Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Autonomous 3D Moving Target Encirclement and Interception with Range measurement

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two guardian drones can encircle and intercept a hostile UAV using only noisy range measurements.

desk verdict A mostly sound 3D range-only encirclement controller with a hardware demo that doesn't actually use real range sensors. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13106 v1 pith:PP33LG2J submitted 2025-06-16 cs.RO eess.SP

Fen Liu , Shenghai Yuan , Thien-Minh Nguyen , Rong Su This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROeess.SP MSC 93C85
keywords range-onlylocalizationtargetencirclementanti-synchronizationcontrolUAVinterceptionnon-cooperativepersistentlyexcitingdronedefense3D
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

Commercial drones carrying hazardous payloads are hard to stop with ground-based radar or vision, especially when GPS is jammed or the target is out of line of sight. This paper argues that two lightweight guardian drones, each measuring only noisy distances to a non-cooperative target, can estimate its 3D position, encircle it, and, if the target breaches a warning threshold, intercept it by collision. The authors propose a target position estimator that combines the two distance measurements with a recursive-least-squares update and a velocity compensator, plus an anti-synchronization controller that places the two drones on opposite sides of the target. They prove bounded estimation and encirclement errors under a persistently exciting motion condition, and they report a real-world demonstration in which two guardians switch from protecting a surface convoy to encircling and taking down a hostile drone. If correct, the approach offers an anti-drone capability that needs no surface guidance, no camera-based bearing tracking of the target, and no radio-frequency jamming.

What carries the argument

The central object is the intersection circle of the two range spheres centered at the drones: with two noisy distances d1 and d2 and the known inter-drone distance d12, the target lies on a circle with computable center c and radius ς. The estimator uses the displacement c − c(−) as a velocity compensator for the target's unknown motion, and feeds a recursive-least-squares update with forgetting factor γ1 on the observation ϖ = q12^T q2, so that persistently exciting relative motion q12 drives the position error to a bound. The controller is built on the anti-synchronization shape vector ζ(r,ν,k) = r(sin(νkπ), cos(νkπ), g(k))^T, whose vertical jitter g(k) keeps the sequence persistently exciting; Drone 1 is driven toward +ζ and Drone 2 toward −ζ relative to the target, giving maximum geometric coverage and a unique target position from two ranges.

What would settle it

Run the same estimator and controller on hardware where distances come from a real non-cooperative range sensor, such as a microphone array or UWB, with measured noise, and compare the achieved position and encirclement errors with the simulation's roughly 5 cm values under the same target trajectory. If the errors do not stay within the theoretical bound ϱ1 as the target maneuvers near the assumed maximum speed, or if the drones cannot hold the anti-synchronized geometry, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that range-only measurements from two moving drones are sufficient to track, encircle, and intercept a non-cooperative 3D target, provided the drones' motion keeps the relative geometry persistently exciting. The target position estimator uses, at each step, the circle formed by the intersection of two range spheres; the motion of that circle's center is used to compensate for the target's unknown velocity. A recursive least-squares estimator with exponential forgetting factor, driven by the projection of the estimated position onto the inter-drone baseline, yields an estimation error bounded by ϱ1 once the forgetting factor γ1 ≤ 1/2. The anti-drone controller then steers Drone 1 to +ζ and Drone 2 to −ζ relative to the target—anti-synchronized positions on opposite sides—with the radius shrinking as the hostile target enters warning and take-down zones; Theorem 2 gives bounded encirclement error for controller gain α in (−1/√3, 1/√3]. The authors validate the scheme in numerical simulation and in a 50-second real flight where two low-cost drones, using distances inferred from camera-based SLAM point clouds, first orbit a protected surface vehicle and then encircle and collide with a hostile drone.

