Optimizing Start Locations in Ergodic Search for Disaster Response

Alyssa Hargis; Ananya Rao; David Wettergreen; Howie Choset

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Optimizing Start Locations in Ergodic Search for Disaster Response

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a start-location constraint to ergodic trajectory optimization lets the optimizer choose where robots begin, yielding substantially better coverage than random fixed starts on disaster-response maps.

desk verdict A plausible extension of ergodic search whose main gains may be a discretization artifact until the authors say how the constrained problem is actually solved. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02708 v3 pith:XBTCQJOX submitted 2025-07-03 cs.RO

Ananya Rao , Alyssa Hargis , David Wettergreen , Howie Choset This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords ergodicsearchmulti-agenttrajectoryoptimizationstartlocationheterogeneousrobotteamsdisasterresponseroboticscoverageplanningandrescue

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 tries to establish that where a multi-robot search team starts is part of the planning problem, not a fixed input. It does this by adding a constraint on initial positions — each robot's start must lie in a set of viable start locations — to the ergodic trajectory-optimization formulation, so that minimizing the ergodic metric simultaneously selects both starts and paths. On synthetic and real-world disaster maps, the authors report that this joint optimization improves the ergodic metric by roughly 30–39 percent over a single random start, for both homogeneous and heterogeneous teams, and that multiple jointly optimized starts clearly beat multiple random starts. A sympathetic reader should care because deployment-site choice is currently made by human judgment from aerial imagery, and this result suggests it can be automated as part of the coverage planner itself.

What carries the argument

The central device is the start-location constraint added to the ergodic trajectory-optimization problem, whose objective is the ergodic metric $\Phi(\gamma(t))$ — the weighted sum of squared differences between Fourier coefficients of the team's time-averaged trajectory statistics and of the desired information distribution. The minimum of this constrained problem now selects both where each robot begins and how it moves. For heterogeneous teams the constraint is expanded to per-type start sets, $\gamma_i(0) \in X_0^k$ for every robot of type $k$, because different sensing and motion modalities call for different kinds of launch sites. The paper uses spectral-based distributed multi-agent ergodic search as the underlying planner, so the added constraints inherit that planner's allocation of spectral scales to agents.

What would settle it

On a fixed set of the paper's own maps, enumerate or densely sample start-location assignments from the candidate set $X_0$, run the same spectral trajectory planner from each, and compare the best ergodic metric to the jointly optimized start assignment; if best-of-$X_0$ matches or beats the joint solution, then the constraint's minimum is doing no work beyond the planner's own randomness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that start locations should not be treated as fixed inputs to multi-robot search but as decision variables inside the same optimization that produces the search trajectories. Concretely, adding the constraint $\gamma_i(0) \in X_0$ to the ergodic trajectory-optimization problem turns the optimizer's minimum into a joint choice of starts and paths; when the team is heterogeneous, the constraint is applied per robot type with $\gamma_i(0) \in X_0^k$ for each agent of type $k$. The authors evaluate this on synthetic and real-world disaster maps and report that the joint formulation reduces the ergodic metric by 39.35% and 34.33% over a single random start for homogeneous and heterogeneous teams on synthetic data, and by 32.6% and 29.5% on real-world data; averaged across team types, the gains are 35.98% on synthetic and 31.91% on real-world data. They conclude that jointly optimizing starts and trajectories yields significantly better coverage than fixed random starts for both homogeneous and heterogeneous teams.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's results stand on the unstated assumption that the constrained optimization problem is actually solved by a reliable numerical algorithm: the write-up adds the constraints but does not specify the solver, discretization, gradient handling, or convergence analysis, so if the reported start assignments were produced by an ad hoc or unreliable optimizer, the coverage gains would not generalize.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, deployment planning for disaster response can be automated: instead of a human picking launch sites, the search planner itself selects starts from a candidate set, removing a major source of variability in coverage quality.
For homogeneous teams, a single jointly optimized start is almost as good as multiple optimized starts (34.91%/29.69% vs 39.35%/32.6% improvement over a random single start), so multiple starts pay off mainly when the team has heterogeneous robots.
For heterogeneous teams, per-type optimized starts are the clear winner (34.33% on synthetic and 29.5% on real-world maps over a single random start), while a single optimized start captures only 13.81% and 18.2% gains, implying that forcing all robot types to share one start sacrifices most of the possible improvement.
Randomly sampling multiple starts captures only a small fraction of the benefit (5.52%–9.77% over a single random start), so the paper's improvement is not explained by having more starts; it comes from optimizing where those starts are.
Because the constraint is purely on initial conditions, the framework can work with any candidate set of start locations, including those derived from expert knowledge or aerial imagery, so the method's practical value scales with the quality and completeness of the candidate set $X_0$.

