' and shows qualitative plots in Figure 12; no ground-truth measurement procedure, no definition of the relative error (relative to what reference length?), no number of trials, and no error bars are provided. Since the convergence claim of Section 4 is unproved, this quantitative claim carries the entire validation burden and needs to be reported with its full experimental protocol and statistics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'estimzation' in Section 1.2, 'pensented' in Section 6.3, 'out multi-robot platform' in Section 7, 'Aucamp is a underwater' in Figure 1, and 'All the control modules of every robots' in Section 2.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The notation in Eq. (3) is inconsistent: kappa and k are used interchangeably in the text ('h = k x f / (k x - f) + c'), and f is used both for the optical focal length and as a fitted parameter. Please define all symbols and their units explicitly.
  3. [Section 4.1] The conditions on alpha_i^t are stated inconsistently: the text says 'for all i not in S^t, alpha_i^t = 0' but then says 'if N_i intersect S^t is empty, alpha_i^t = 1'; these conditions conflict for agents that are outside S^t and have no valid neighbors. Please clarify the exact update rule for all cases.
  4. [Figure 14 and Section 6.3] The axes and legends of Figure 14 are not described in the text, and the claimed recovery 'in less than 2 seconds' is not visible from the data presentation alone. Please add labeled axes, units, and a clear indication of the disturbance onset and recovery time.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One self-referential validation step in the monocular depth calibration; the central localization result still rests on an independent end-to-end experiment, so overall circularity is limited.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1, 'Underwater Monocular Depth Imaging' (curve-fitting validation of Eq. (3))]
    "These data are then put into curve fitting toolbox to determine the approximation of h. According to the fitting results (shown in Figure 10b), we have h= k x f/(k x - f)+c, where k= 0.3922, f= 0.7431, c= 0.7577. The R-squared of the regression is0.99, with RMSE=3.4285. The fitting results support our empirical formula proposed in (3), thereby validating the feasibility of our approach to achieve monocular distance measurement based on clarity."

    The parameters kappa, f, and c in h(rho) are fit to the very same (u_R, rho*) pairs that are then used to claim that the fitted curve 'validates' Eq. (3). A high R-squared on the calibration data measures the quality of that curve fit, not an independent confirmation that the clarity-to-depth mapping generalizes. Since the depth estimates used in the localization pipeline are produced by this same calibrated h, the reported depth accuracy is a check of calibration quality rather than an independent test of the ranging principle. The subsequent shot-put localization experiment is a separate target from the calibration board, so it does provide some independent end-to-end evidence, which limits the severity of this circular step.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is mostly self-contained and non-circular. The monocular ranging model in Section 3.1.3 is obtained from the standard lens equation (Eq. (1)-(2)), with an empirical linear model for the voice-coil position and fitted constants kappa and c; the localization equation (4) is standard pinhole projection with calibrated intrinsics. The distributed protocol in Eq. (5) is presented as an adaptation of average consensus, with convergence asserted by citing the external result [19]; the lack of a proof tailored to the time-varying alpha and valid-robot set is a correctness risk, not circularity. The LU2Net image enhancer at Section 3.1.1 is a self-citation (Ref. [34] shares authors with this paper), but it is used as a component rather than as the justification for the paper's central claim, so it is not load-bearing. The only genuine circular passage is the Section 6.1 statement that the fit to the calibration data 'validates' the empirical formula; that is a fitted input being presented as confirmation. However, the end-to-end localization experiment in Section 6.2 uses a different object (a sports shot put) and reports a relative error below 0.4%, so the central localization claim retains independent experimental content. Separately, the paper's description of a ground-station computer as the communication medium appears to conflict with the 'distributed' framing, but that is an architectural/correctness concern rather than a circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The platform's localization accuracy stands on a fitted calibration curve, not on a derived physical model, and the distributed convergence claim is imported from a citation rather than proven for the specific protocol. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • kappa = 0.3922
    Fitted from calibration data in the linear focus model v = kappa*rho used in equation (3).
  • f = 0.7431
    Effective focal length fitted in h(rho); differs from physical focal length, so it is an empirical parameter.
  • c = 0.7577
    Fitted offset representing positional error of the equivalent lens center.
  • PI control gains Kp, Ki
    The paper states a PI controller U = Kp*e + Ki*integral(e) but never reports the gain values, which must be tuned by hand.
  • Consensus weights w_ij and step sizes alpha_i^t
    The protocol (5) requires weights and an alpha schedule satisfying alpha_t <= O(1/t), but the exact values are not specified.
  • Tenengrad block size = 50x50 pixels
    The image is partitioned into 50x50 pixel blocks for clarity computation; this size is chosen by hand and not justified.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Thin lens equation u = f*v/(v-f) applies to the underwater camera with waterproof housing.
    Used in Section 3.1.3 to derive the depth from focus distance.
  • domain assumption Tenengrad clarity T(R) is single-peaked in focus distance, and its peak corresponds to the object distance.
    Stated in Section 3.1.2 and relied on for depth estimation; drawn from prior work [30].
  • domain assumption The focus actuator position rho maps linearly to image distance, v = kappa*rho.
    Equation (3) claims this linear relation based on 'extensive experiments' but without providing those experiments.
  • domain assumption Underwater refraction only alters the intrinsic matrix and effective focal length, both corrected by calibration.
    Section 3.2.2 cites [12] for this and assumes the impact is negligible after recalibration.
  • domain assumption Measurement noise is zero-mean Gaussian with variance sigma^2.
    Equations (6) and (7) in Section 4.2 assume this to invoke the consensus convergence result.
  • domain assumption The consensus algorithm from [19] guarantees convergence of protocol (5) to the true target position with the given alpha schedule.
    Section 4.2 states 'according to [19], it is easy to prove' but provides no proof and the protocol differs from the standard average consensus setting.
  • domain assumption Four pressure sensors, combined linearly via mu = Theta*zeta, provide sufficient information to estimate depth, roll, and pitch.
    Section 5.2 defines the linear combination but never derives the mapping from sensor values to orientation angles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aucamp: An Underwater Camera-Based Multi-Robot Platform with Low-Cost, Distributed, and Robust Localization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4O2QMG46