Load-bearing premise

The demonstration assumes that pseudo-range distances obtained from camera-based SLAM point clouds behave like true noisy range-only measurements; if real acoustic or radio ranging is much noisier or missing, the experimental validation does not support the range-only claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the estimation and control claims hold, two small drones with only ranging hardware can protect a convoy or ship without any ground-based guidance station.
  • The same controller can transition seamlessly from a protective orbit around a friendly target to a monitoring and encirclement orbit around a hostile drone, with the orbit radius shrinking as the threat approaches.
  • Range-only sensing removes the need for a camera-based bearing pipeline, making the scheme robust in darkness, fog, GPS denial, and radio jamming.
  • Under the persistently exciting encirclement motion, the theoretical bounds guarantee that position estimation error and encirclement error remain finite, and the error shrinks as the drones get closer to the target.
  • When the hostile target enters the take-down zone, the controller can reduce the radius to a collision, meaning a kinetic kill by the guardian drone itself.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The experimental component uses pseudo-ranges extracted from camera-based SLAM point clouds rather than true acoustic or radio range sensors; a natural extension would be to replay the same controller with real microphone-array or UWB ranging hardware, whose noise statistics differ, to see whether the roughly 5 cm simulation error persists.
  • Because the velocity compensator improves as the drones approach the target, the method seems best suited to terminal-phase interception; long-range detection would still need another sensor to bring the drones into the warning zone.
  • The anti-synchronized geometry suggests a testable scaling: adding more guardian drones in anti-synchronized pairs should reduce the per-drone motion needed for persistent excitation, which could be checked by simulating three or more drones with the same estimator.
  • A hostile target that maneuvers to break the persistently exciting condition—for instance by matching the drones' circular motion—could in principle drive the estimator toward its error bound; the paper's guarantees do not cover targets that are actively optimizing against the estimator.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an autonomous 3D target encirclement and interception strategy for two guardian UAVs protecting a surface target from a hostile UAV. The guardians use noisy distance measurements to a non-cooperative target, an RLS-based position estimator with a velocity compensator, and an anti-synchronization (AS) encirclement controller with three concentric decision zones. The paper claims the first demonstration of drone-to-drone interception with range-only measurements, supported by a MATLAB simulation and a real-world experiment using Tello drones. The theoretical contribution is a PE-based estimator and a controller with convergence proofs in Appendices A and B.