Reading between the lines

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

The same initial-condition constraint could be dropped into other trajectory optimizers that accept constraints on $\gamma(0)$, not only the spectral ergodic planner used here; if the optimizer is reliable, the start-location benefit should transfer.
Because the paper only compares against random starts, a stronger test of the joint formulation is how it compares to an informed but non-optimized heuristic, such as choosing starts that maximize expected information reachable within the time budget; the reported margin over random starts does not by itself establish optimality.
A practical deployment concern the authors list as future work — offset start times and travel or crew costs between start sites — would change the optimizer's trade-off; incorporating those costs could shrink the advantage of multiple optimized starts when sites are far apart or require separate personnel.
The reported averages combine different maps and trials; a reader who wants to deploy the method would need per-map spreads to know how often jointly optimized starts beat the best random start rather than just the mean random start.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a modest extension of the authors' own spectral-based ergodic search framework, and it could be useful, but the central claim — that the constrained optimization is actually solved and that the gains are real — is not yet supported. The solver is never described, and there is a specific discretization artifact that could inflate the reported 29–39% improvements.

What's new: this is the first paper I know of that treats start locations as decision variables inside the ergodic trajectory optimization rather than as a pre-set input. The formulation in Eqs. 3–5 is simple — membership constraints on γ(0) — and the heterogeneous case with per-type start sets is a reasonable extension. The experiments cover synthetic and real-world maps with homogeneous and heterogeneous teams, and the authors are upfront about practical assumptions like simultaneous start and ignoring deployment costs.

The soft spots are real. The biggest: Section III never says how the constrained problem is solved. No solver, no discretization, no gradient handling, no constraint-enforcement mechanism. That makes the paper's main empirical claim not independently checkable from the text. The stress-test point about t=0 is sharper than a generic 'missing details' complaint. Eq. 1 defines the time-average over (0,t], so the initial state has measure zero in the continuous cost. But if the implementation sums Gaussian kernels over sampled points and includes the t=0 sample, then optimizing γ(0) directly lowers the cost by starting in high-information regions, while the random-start baselines cannot. That could explain most of the gain. The paper doesn't tell us which way it is. This is testable and fixable, but until then the central result is not supported.

The baseline comparison is also narrow: only random fixed starts. A simple heuristic like 'start each robot at a high-information peak' would be a useful sanity check. Stats: 50 and 25 trials, but no error bars or significance tests, and the abstract percentages don't match the per-condition numbers in Section IV. That's a minor but telling sloppiness.

Who is this for? People working in informative path planning for multi-robot search. It's a legitimate subfield contribution, not a breakthrough. I'd send it to peer review, but only with the requirement that the authors specify the solver and discretization, release code/data, and either rule out the t=0 artifact or fix it. If that checks out, the paper is fine as a modest incremental result.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the authors' prior spectral-based heterogeneous ergodic search planner by treating start locations as optimization variables. It proposes adding the constraint gamma_i(0) in X0 (homogeneous teams, Eq. 4) or gamma_i(0) in X0^i per agent type (heterogeneous teams, Eq. 5) to the ergodic trajectory optimization of Eq. 3. The paper compares four planning variants—single random start, multiple random starts, single optimized start, and multiple optimized starts—on synthetic and real-world disaster maps, reporting roughly 29–39% improvements in the ergodic metric for the multiple-optimized-starts version. A short limitations paragraph notes the assumption of simultaneous starts and the omission of deployment and travel costs.

