Information-Driven Collaborative Autonomy for Heterogeneous UAV/UGV Teams

Joshua Yuriv Pilipovsky

cs.ROOct 29, 2026

Information-Driven Collaborative Autonomy for Heterogeneous UAV/UGV Teams

Authors: Joshua Yuriv Pilipovsky

Organizations: Senior Research Engineer, RTX Technology Research Center (RTRC), East Hartford, CT 06108, USA

Abstract

This paper considers coordinating a heterogeneous team of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) traversing a domain containing an unknown number of potentially hazardous targets. The UAVs provide aerial sensing using onboard optical cameras, adapting their trajectories to ground routes and target information. We formulate the aerial search problem using ergodic control, which distributes sensing effort according to a spatial information density to balance exploration and target localization. The formulation incorporates dynamic camera field-of-view footprints and pose-dependent probabilistic detection models. Angles-only measurements are processed through Bayesian inference and marginalization over data-association hypotheses to obtain a Poisson multi-Bernoulli (PMB) approximation of the target posterior, representing both detected and undetected targets. This belief directs aerial sensing toward unexplored regions along the ground routes and viewpoints that improve target localization. Ground planning combines chance-constrained target avoidance, enforced through confidence sets, with a void-probability objective that favors routes unlikely to contain threats. We solve each team's optimization problem in a fully decentralized manner using a nested SCvx*--C-ADMM scheme, with outer sequential convex programming iterations and inner distributed consensus optimization, accounting for nonlinearities, nonseparable objectives, and continuous-time inter-agent separation constraints. A closed-loop scheme updates both fleets' trajectories as information becomes available and permits ground motion when the remaining route risk falls below a prescribed threshold. Numerical case studies examine sensing geometry and target uncertainty, compare decentralized and centralized solvers, and demonstrate full closed-loop collaboration between multiple UAVs and UGVs.

Figures & tables

RFS Model	Cardinality Distribution	Spatial Distribution
Bernoulli	$\mathbf{N}\sim\operatorname{Bernoulli}(p)$	$\mathbf{x}\mid\mathbf{N}=1\sim\rho(x)$
Multi-Bernoulli	$\mathbf{N}=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{M}\mathbf{E}_{i},\ \mathbf{E}_{i}\sim\operatorname{Bernoulli}(r_{i})$	$\mathbf{x}_{i}\mid\mathbf{E}_{i}=1\sim\rho_{i}(x)$
Poisson	$\mathbf{N}\sim\operatorname{Poisson}(\Lambda)$	$\mathbf{x}_{1},\ldots,\mathbf{x}_{N}\mid\mathbf{N}\overset{\mathrm{i.i.d.}}{\sim}\rho(x)=\dfrac{\lambda(x)}{\Lambda}$

Table 1: Common random finite set models on a state space

\mathcal{X}

Figure 1: High-level UAV–UGV collaborative autonomy architecture. UAV measurements update the PMB posterior, which informs risk-aware UGV planning, while the committed UGV routes and posterior components update the UAV search density; the PMB void probability gates UGV execution.

Figure 2: Geometry of quadrotor body-mounted optical sensor field of view, and its intersection with the target plane.

Figure 3: Pose-dependent sensing quality examples: (left) Gaussian spread factor $G(p;x)$ with respect to footprint center; (middle) altitude/attitude trade-off $\beta_{s}(x)$ for a 2x2 sweep of representative heights and angles; (right) the combined field $\chi(p;x)=\beta_{s}(x)G(p;x)$ for a fixed vehicle pose.

Sensor Model	Instantaneous Sensing Measure $\nu_{x}$	Spectral Response $\Psi_{k}(x)$
Point Mass	$\displaystyle\nu_{x}=\delta_{g(x)}$	$\displaystyle\Psi_{k}(x)=F_{k}\!\left(g(x)\right)$
Hard FoV	$\displaystyle\nu_{x}(\mathrm{d}\xi)=\frac{\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{E}_{f}(x)}(\xi)}{\|\mathcal{E}_{f}(x)\|}\,\mathrm{d}\xi$	$\displaystyle\Psi_{k}(x)=\frac{1}{\|\mathcal{E}_{f}(x)\|}\int_{\mathcal{E}_{f}(x)}F_{k}(\xi)\,\mathrm{d}\xi$
Smooth FoV	$\displaystyle\nu_{x}(\mathrm{d}\xi)=K(\xi;x)\,\mathrm{d}\xi,\int_{\Omega}K(\xi;x)\,\mathrm{d}\xi=1$	$\displaystyle\Psi_{k}(x)=\int_{\Omega}K(\xi;x)F_{k}(\xi)\,\mathrm{d}\xi$

Table 2: Comparison of sensor models used to construct the ergodic occupation measure on the search domain

\Omega

Figure 4: Undetected target intensity $\lambda^{+}(\xi)$ Poisson point process thinning during UAV execution and sensing.

Figure 5: RFS measurement update for one sensor.

Figure 6: Closed-loop Bernoulli-triggered re-planning flow: route-overlap evaluation, UGV route re-optimization, UAV search-density and trajectory updates, and joint PMB-gated UGV execution.

Figure 7: Three-UAV coverage and trajectories. Circles, squares, and triangles mark $0$ , $5$ , and $10$ s; translucent cones show the FoV, and dotted lines mark bounds.

Figure 8: UAV solver convergence. Panels (c)–(d) show the C-ADMM primal and dual residuals through convergence for the first outer attempt of the same solve. Dots mark accepted steps.

Figure 9: Nested SCvx*–C-ADMM convergence for the UAV fleet problem. Colors show the largest residual-to-tolerance ratio; row-end markers show inner termination and outer acceptance.