Significance. If the convergence proofs were complete and the experiment actually used range-only sensors, the work would be a meaningful step toward lightweight anti-drone systems that operate in GPS-denied and NLOS conditions. The control architecture, combining AS encirclement with vertical jitter and adaptive radius reduction, is interesting, and the simulation shows small estimation and tracking errors. However, the velocity compensator in Eq. (11c) acts only at a single time step, which is not reflected in the proof's assumption of a uniformly bounded velocity error, and the real-world experiment infers pseudo ranges from AirSLAM visual SLAM positions rather than from range sensors. These issues currently prevent the paper from substantiating its central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (11c) and Appendix A] The velocity compensator in Eq. (11c) is defined with a Kronecker delta δ{k=km}, so v̂2(k)=0 for all k≠km. The proof of Theorem 1 in Appendix A assumes ∥ev,2∥ ≤ ϱ2 for all time, but since the compensation vanishes except at k=km, the error ev,2 = v2 − v̂2 equals the full target velocity v2 for all other steps, yielding only the bound ϱ2 = ˇv2. The resulting estimation error bound ϱ1 = 2t²γ1β̌1ϱ2²/((1−2γ1)β̂1) therefore does not show any benefit of the compensation and does not establish the claimed velocity-compensated convergence for a continuously maneuvering target. The proof must be revised to handle a persistent velocity error or the compensator must be redesigned as a persistent estimator.
  2. [Section IV-B] The real-world demonstration does not use range-only sensors: the 'pseudo range distances' are inferred indirectly from AirSLAM global point clouds produced by camera-based SLAM instances for all agents. These distances are deterministic functions of the very 3D positions that a range-only estimator is meant to recover, making the experiment unable to validate the claim of 'range-only measurements' or the estimation of a non-cooperative target. The statement that camera-derived ranges 'closely resemble real-world measurement uncertainty' is not quantified or compared with actual UWB or acoustic ranging statistics. The paper's headline claim of the 'first to demonstrate autonomous drone-to-drone interception ... with range-only measurements' is therefore not supported by the presented evidence.
  3. [Appendix B] The encirclement error bound in Appendix B, ε2,2 = (3(α−1)²ϱ1 + 3(ϱ2+ˇv2)²)/(1−3α²), depends on the velocity compensation error bound ϱ2. Because the compensation in Eq. (11c) is a single impulse, ϱ2 cannot be taken as small for k>km; the bound must use ϱ2 = ˇv2. Consequently, the claimed ultimate encirclement error for Target 2 is not established under continuous target motion. The proof needs to be reworked with a realistic bound on ev,2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (11c)] The term δ{k=km} is called a Dirac delta, but in discrete time it is a Kronecker delta; please correct the terminology.
  2. [Section IV-B] Please provide quantitative statistics of the pseudo-range noise (e.g., standard deviation, correlation with the SLAM estimates) to support the claim that they 'closely resemble real-world measurement uncertainty.'
  3. [Section I] The claim of being the 'first to demonstrate' should be tempered or supported by a direct comparison with the closest prior range-only interception work, especially because the experiment uses pseudo ranges rather than actual range sensors.
  4. [Section III-C, Case 3] The formula for r3, r3(−) − (r2−¯r)(v̂2(Ω3(0))+ι2)/(z2−z1), mixes velocity and distance terms and is dimensionally unclear; please clarify the intended time dependence.
  5. [Appendix B] The constants ε1,1 and ε2,1 are defined with 'a' in place of 'α'; please make the notation consistent.
  6. [Section IV-B] The experiment relies on offboard NUC processing and ground-based vision, so the phrase 'minimal onboard sensors' should be clarified to reflect that the processing is not onboard.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Theoretical derivation is largely self-contained; the real-world 'range-only' validation is circular because pseudo ranges are computed from AirSLAM point clouds that already contain the target positions.

  1. self definitional [Section IV-B, Real-world UAV-based experiment, setup paragraph]
    "All robots operate with multiple instances of AirSLAM nodes [41], [42] ... Guardian drones estimate their relative positions by referencing common global point clouds, while pseudo range distances between the guardian UAV, hostile UAV, and surface patrol vehicle are inferred indirectly."

    The paper's headline claim is the first real-world demonstration of drone-to-drone interception using range-only measurements. But the distances fed to the TPE are not sensor measurements: they are 'pseudo range distances' derived from AirSLAM global point clouds aligned to a common pre-built map. In that common frame, the SLAM output already determines both each guardian drone's position p_i and the hostile UAV's position p_target. Each pseudo range d2_i = ||p_target - p_i|| is therefore a deterministic function of the very relative-position quantity the range-only estimator is designed to recover.

full rationale

The analytical core of the paper is not circular: the observation variable (10) is algebraically derived from the two distance equations, the TPE update (11)-(13) is a standard RLS-type estimator, the ADC laws (15)-(17) follow from the error dynamics, and the boundedness proofs in Appendices A and B are Lyapunov arguments with no parameters fitted to match the reported 0.05 m error. The main self-citation is Lemma 1, which is stated as following from Theorem IV.1 in [30] and [40], both of which share authors with this paper; this lemma is load-bearing for the PE/covariance bound in Theorem 1, but because it is a published, parameter-free mathematical theorem not equivalent to the present target result, it is not circularity by itself. The error-bound formulas contain unspecified constants such as beta-hat and beta-bar, and the velocity compensator in (11c) acts only as a single impulse at k = km, but these are completeness or robustness limitations rather than circular steps. The concrete circularity is confined to the experimental validation, where pseudo ranges inferred from AirSLAM positions replace true range-only measurements, making the claimed 'first range-only demonstration' self-referential.

