Bharath Vedantha Desikan

Perception and planning for aerial and aquatic robots, where the pose is an estimate and the compute budget is fixed.

4publications and a thesis
2,000field reconstructions
60unattended flight missions
973keyframes of logged drift

Posterior variance over a scalar field. The ring is the position asked for, the cross where it was recorded. Tap the map to place a sample.

Research

First author 70± 4% surface coverage after a 48-view mission, meaned over 30 trials
Venue
IEEE CASE 2026
Status
Published
Platform
PX4 quadcopter, Gazebo Harmonic

Depth-variance guided next-best-view planning

Problem

A drone flying around an object has to decide where to point the camera next. A fixed orbit spends time on surfaces that are already covered and misses whatever the first pass occluded.

Result

70 ± 4 percent surface coverage against 40 ± 3 percent for a tuned orbit, inside a 420 MB GPU budget, with viewpoint scoring costing 2.5 percent of mission time.

My part

First author. Built the Gazebo simulation with a PX4 quadcopter, implemented the acquisition function, and ran the sixty missions the results rest on.

Surface coverage after 48 views Depth-variance planner reaches 70 percent plus or minus 4. Tuned orbit reaches 40 percent plus or minus 3. 025 5075 100% Depth varianceTuned orbit 70 ± 440 ± 3
A voxel counts as covered once it has been seen from two distinct viewpoints on a 5 cm grid.

The methodThe reconstruction is 3D Gaussian Splatting, and the renderer carries arbitrary per-Gaussian channels, so depth and depth squared pass through it together. One render then returns the mean depth and the second moment along every ray, and the difference between them is a per-pixel variance: the disagreement among the surfaces the model believes might be there. Accumulated opacity, the signal normally used, stops being informative once the model has placed something at every pixel. Candidate viewpoints come from a 95-point Fibonacci hemisphere, scored on variance and unseen area, then penalised for angular closeness to the viewpoints already chosen that round, so a batch of four spreads around the object.

The setupGazebo Harmonic with a PX4 X500 quadcopter and a 640 × 480 RGB-D gimbal camera, on an RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, with the model capped at 500K Gaussians and trained at 320 × 240. A mission is 4 seed views followed by 11 rounds of 4, for 48 views. Depth variance held about three times the dynamic range of opacity over a mission, while alpha coverage saturated near 0.66 by the third round.

The comparison was run at equal training iterations as well as at convergence. The planner trained on all views each round while the baseline used a sliding window of the ten nearest, so a result reported only at convergence would have credited the viewpoint selection with a gain that came from the training schedule.

Co-author 4 azimuthally separated seed views needed to remove the degenerate subspace
Venue
IEEE CASE 2026
Status
Published
Motivation
Planetary sample inspection under communication latency

D-optimal next-best-view planning for active Gaussian splatting

Problem

Where the round-trip delay is too long for an operator to choose views, the vehicle has to rank candidate viewpoints on its own, before it has seen the images those viewpoints would return.

Result

Over a fifty-view budget the D-optimal policy kept assigning non-zero gain after geometric coverage had already saturated, which is the behaviour a coverage-driven planner cannot produce.

My part

Co-author, fourth of five. Helped develop the planner and its evaluation, alongside the depth-variance work that followed it.

The methodOne hundred thousand Gaussians are initialised on a Poisson mesh obtained from an RGB-D survey. Their positions are frozen and only appearance parameters are learned, which makes the model's information content tractable. Viewpoints are then ranked by D-optimal information gain computed from a diagonal Fisher Hessian accumulated over the current training set. Scoring uses only the candidate pose and the current model, so the image at that pose is not needed in advance.

The failure it exposedAnalysis of the Taylor linearisation underlying the Fisher criterion showed the ranking is reliable only once the model has converged between steps, and that a single seed view leaves an unobserved parameter subspace whose information gain is degenerate. Four azimuthally separated seed views remove that subspace.

The mesh prior is what the depth-variance planner later removes. Freezing positions on a Poisson mesh makes the Fisher information well posed, at the cost of an RGB-D survey before the mission and a geometry the planner cannot revise in flight.

Sole author 2,000 reconstructions across five fields, two kernels and fifty seeds
Institution
Arizona State University, 2026
Advisor
Prof. Jnaneshwar Das
Status
On ProQuest

Field estimation and adaptive sampling under positional uncertainty

Problem

Adaptive sampling work generally treats measurement locations as known. An underwater vehicle records each sample against a drifted pose. The value is correct and the coordinate is not.