Significance. If the constrained optimization is actually solved as described, the paper would provide a straightforward and practically useful extension to ergodic coverage, and the use of heterogeneous start sets is sensible. The experimental design covers domain-relevant datasets, and the reported effect sizes are large. However, the manuscript does not supply the algorithm that solves the constrained problem, does not report uncertainty on the improvements, and lacks a non-random baseline; these gaps currently make the central claim unverifiable. There are no machine-checked proofs or released code, so the verification is entirely empirical.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eqs. (4)–(5)] The constrained optimization problem is never actually specified as a computational procedure. The text says that Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) are added to Eq. (3), but it does not state how the optimizer represents X0 (continuous feasible set, discrete set, mask), how the constraint is enforced (projection, penalty, augmented Lagrangian), how the initial condition gamma_i(0) is treated as a decision variable, what discretization is used for the trajectory and the ergodic metric, or what convergence criterion is used. Since every reported performance number is the output of this unstated solver, the claim that the minimum of the constrained problem assigns robots to start locations is asserted rather than demonstrated. The manuscript should provide the solver or a precise algorithm description, including discretization and convergence checks; without this, the results are not reproducible and could reflect an arbitrary initialization or a hand-tuned procedure.
[Section II.C, Eq. (1); Section IV.B] The ergodic metric in Eq. (1) is defined as a time average over (0,t]; the state at t=0 has measure zero in the continuous formulation. If the discrete implementation of Phi evaluates the coverage statistics at sample times that include gamma_i(0), then the optimizer can reduce Phi simply by choosing starts inside high-information regions at the first time step; the random-start baselines cannot do this. The paper reports consistent double-digit improvements without stating whether the initial sample is excluded from the coverage statistics. This is a concrete, testable artifact and should be ruled out by stating the discretization and, ideally, re-running the experiments with the t=0 sample removed from the ergodic metric. If the reported gains persist after this check, they would be credible; if not, the central conclusion would be an artifact of the implementation.
[Section IV.A, 'Baseline Approaches'] The baseline set consists only of random fixed starts. Current practice, as the introduction argues, is a human-selected start location informed by imagery or prior knowledge; the paper gives no comparison against any non-random heuristic, such as starting nearest to the highest-information region, farthest-point sampling among candidate starts, or the authors' own aerial-imagery prioritization [7]. The observed 29–39% gains are therefore relative to deliberately weak baselines, and the conclusion that joint optimization significantly advances start selection is stronger than the evidence supports. A single non-random baseline would substantially strengthen the claim.
[Section IV.B, 'Experimental Results'] No measure of variance or statistical significance is reported for the headline improvements. The text reports averages over 50 trials for homogeneous teams and 25 trials for heterogeneous teams, but gives no standard deviations, interquartile ranges, confidence intervals, or statistical tests. Given that the random-start baselines introduce substantial stochasticity, the reader cannot tell whether the differences between the multiple-optimized-starts condition and the single-optimized-start condition, or the differences across map types, are meaningful. Please report per-map results and dispersion measures for all four planning variants.

minor comments (5)

[Section I, Section II.C] There are several typographical and formatting issues: 'UA V' should be 'UAV', and Eq. (1) contains malformed notation 'X ⊂I Rd' that should be cleaned up.
[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract reports average improvements of 35.98% on synthetic data and 31.91% on real-world data, while the introduction reports 39.35% and 34.33% (synthetic) and 32.6% and 29.5% (real-world) for the two team configurations; the aggregation rule should be stated explicitly so the numbers are not read as inconsistent.
[Section IV.A] The paper says the planner is 'spectral-based distributed ergodic search [4]' but does not restate the multi-agent spectral allocation; a brief review or an explicit reference to the relevant equations in [4] would make the experiment self-contained.
[References] Reference [7] is cited as the source of the real-world start-location candidates, but no publication venue, technical report number, or public availability information is given; please add a complete citation.
[Section V] The limitations paragraph is useful, but it could also acknowledge that the experiments assume perfect knowledge of X0 and do not model obstacles or terrain constraints in the search domain.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the start-location constraint enlarges the ergodic optimization feasible set and the reported gains are experimental outcomes, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