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

The ledger shows that the central contribution is a controller plus estimator, not a new physical entity. The key assumptions are PE of the encirclement shape, a known bound on target velocity, availability of inter-drone relative position, and import of a PE lemma from the authors' prior work. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • RLS forgetting factor gamma1 = 0.45 (simulation)
    Hand-chosen to satisfy Theorem 1's condition gamma1 <= 1/2; affects estimation convergence speed and the error bound in Appendix A.
  • Controller gain alpha = -0.001 (simulation)
    Hand-chosen within the Theorem 2 interval +/-1/sqrt(3); not fitted to data but manually selected to stabilize the encirclement dynamics.
  • Encirclement shape parameters = r1 = 5.8 m, r2 = 3 m, r_bar = 0.1 m, g(k) = 0.3 cos(k*pi/8)
    Design choices that determine the PE excitation and the encirclement radii; they are hand-set, not estimated from measurements.
  • Zone radii z1, z2, z3 = not specified numerically in the text
    These thresholds define the protection, take-down, and warning zones that trigger the three control cases. Their values are never given, so the switching logic is incompletely specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: the encirclement shape sequence {zeta(k)} is persistently exciting (PE).
    Invoked in Lemma 1 to guarantee the estimator's regressor q12 remains excited; the controller's circular plus vertical jitter is meant to satisfy it, but the bound constants are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The hostile target's velocity vj is bounded with a known bound ˇvj.
    Used in the velocity compensator (11c) and in the error-bound proofs in Appendices A and B; a target exceeding the assumed bound is outside the guarantee.
  • domain assumption The inter-drone relative position q12 and Target 1's position are available via visual SLAM, UWB array, or position sharing.
    Section III-A assumes communication and relative localization between the two guardians; the range-only claim applies only to the hostile target, not to the full system state.
  • standard math Lemma 1 from prior work [30] and [40] is imported without proof.
    The paper states Lemma 1 follows from Theorem IV.1 in [30] and [40], authored by overlapping authors; the PE property of q12 is treated as established rather than re-derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomous 3D Moving Target Encirclement and Interception with Range measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PP33LG2J

@misc{pith2026250613106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomous 3D Moving Target Encirclement and Interception with Range measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PP33LG2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13106}
}
abstract

Commercial UAVs are an emerging security threat as they are capable of carrying hazardous payloads or disrupting air traffic. To counter UAVs, we introduce an autonomous 3D target encirclement and interception strategy. Unlike traditional ground-guided systems, this strategy employs autonomous drones to track and engage non-cooperative hostile UAVs, which is effective in non-line-of-sight conditions, GPS denial, and radar jamming, where conventional detection and neutralization from ground guidance fail. Using two noisy real-time distances measured by drones, guardian drones estimate the relative position from their own to the target using observation and velocity compensation methods, based on anti-synchronization (AS) and an X$-$Y circular motion combined with vertical jitter. An encirclement control mechanism is proposed to enable UAVs to adaptively transition from encircling and protecting a target to encircling and monitoring a hostile target. Upon breaching a warning threshold, the UAVs may even employ a suicide attack to neutralize the hostile target. We validate this strategy through real-world UAV experiments and simulated analysis in MATLAB, demonstrating its effectiveness in detecting, encircling, and intercepting hostile drones. More details: https://youtu.be/5eHW56lPVto.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrations of the drone swarm overwatch concepts for convoy escort of Target 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Range-based target motion analysis. c, respectively. Considering ∥p1 − c∥ 2 + ς 2 = (d 2 1 ) 2 and ∥p2 − c∥ 2 +ς 2 = (d 2 2 ) 2 , the radius ς and the center c of the intersection circle can be calculated as: ς = p 4d 2 12(d 2 1 ) 2 − ((d 2 1 ) 2 − (d 2 2 ) 2 + d 2 12) 2 2d12 , (8) c = p1 + p (d 2 1 ) 2 − ς 2 d12 p21. (9) Furthermore, based on the measurement distance d 2 i and the position pi , one output variable … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two drones are symmetrical to the target. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The trajectories of the velocity compensation error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The trajectories of the AS-based encirclement tracking errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Real-world and virtual UAV swarm tactics for overwatch, approach, encirclement, engagement, and takedown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The trajectories of the AS-based encirclement tracking errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Multiple non- cooperative targets encirclement by relative distance based positioning and neural anti-synchronization control,