@misc{pith2026250609876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aucamp: An Underwater Camera-Based Multi-Robot Platform with Low-Cost, Distributed, and Robust Localization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4O2QMG46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09876}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces an underwater multi-robot platform, named Aucamp, characterized by cost-effective monocular-camera-based sensing, distributed protocol and robust orientation control for localization. We utilize the clarity feature to measure the distance, present the monocular imaging model, and estimate the position of the target object. We achieve global positioning in our platform by designing a distributed update protocol. The distributed algorithm enables the perception process to simultaneously cover a broader range, and greatly improves the accuracy and robustness of the positioning. Moreover, the explicit dynamics model of the robot in our platform is obtained, based on which, we propose a robust orientation control framework. The control system ensures that the platform maintains a balanced posture for each robot, thereby ensuring the stability of the localization system. The platform can swiftly recover from an forced unstable state to a stable horizontal posture. Additionally, we conduct extensive experiments and application scenarios to evaluate the performance of our platform. The proposed new platform may provide support for extensive marine exploration by underwater sensor networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Aucamp is a underwater multi-robot platform that provides low-cost and robust distributed localization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of Aucamp. and 5 respectively detail the distributed localization protocol and orientation control system of our platform. Section 6 presents experimental evaluation results, coupled with ap￾plication scenarios like marine life tracking and underwater distributed 3D reconstruction. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper and discusses potential future research directions. 2 PLATFORM COMPONENTS AND IMPLEM… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Underwater image enhancement result. 3.1.2 Clarity feature. As summarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of Tenengrad clarity feature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The monocular depth estimation system. the farthest and calculating the Tenengrad function value for each focus distance. It can be observed that the 𝑇 is a single￾peaked function with respect to focus distance. For a region 𝑅, there exists a unique optimal focus dista…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The monocular camera imaging model. 3.2.1 Camera imaging model. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributed update protocol. For robots in the set 𝑉 \ 𝑆 𝑡 , since the prior estimation 𝑥ˆ 𝑡 𝑖 is meaningless, they determine their local estimation only based on all neighbors in the valid robot set. Our update protocol follows ∀𝑖 ∈ 𝑉 , 𝑡 ≥ 0, 𝑥𝑡+1 𝑖 = ∑︁ 𝑗 ∈𝑁𝑖∩𝑆 𝑡 (1…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the coordinate system. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Test bed settings. 6.1 Underwater Monocular Depth Imaging To implement our underwater monocular depth imaging method in practical scenario, the first step is to obtain the function ℎ in (3). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Clarity function calibration experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Monocular depth estimation result [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: c and Figure 12d are the prior estimation of the target object, i.e., the localization results without distributed protocol. Figure 12e and Figure 12f are the distributed local￾ization results, which are apparently better than that without distributed protocol, which …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Robust orientation control results. (a) Generated point clouds (b) Rendered image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Application: underwater creature tracking. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Static Timing Orchestration for Tree-Structured Robot Control Firmware

    cs.RO 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FineMote generates robot control firmware with a static scheduler that orders device tasks by C++ initialization order, and derives worst-case bounds on perception-to-decision latency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    Reza Olfati-Saber and Richard M Murray. 2004. Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays.IEEE Trans. Automat. Control49, 9 (2004), 1520–1533

    work page 2004

  2. [1]