I find no load-bearing circularity in the paper's derivation chain. The claimed contribution is a constrained optimization extension, not a fitted prediction: Eqs. 4 and 5 add a feasible-set constraint on gamma_i(0), while the ergodic metric in Eq. 2 is a distinct objective. Optimizing start locations over X0 enlarges the feasible set of Eq. 3 relative to fixed random starts, so the reported improvements are measured consequences of optimizing over a superset of the baseline's feasible set, not an identity reducing the objective to the constraint. The experimental comparison is internally controlled because the same spectral ergodic planner [4] is used for all baseline and proposed conditions, and the candidate start sets [7] are inputs shared across comparisons. The self-citations to [4] and [7] supply the trajectory planner and the candidate start regions, but they are not invoked to prove that the minimum of Eq. 4 assigns starts; the numerical gains are reported from experiments. The main caveats in this paper—absence of solver, discretization, gradient, and constraint-enforcement details in Section III, and the possibility that a discrete implementation of Eq. 1 includes the t=0 sample and lets the optimized start point directly affect Phi—are correctness and reproducibility risks, not definitional circularity. They do not exhibit a reduction of the claimed result to its own inputs, so I do not score them as circular steps.

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

The ledger contains no new physical entities. It records the hand-set experimental hyperparameters and domain assumptions that the reported coverage numbers depend on. The most important unreported items are the solver internals, ergodic metric weights, and sensor model parameters.

free parameters (4)

Ergodic metric weights alpha_k = not specified
Weighting coefficients in Eq. 2 determine how much each Fourier mode mismatch counts; they affect the objective being optimized and are not reported.
Fourier truncation m = not specified
Number of spectral coefficients in Eq. 2 controls approximation accuracy and computational cost; not stated in experiments.
Sensor footprint parameters for low-range/high-fidelity and high-range/low-fidelity sensors = not specified
Gaussian spread and detection probability for the two sensor types in Section IV-A; chosen by hand for simulation and not quantified.
Trajectory time horizon and control bound = not specified
Search duration and max control/curvature limits from Eq. 3; not reported, but coverage improvements depend on them.

assumptions (5)

standard math Fourier spectral decomposition of the information map and trajectory statistics is a valid basis for coverage optimization
The method relies on the ergodic metric from [6], which assumes the spectral coefficients capture the relevant spatial distribution; no convergence or approximation error analysis is given.
domain assumption A complete set of viable start locations X0 is available
Section III states the method assumes knowledge of possible or viable starting locations, from expert knowledge or aerial imagery, but gives no way to verify completeness or bias.
domain assumption All robots start operating at the same time and deployment travel costs are ignored
Acknowledged in the Conclusions as a practical limitation; if false, the optimized multi-start plan may be infeasible in the field.
domain assumption Gaussian sensor models are adequate for detection likelihood
Section IV-A models each sensor as a Gaussian distribution over the footprint; this simplification is not validated against real sensor data.
domain assumption The constrained ergodic optimization has a tractable solution and the reported results come from an actual optimizer
The paper never specifies the algorithm that enforces gamma_i(0) in X0, so the existence and correctness of the optimizer is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Start Locations in Ergodic Search for Disaster Response." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XBTCQJOX