    F. Liu, S. Yuan, W. Meng, R. Su, and L. Xie, “Multiple non- cooperative targets encirclement by relative distance based positioning and neural anti-synchronization control,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 1675–1685, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [35]

    Non-cooperative stochastic target encirclement by anti-synchronization control via range-only measurement,

    F. Liu, S. Yuan, W. Meng, R. Su, and L. Xie, “Non-cooperative stochastic target encirclement by anti-synchronization control via range-only measurement,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 5480–5485

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Neptune: non-entangling trajectory planning for multiple tethered unmanned vehicles,

    M. Cao, K. Cao, S. Yuan, T.-M. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Neptune: non-entangling trajectory planning for multiple tethered unmanned vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 2786– 2804, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [2]

    Direct: A differential dynamic programming based framework for trajectory generation,

    K. Cao, M. Cao, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Direct: A differential dynamic programming based framework for trajectory generation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2439–2446, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    Learn to navigate autonomously through deep reinforcement learning,

    K. Wu, H. Wang, M. A. Esfahani, and S. Yuan, “Learn to navigate autonomously through deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 5342–5352, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    Security threats analysis of the unmanned aerial vehicle system,

    R. H. Jacobsen and A. Marandi, “Security threats analysis of the unmanned aerial vehicle system,” in MILCOM 2021-2021 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 316–322

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    AV-DTEC: Self-Supervised Audio-Visual Fusion for Drone Trajectory Estimation and Classification

    Z. Xiao, Y . Yang, G. Xu, X. Zeng, and S. Yuan, “Av-dtec: Self- supervised audio-visual fusion for drone trajectory estimation and classification,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16928 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    Audio array-based 3d uav trajectory estimation with lidar pseudo-labeling,

    A. Lei, T. Deng, H. Wang, J. Yang, and S. Yuan, “Audio array-based 3d uav trajectory estimation with lidar pseudo-labeling,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, April 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 43 references
  1. [7]

    Survey on current anti-drone systems: process, technologies, and algorithms,

    G. Yasmine, G. Maha, and M. Hicham, “Survey on current anti-drone systems: process, technologies, and algorithms,” International Journal of System of Systems Engineering , vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 235–270, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    On onboard lidar-based flying object detection,

    M. Vrba, V . Walter, V . Pritzl, M. Pliska, T. B ´aˇca, V . Spurn`y, D. He ˇrt, and M. Saska, “On onboard lidar-based flying object detection,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2024

    2024

  3. [9]

    Conceptual design study of an anti-drone drone,

    T. Lefebvre and T. Dubot, “Conceptual design study of an anti-drone drone,” in 16th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2016, p. 3449

    2016

  4. [10]

    Survey on localization systems and algorithms for unmanned systems,

    S. Yuan, H. Wang, and L. Xie, “Survey on localization systems and algorithms for unmanned systems,” Unmanned Systems, vol. 9, no. 02, pp. 129–163, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    Three-dimensional bearing-only target following via observability-enhanced helical guidance,

    J. Li, Z. Ning, S. He, C.-H. Lee, and S. Zhao, “Three-dimensional bearing-only target following via observability-enhanced helical guidance,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 1509– 1526, 2022

    2022

  6. [12]

