ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2021
Visual Collaboration Leader-Follower UAV-Formation for Indoor Exploration.
Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
UAVs operating in a leader-follower formation demand the knowledge of the relative pose between the collaborating members. This necessitates the RF-communication of this information which increases the communication latency and can easily result in lost data packets. In this work, rather than relying on this autopilot data exchange, a visual scheme using passive markers is presented. Each formation-member carries passive markers in a RhOct configuration. These markers are visually detected and the relative pose of the members is on-board determined, thus eliminating the need for RF-communication. A reference path is then evaluated for each follower that tracks the leader and maintains a constant distance between the formation-members. Experimental studies show a mean position detection error (5 × 5 × 10cm) or less than 0.0031% of the available workspace [0.5 up to 5m, 50.43° × 38.75° Field of View (FoV)]. The efficiency of the suggested scheme against varying delays are examined in these studies, where it is shown that a delay up to 1.25s can be tolerated for the follower to track the leader as long as the latter one remains within its FoV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.