@misc{pith2026250702708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Start Locations in Ergodic Search for Disaster Response},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XBTCQJOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02708}
}

read the original abstract

In disaster response scenarios, deploying robotic teams effectively is crucial for improving situational awareness and enhancing search and rescue operations. The use of robots in search and rescue has been studied but the question of where to start robot deployments has not been addressed. This work addresses the problem of optimally selecting starting locations for robots with heterogeneous capabilities by formulating a joint optimization problem. To determine start locations, this work adds a constraint to the ergodic optimization framework whose minimum assigns robots to start locations. This becomes a little more challenging when the robots are heterogeneous (equipped with different sensing and motion modalities) because not all robots start at the same location, and a more complex adaptation of the aforementioned constraint is applied. Our method assumes access to potential starting locations, which can be obtained from expert knowledge or aerial imagery. We experimentally evaluate the efficacy of our joint optimization approach by comparing it to baseline methods that use fixed starting locations for all robots. Our experimental results show significant gains in coverage performance, with average improvements of 35.98% on synthetic data and 31.91% on real-world data for homogeneous and heterogeneous teams, in terms of the ergodic metric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02708 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Synthetic dataset examples: Yellow indicates high in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Homogeneous Multi-Agent Team Experiments: Eval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Real-world dataset examples: Building damage is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Team Experiments: Eval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[7]

Search and rescue base of operation prioritization with aerial orthomo- saics,

A. Hargis, A. Rao, and H. Choset, “Search and rescue base of operation prioritization with aerial orthomo- saics,” 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Tech- nologies enabling situational awareness during disaster response: A systematic review,

T. Kedia, J. Ratcliff, M. O’Connor, et al. , “Tech- nologies enabling situational awareness during disaster response: A systematic review,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 341–359, 2022. DOI: 10 . 1017 / dmp . 2020 . 196

work page 2022
[2]

R. R. Murphy, Disaster Robotics. MIT Press, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Adoption of robots for disasters: Lessons from the response to covid-19,

R. R. Murphy, V . B. Gandudi, J. Adams, A. Clendenin, J. Moats, et al. , “Adoption of robots for disasters: Lessons from the response to covid-19,” Foundations and Trends® in Robotics , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 130–200, 2021

work page 2021
[4]

Spectral-based distributed ergodic coverage for heterogeneous multi- agent search,

G. Sartoretti, A. Rao, and H. Choset, “Spectral-based distributed ergodic coverage for heterogeneous multi- agent search,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, F. Matsuno, S.-i. Azuma, and M. Yamamoto, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 227–241, ISBN : 978-3-030-92790-5

work page 2022
[5]

Manzini, P

T. Manzini, P. Perali, R. Karnik, and R. Murphy, Crasar-u-droids: A large scale benchmark dataset for building alignment and damage assessment in georectified suas imagery, 2024. arXiv: 2407.17673 [cs.CV]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/2407.17673

arXiv 2024
[6]

Metrics for ergodicity and design of ergodic dynamics for multi-agent systems,

G. Mathew and I. Mezi ´c, “Metrics for ergodicity and design of ergodic dynamics for multi-agent systems,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , vol. 240, no. 4, pp. 432–442, 2011

work page 2011
[8]

Quantitative data analysis: Crasar small unmanned aerial systems at hurricane harvey,

O. Fernandes, R. Murphy, J. Adams, and D. Merrick, “Quantitative data analysis: Crasar small unmanned aerial systems at hurricane harvey,” in 2018 IEEE In- ternational Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) , 2018, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10 . 1109 / SSRR.2018.8468647

work page arXiv 2018

Show all 18 references

[9]

Robotic fire- fighting: A review and future perspective,

M. Wang, X. Chen, and X. Huang, “Robotic fire- fighting: A review and future perspective,” Intelligent Building Fire Safety and Smart Firefighting , pp. 475– 499, 2024

2024
[10]

FEMA preliminary damage assess- ment guide,

F. E. M. Agency, “FEMA preliminary damage assess- ment guide,” US Department of Homeland Security, Aug. 2021

2021
[11]

Coverage for robotics–a survey of recent results,

H. Choset, “Coverage for robotics–a survey of recent results,” Annals of mathematics and artificial intelli- gence, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 113–126, 2001

2001
[12]

Optimal search for a moving target - A geometric approach,

V . Ablavsky and M. Snorrason, “Optimal search for a moving target - A geometric approach,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, AIAA, 2000