    Triangular angle rigidity for distributed localization in 2D,

    L. Chen, “Triangular angle rigidity for distributed localization in 2D,” Automatica, vol. 143, p. 110414, 2022

    2022

  7. [13]

    Graph optimization approach to range-based localization,

    X. Fang, C. Wang, T.-M. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Graph optimization approach to range-based localization,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 6830–6841, 2020

    2020

  8. [14]

    Ultra-wideband aided fast localization and mapping system,

    C. Wang, H. Zhang, T.-M. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Ultra-wideband aided fast localization and mapping system,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) , 2017, pp. 1602– 1609

    2017

  9. [15]

    Mm-fi: Multi-modal non-intrusive 4d human dataset for versatile wireless sensing,

    J. Yang, H. Huang, Y . Zhou, X. Chen, Y . Xu, S. Yuan, H. Zou, C. X. Lu, and L. Xie, “Mm-fi: Multi-modal non-intrusive 4d human dataset for versatile wireless sensing,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  10. [16]

    Av-pedaware: Self- supervised audio-visual fusion for dynamic pedestrian awareness,

    Y . Yang, S. Yuan, M. Cao, J. Yang, and L. Xie, “Av-pedaware: Self- supervised audio-visual fusion for dynamic pedestrian awareness,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1871–1877

    2023

  11. [17]

    Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav dataset for modern miniature drone threats,

    S. Yuan, Y . Yang, T. H. Nguyen, T.-M. Nguyen, J. Yang, F. Liu, J. Li, H. Wang, and L. Xie, “Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav dataset for modern miniature drone threats,” 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024

    2024

  12. [18]

    Circumnavigation using distance measurements under slow drift,

    I. Shames, S. Dasgupta, B. Fidan, and B. D. Anderson, “Circumnavigation using distance measurements under slow drift,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 889–903, 2011

    2011

  13. [19]

    Simultaneous velocity and position estimation via distance-only measurements with application to multi-agent system control,

    B. Jiang, M. Deghat, and B. D. Anderson, “Simultaneous velocity and position estimation via distance-only measurements with application to multi-agent system control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic control, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 869–875, 2016

    2016

  14. [20]

    Target encirclement with any smooth pattern using range-based measurements,

    F. Dong, K. You, and S. Song, “Target encirclement with any smooth pattern using range-based measurements,” Automatica, vol. 116, p. 108932, 2020

    2020

  15. [21]

    Multi-agent system for rogue drone interception,

    N. Souli, P. Kolios, and G. Ellinas, “Multi-agent system for rogue drone interception,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2221–2228, 2023

    2023

  16. [22]

    Downing a rogue drone with a team of aerial radio signal jammers,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, and G. Ellinas, “Downing a rogue drone with a team of aerial radio signal jammers,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2021, pp. 2555–2562

    2021

  17. [23]

    Cooperative simultaneous tracking and jamming for disabling a rogue drone,

    S. Papaioannou, P. Kolios, C. G. Panayiotou, and M. M. Polycarpou, “Cooperative simultaneous tracking and jamming for disabling a rogue drone,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2020, pp. 7919–7926

    2020

  18. [24]

    Air-to-ground communications beyond 5G: Uav swarm formation control and tracking,

    X. Fan, P. Wu, and M. Xia, “Air-to-ground communications beyond 5G: Uav swarm formation control and tracking,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2024

    2024

  19. [25]

    Comprehensive performance analysis of hovering uav-based fso communication system,

    D. Singh and R. Swaminathan, “Comprehensive performance analysis of hovering uav-based fso communication system,” IEEE Photonics Journal, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1–13, 2022. 7

    2022

  20. [26]

    Pursuit-evasion games for multi- agent based on reinforcement learning with obstacles,

    P. Hu, Y . Guo, J. Hu, and Q. Pan, “Pursuit-evasion games for multi- agent based on reinforcement learning with obstacles,” in International Conference on Autonomous Unmanned Systems . Springer, 2022, pp. 1015–1024