    Jonas Beuchert and Alex Rogers. 2021. SnapperGPS: algorithms for energy-efficient low-cost location estimation using GNSS signal snap- shots. InProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Embedded Net- worked Sensor Systems(Coimbra, Portugal)(SenSys ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 165–177

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Ling Chen, Sen Wang, Huosheng Hu, Dongbing Gu, and Liqing Liao

    work page

  4. [3]

    Joordens

    Jack Connor, Benjamin Champion, and Matthew A. Joordens. 2021. Current algorithms, communication methods and designs for under- water swarm robotics: a review.IEEE Sensors Journal21, 1 (2021), 153–169

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Kevin J DeMarco, Michael E West, and Ayanna M Howard. 2013. Sonar- based detection and tracking of a diver for underwater human-robot interaction scenarios. In2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. IEEE, 2378–2383

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Miguel Duarte, Jorge Gomes, Vasco Costa, Tiago Rodrigues, Fernando Silva, Víctor Lobo, Mario Monteiro Marques, Sancho Moura Oliveira, and Anders Lyhne Christensen. 2016. Application of swarm robot- ics systems to marine environmental monitoring. InOCEANS 2016 - Shanghai. 1–8

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Dudek, M

    G. Dudek, M. Jenkin, C. Prahacs, A. Hogue, J. Sattar, P. Giguere, A. German, Hui Liu, S. Saunderson, A. Ripsman, S. Simhon, L.-A. Torres, E. Milios, P. Zhang, and I. Rekletis. 2005. A visually guided swimming robot. In2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 3604–3609

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    Chelsey Edge, Sadman Sakib Enan, Michael Fulton, Jungseok Hong, Jiawei Mo, Kimberly Barthelemy, Hunter Bashaw, Berik Kallevig, Corey Knutson, Kevin Orpen, et al. 2020. Design and experiments with LoCO AUV: A low cost open-source autonomous underwater vehicle. In2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 1761–1768

    work page 2020

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    John Folkesson, John Leonard, Jacques Leederkerken, and Rob Williams. 2007. Feature tracking for underwater navigation using sonar. In2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 3678–3684

    2007

  2. [9]

    Guanying Huo, Ziyin Wu, Jiabiao Li, and Shoujun Li. 2018. Underwater target detection and 3D reconstruction system based on binocular vision.Sensors18, 10 (2018), 3570

    2018

  3. [10]

    2008.Engineering optics

    Keigo Iizuka and Keigo Iizuka. 2008.Engineering optics. Vol. 35. Springer

    2008

  4. [11]

    Imad Jawhar, Nader Mohamed, Jameela Al-Jaroodi, and Sheng Zhang

  5. [12]

    Lai Kang, Lingda Wu, and Yee-Hong Yang. 2012. Experimental study of the influence of refraction on underwater three-dimensional recon- struction using the SVP camera model.Applied Optics51, 31 (Nov 2012), 7591–7603

    2012

  6. [13]

    Michael Krieg, Kevin Nelson, and Kamran Mohseni. 2019. Distributed sensing for fluid disturbance compensation and motion control of intelligent robots.Nature Machine Intelligence1 (2019), 216 – 224

    2019

  7. [14]

    2015.Fluid mechanics

    Pijush K Kundu, Ira M Cohen, and David R Dowling. 2015.Fluid mechanics. Academic press

    2015

  8. [15]

    Jianfeng Liu, Jiexin Pu, Lifan Sun, and Zishu He. 2019. An approach to robust INS/UWB integrated positioning for autonomous indoor mobile robots.Sensors19, 4 (2019), 950

    2019

  9. [16]

    Song Liu and Tian He. 2017. SmartLight: light-weight 3D indoor localization using a single LED lamp. InProceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Embedded Network Sensor Systems(Delft, Netherlands) (SenSys ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 11...