2000
[13]

Multi-uav target search using de- centralized gradient-based negotiation with expected observation,

P. Lanillos, S. K. Gan, E. Besada-Portas, G. Pajares, and S. Sukkarieh, “Multi-uav target search using de- centralized gradient-based negotiation with expected observation,” Information Sciences, vol. 282, pp. 92– 110, 2014

2014
[14]

Multi-robot search and rescue: A potential field based approach,

J. L. Baxter, E. Burke, J. M. Garibaldi, and M. Nor- man, “Multi-robot search and rescue: A potential field based approach,” in Autonomous robots and agents , Springer, 2007, pp. 9–16

2007
[15]

Multi- vehicle bayesian search for multiple lost targets,

E.-M. Wong, F. Bourgault, and T. Furukawa, “Multi- vehicle bayesian search for multiple lost targets,” in International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE, 2005, pp. 3169–3174

2005
[16]

Utility-guided palpation for locating tis- sue abnormalities,

E. Ayvali, A. Ansari, L. Wang, N. Simaan, and H. Choset, “Utility-guided palpation for locating tis- sue abnormalities,” Robotics and Automation Letters , 2017

2017
[17]

Ergodic cover- age in constrained environments using stochastic tra- jectory optimization,

E. Ayvali, H. Salman, and H. Choset, “Ergodic cover- age in constrained environments using stochastic tra- jectory optimization,” in International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE, 2017, pp. 5204– 5210

2017
[18]

Ergodic exploration of distributed information,

L. M. Miller, Y . Silverman, M. A. MacIver, and T. D. Murphey, “Ergodic exploration of distributed information,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 36–52, 2016

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Search and rescue base of operation prioritization with aerial orthomo- saics,

A. Hargis, A. Rao, and H. Choset, “Search and rescue base of operation prioritization with aerial orthomo- saics,” 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Tech- nologies enabling situational awareness during disaster response: A systematic review,

T. Kedia, J. Ratcliff, M. O’Connor, et al. , “Tech- nologies enabling situational awareness during disaster response: A systematic review,” Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 341–359, 2022. DOI: 10 . 1017 / dmp . 2020 . 196

work page 2022

[3] [2]

R. R. Murphy, Disaster Robotics. MIT Press, 2014

work page 2014

[4] [3]

Adoption of robots for disasters: Lessons from the response to covid-19,

R. R. Murphy, V . B. Gandudi, J. Adams, A. Clendenin, J. Moats, et al. , “Adoption of robots for disasters: Lessons from the response to covid-19,” Foundations and Trends® in Robotics , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 130–200, 2021

work page 2021

[5] [4]

Spectral-based distributed ergodic coverage for heterogeneous multi- agent search,

G. Sartoretti, A. Rao, and H. Choset, “Spectral-based distributed ergodic coverage for heterogeneous multi- agent search,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, F. Matsuno, S.-i. Azuma, and M. Yamamoto, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 227–241, ISBN : 978-3-030-92790-5

work page 2022

[6] [5]

Manzini, P

T. Manzini, P. Perali, R. Karnik, and R. Murphy, Crasar-u-droids: A large scale benchmark dataset for building alignment and damage assessment in georectified suas imagery, 2024. arXiv: 2407.17673 [cs.CV]. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv. org/abs/2407.17673

arXiv 2024

[7] [6]

Metrics for ergodicity and design of ergodic dynamics for multi-agent systems,

G. Mathew and I. Mezi ´c, “Metrics for ergodicity and design of ergodic dynamics for multi-agent systems,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , vol. 240, no. 4, pp. 432–442, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [8]

Quantitative data analysis: Crasar small unmanned aerial systems at hurricane harvey,

O. Fernandes, R. Murphy, J. Adams, and D. Merrick, “Quantitative data analysis: Crasar small unmanned aerial systems at hurricane harvey,” in 2018 IEEE In- ternational Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) , 2018, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10 . 1109 / SSRR.2018.8468647

work page arXiv 2018