    2022

  21. [27]

    Predator–prey survival pressure is sufficient to evolve swarming behaviors,

    J. Li, L. Li, and S. Zhao, “Predator–prey survival pressure is sufficient to evolve swarming behaviors,” New Journal of Physics, vol. 25, no. 9, p. 092001, 2023

    2023

  22. [28]

    TDPP-Net: Achieving three-dimensional path planning via a deep neural network architecture,

    K. Wu, M. A. Esfahani, S. Yuan, and H. Wang, “TDPP-Net: Achieving three-dimensional path planning via a deep neural network architecture,” Neurocomputing, vol. 357, pp. 151–162, 2019

    2019

  23. [29]

    Distance- based cooperative relative localization for leader-following control of MA Vs,

    T.-M. Nguyen, Z. Qiu, T. H. Nguyen, M. Cao, and L. Xie, “Distance- based cooperative relative localization for leader-following control of MA Vs,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3641–3648, 2019

    2019

  24. [30]

    Persistently excited adaptive relative localization and time-varying formation of robot swarms,

    T.-M. Nguyen, Z. Qiu, T. H. Nguyen, M. Cao, and L. Xie, “Persistently excited adaptive relative localization and time-varying formation of robot swarms,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 553–560, 2019

    2019

  25. [31]

    The application of a flexible leader-follower control algorithm to different mobile autonomous robots,

    A. S. Simonsen and E.-L. M. Ruud, “The application of a flexible leader-follower control algorithm to different mobile autonomous robots,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 11 561–11 566

    2020

  26. [32]

    Uvdar system for visual relative localization with application to leader-follower formations of multirotor uavs,

    V . Walter, N. Staub, A. Franchi, and M. Saska, “Uvdar system for visual relative localization with application to leader-follower formations of multirotor uavs,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2637–2644, 2019

    2019

  27. [33]

    An integrated localization-navigation scheme for distance-based docking of uavs,

    T.-M. Nguyen, Z. Qiu, M. Cao, T. H. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “An integrated localization-navigation scheme for distance-based docking of uavs,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 5245–5250

    2018

  28. [36]

    Guidance of air vehicles: A sliding mode approach,

    M. Z. Shah, R. Samar, and A. I. Bhatti, “Guidance of air vehicles: A sliding mode approach,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 231–244, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Imu preintegration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a- posteriori estimation,

    C. Forster, L. Carlone, F. Dellaert, and D. Scaramuzza, “Imu preintegration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a- posteriori estimation,” Georgia Institute of Technology , 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Detection of nearby uavs using a multi-microphone array on board a uav,

    A. A. Cabrera-Ponce, J. Martinez-Carranza, and C. Rascon, “Detection of nearby uavs using a multi-microphone array on board a uav,” International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles , vol. 12, p. 1756829320925748, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Optimal tdoa sensor-pair placement with uncertainty in source location,

    W. Meng, L. Xie, and W. Xiao, “Optimal tdoa sensor-pair placement with uncertainty in source location,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 9260–9271, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Distance-based multiple noncooperative ground target encirclement for complex environments,

    F. Liu, S. Yuan, K. Cao, W. Meng, and L. Xie, “Distance-based multiple noncooperative ground target encirclement for complex environments,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology , 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system,

    K. Xu, Y . Hao, S. Yuan, C. Wang, and L. Xie, “Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    An efficient scene coordinate encoding and relocalization method,

    K. Xu, Z. Jiang, H. Cao, S. Yuan, C. Wang, and L. Xie, “An efficient scene coordinate encoding and relocalization method,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06488, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Exponential convergence of recursive least squares with exponential forgetting factor,

    R. M. Johnstone, C. R. Johnson, R. R. Bitmead, and B. D. O. Anderson, “Exponential convergence of recursive least squares with exponential forgetting factor,” in 1982 21st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , 1982. 8

    1982

Pith tools

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