Inner C-ADMM
Parameter	Value
Initial penalties, $(\rho_{\tau},\rho_{f},\rho_{p})$	$(0.04,0.05,0.02)$
Minimum tolerances, $\epsilon_{\min}$	$10^{-5}$
Timing schedule, $(c_{0},d)$	$(100,0.8)$
Outer SCvx*
Initial AL penalty, $w$	$25$

Table 7: UAV solver settings for the centralized versus decentralized computational comparisons.

Figure 10: Comparison of centralized and decentralized SCvx*–C-ADMM planning times: mean

\pm

one standard deviation over three cold solves per configuration.

Parameter	Value
One Bernoulli track
Track existence probability, $r_{\ell}$	$0.95$
Track mean, $\mu_{\ell}$	$(0.54,0.48)$
Principal std., $\sigma_{1},\sigma_{2}$	$0.10,\ 0.03$
Ellipse orientation	$135^{\circ}$
Confidence level, $1-\delta_{\ell}$	$95\%$

Table 8: Target belief used by UGV planner comparisons.

Figure 11: UGV planner comparison. The ellipse shows track uncertainty; thin outlines show swept corridors, and circles/stars mark start/goal.

Planner	PMB corridor probability	Control effort $E_{u}$
Mean avoidance	$37.99\%$	$0.0214$
Confidence-set avoidance	$7.27\%$	$0.4516$
Full-PMB objective	$3.64\%$	$0.7366$

Table 9: Risk and control effort for the routes in Figure 11 .

Figure 12: UAV base density updates. Dashed lines show the remaining ground routes.

Figure 13: Closed-loop mission execution: (a) PMB intensity and vehicle configurations; (b) corridor risk bounds; (c) UGV progress. Crosses mark targets; the vertical dashed line marks replanning, and shading marks authorized motion.

Figure 14: Two-UGV SCvx*–C-ADMM solver convergence. Inner residuals correspond to the first outer subproblem and terminate at convergence.

Figure 15: Nested SCvx*–C-ADMM convergence for the UGV fleet problem. Colors show the largest residual-to-tolerance ratio; row-end markers show inner termination and outer acceptance.

Figure 16: Closed-loop collaboration with two UGVs: (a) PMB intensity and vehicle configurations; (b) risk along the union of the remaining ground corridors; (c) ground progress. Vertical dashed lines mark ground replans, and shading marks authorized motion.

Appendix figures & tables1 asset

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Figure 17: Illustration of various geometric objects, properties, and deformation of path-centered corridor in shape calculus.

UAV Trajectory Optimization

UAV trajectory optimization plans feasible, safe flight paths that balance mission goals, energy use, sensing, and communication.

See all 49 papers

UGV-Conditioned Multi-UAV Informative Planning on a Shared Exposure Belief
Jun 10, 2026Lars Oerlemans, Moji Shi, Marija PopovicInformative Path Planning Safe Robot Navigation
*Equal contribution. Authors are with the MAVLab, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, TU Delft, The Netherlands.
Towards Reliable Aerial Ground Vehicle Collaboration: An Integrated Planning and Autonomy Framework for Field Deployment
Jul 7, 2026Md Safwan Mondal, Luca Russo, James D. Humann +2Vehicle Routing Multi-Robot Coordination
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Illinois Chicago, IL, 60607 USA · DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA · DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Aberdeen, MD 21005 USA
Collaborative Planning with Concurrent Synchronization for Operationally Constrained UAV-UGV Teams
Mar 6, 2026Zihao Deng, Qianhuang Li, Peng Gao +4Multi-Robot Coordination Multi-Robot Motion Planning
Zihao Deng, Qianhuang Li, Donghyun Kim, and Hao Zhang are with the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, 01002, USA. · Peng Gao is with North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA. · Maggie Wigness and John Rogers are with the U.S. Army DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory (ARL), Adelphi, MD, 20783, USA.

Jun 10, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

UGV-Conditioned Multi-UAV Informative Planning on a Shared Exposure Belief

Lars Oerlemans, Moji Shi, Marija Popovic

*Equal contribution. Authors are with the MAVLab, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, TU Delft, The Netherlands.

Informative Path Planning Safe Robot Navigation Multi-Robot Coordination UAV Remote Sensing

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Safe ground navigation in large, threat-augmented environments requires aerial support that actively reduces the risks that a ground vehicle faces along its route. Existing aerial reconnaissance systems focus on mapping or covering the environment, but do not direct sensing toward regions that are most relevant for ground vehicle safety. In this paper, we address the problem of coordinating a team of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to improve the safety of an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) navigating through unknown threat zones. A key aspect of our approach is a risk-averse shared exposure belief for UGV routing and a mission-conditioned UAV reward that directs sensing toward uncertain, exposure-relevant regions of the current UGV corridor. UAV observations update the shared belief online, allowing the UGV to replan around newly revealed threats while the evolving route in turn reshapes UAV sensing priorities. For multiple UAVs, we use region-conditioned spatial assignment to reduce redundant sensing. Simulation experiments show that our approach reduces cumulative UGV exposure by 38% compared with terrain-semantic replanning, and reduces redundant aerial coverage from 38.8% to 3.7% under our multi-UAV coordination scheme.

Abstract

UAV Trajectory Optimization

Explore similar work

UGV-Conditioned Multi-UAV Informative Planning on a Shared Exposure Belief

Towards Reliable Aerial Ground Vehicle Collaboration: An Integrated Planning and Autonomy Framework for Field Deployment

Collaborative Planning with Concurrent Synchronization for Operationally Constrained UAV-UGV Teams