    2017

  10. [17]

    Sørensen

    Martin Ludvigsen and Asgeir J. Sørensen. 2016. Towards integrated au- tonomous underwater operations for ocean mapping and monitoring. Annual Reviews in Control42 (2016), 145–157

    2016

  11. [18]

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. 2021. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis.Commun. ACM65, 1 (2021), 99–106

    2021

  12. [20]

    Chiara Petrioli, Roberto Petroccia, and Daniele Spaccini. 2013. Adap- tive cross-layer routing for underwater acoustic sensor networks with the SUNSET framework. InProceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems(Roma, Italy)(SenSys ’13). As- sociati...

    2013

  13. [21]

    Giacomo Picardi, Mrudul Chellapurath, Saverio Iacoponi, Sergio Ste- fanni, Cecilia Laschi, and Marcello Calisti. 2020. Bioinspired under- water legged robot for seabed exploration with low environmental disturbance.Science Robotics5, 42 (2020), eaaz1012

    2020

  14. [22]

    Fabio Remondino and Clive Fraser. 2006. Digital camera calibration methods: considerations and comparisons.International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 36, 5 (2006), 266–272

    2006

  15. [23]

    Christian Renner, Benjamin Meyer, Daniel Bimschas, Alexander Gabrecht, Sebastian Ebers, Thomas Tosik, Ammar Amory, Erik Maehle, SenSys’24, November 2024, Hangzhou, China Jisheng Xu, Ding Lin, Pangkit Fong, Chongrong Fang, Jianping He, and Xiaoming Duan and Stefan Fischer. 2014...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Francisco Rovira-Más, Ishani Chatterjee, and Verónica Sáiz-Rubio

  17. [25]

    Wang Shule, Carmen Martínez Almansa, Jorge Peña Queralta, Zhuo Zou, and Tomi Westerlund. 2020. UWB-based localization for multi- UAV systems and collaborative heterogeneous multi-robot systems. Procedia Computer Science175 (2020), 357–364

    2020

  18. [26]

    Vedachalam, R

    N. Vedachalam, R. Ramesh, V. Bala Naga Jyothi, V. Doss Prakash, and G. A. Ramadass. 2019. Autonomous underwater vehicles - challenging developments and technological maturity towards strategic swarm robotics systems.Marine Georesources & Geotechnology37, 5 (2019), 525–538

    2019

  19. [27]

    The role of GNSS in the navigation strategies of cost-effective agricultural robots.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture112 (2015), 172–183

    2015

  20. [28]

    Shijun Wang, Aixue Ye, Hao Guo, Jiaojiao Gu, Xiaonan Wang, and Kui Yuan. 2016. Autonomous pallet localization and picking for industrial forklifts based on the line structured light. In2016 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. IEEE, 707–713

    2016

  21. [29]

    Christopher JCH Watkins and Peter Dayan. 1992. Q-learning.Machine Learning8 (1992), 279–292

    1992

  22. [30]

    Jie Wang, Qinghua Gao, Yan Yu, Xiao Zhang, and Xueyan Feng. 2015. Time and energy efficient TOF-based device-free wireless localization. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics12, 1 (2015), 158–168

    2015

  23. [31]

    Ryan W Wolcott and Ryan M Eustice. 2015. Fast LIDAR localization us- ing multiresolution Gaussian mixture maps. In2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2814–2821

    2015

  24. [32]

    Xiaojun Wu and XingCan Tang. 2019. Accurate binocular stereo underwater measurement method.International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems16, 5 (2019), 1729881419864468

    2019

  25. [33]

    Gary Witus and Shawn Hunt. 2008. Monocular visual ranging. In Unmanned Systems Technology X, Vol. 6962. SPIE, 38–44

    2008

  26. [34]

    Haodong Yang, Jisheng Xu, Zhiliang Lin, and Jianping He. 2024. LU2Net: a lightweight network for real-time underwater image en- hancement.arXiv e-prints(Jun 2024), arXiv:2406.14973

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Bin Yan, Houwen Peng, Kan Wu, Dong Wang, Jianlong Fu, and Huchuan Lu. 2021. LightTrack: Finding lightweight neural networks for object tracking via one-shot architecture search. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 15180–15189

    2021

  28. [2015]

    Improving localization accuracy for an underwater robot with a slow-sampling sonar through graph optimization.IEEE Sensors Journal 15, 9 (2015), 5024–5035

    2015

  29. [2019]

    An architecture for using autonomous underwater vehicles in wireless sensor networks for underwater pipeline monitoring.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics15, 3 (2019), 1329–1340

    2019

Pith tools

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