Result

Drift raised reconstruction error on every field, worst on the fields otherwise easiest to reconstruct, and the estimator hid it: marginal-likelihood fitting absorbed the corruption by raising the noise term instead of correcting the model, so the fault reaches the output disguised as measurement noise.

My part

Sole author, advised by Prof. Jnaneshwar Das. Calibrated the drift model, built the simulation study and ran all 2,000 reconstructions.

Commanded survey track against the recorded track A lawnmower survey path. The recorded track starts on the commanded track and separates further from it on each successive leg as drift accumulates. gap start of run commanded recorded drift accumulates along the survey
Each sample's value is recorded correctly against a position that has drifted, and the separation grows through the run.

The methodThe localisation error was characterised first, from a logged visual-odometry run of 973 keyframes. The drift is an accumulating, temporally correlated process, distinct from independent pose noise, and it grows about two and a half times faster where the camera loses features over open water. A one-parameter random walk calibrated to that run reproduced both the magnitude and the temporal structure. Five synthetic temperature fields were then reconstructed from a budget-limited survey, under exact positions and under injected drift, with two kernels and with both fixed coverage and variance-based adaptive sampling.

What governs itThe additional error concentrated where the field gradient is steep, and it approached a floor that further samples did not breach. At fixed magnitude the temporal correlation of the drift mattered little next to the magnitude itself. The governing quantity is the product of the squared field gradient with the covariance of the positional error.

Variance-based adaptive sampling gained only marginally over a fixed coverage raster. Maximum-variance selection under a stationary kernel behaves much like uniform coverage, and the sampler itself reads the corrupted pose. Weighting samples by logged pose covariance recovered a modest fraction of the lost accuracy, largest on sharp-structured fields.

Co-first author under $2,500 for the whole vessel, sonar and multi-probe sonde included
Venue
IEEE ICRA 2025 Workshop on Robots in the Wild
Status
Published
Site
Tempe Town Lake, Arizona

Low-cost ASV for aquatic field reconstruction

Problem

Mapping a lake's water quality normally means a crewed boat and manual sampling, which is slow, expensive and sparse. The measurements that result are too thin to resolve local structure.

Result

An autonomous vessel costing under US$2,500 reconstructed temperature and water-quality fields from a single survey, and a non-stationary Matérn kernel preserved local peaks that stationary kernels smoothed away, concentrating uncertainty on the structure that was actually undersampled.

My part

Co-first author, equal contribution. Owned the sensing and data path: registering each measurement to the navigation solution, checking timing and completeness across sensors, and deciding which records were admitted to the analysis.

Sonde cast profile The winch lowers the sonde in one-metre steps and dwells at each depth before descending again. surface 1 m2 m3 m 4 m5 m6 m time through the cast
One sonde cast. The winch holds at each one-metre step long enough for the probes to settle, so every depth carries a dwell rather than a reading taken in transit.

The platformThe R/V Karin Valentine, a low size, weight and power surface vessel built in the DREAMS Lab, running a Pixhawk flight controller on PX4 with an ODROID companion computer for ROS 2. The payload is a 1-D sonar for depth and a multi-probe water-quality sonde on a motorised winch, which descends in one-metre steps and dwells at each depth.

The methodScalar fields were reconstructed from a lawnmower survey by Gaussian process regression, comparing squared-exponential and Matérn kernels against a non-stationary Matérn whose local length-scale matrix varies with position. Hyperparameters were fit by maximising the log marginal likelihood with a Cholesky factorisation of the covariance, and the maps were written into a DeepGIS and Folium stack so posterior mean and uncertainty could be inspected as planning products.

The recurring problem was deciding which observations were usable. The sonde, the sonar and the navigation estimate each degraded differently on open water, so admission to the analysis had to be defined per sensor rather than per timestamp.

Publications

  1. 4

    Depth-Variance Guided Next-Best-View Planning for Active 3D Gaussian Splatting Reconstruction

    B. Vedantha Desikan, R. Staggers Jr., K. Prashar, C. Torre, J. Das

    IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, 2026

    Published IEEE Xplore PDF
  2. 3

    Active Gaussian Splatting for Autonomous Reconstruction Using D-Optimal Next Best View Planning

    K. Prashar, C. Torre, R. Staggers Jr., B. Vedantha Desikan, J. Das

    IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, 2026

    Published IEEE Xplore
  3. 2

    Field Estimation and Adaptive Sampling under Positional Uncertainty

    B. Vedantha Desikan, advised by Prof. Jnaneshwar Das

    M.S. thesis, Arizona State University, 2026

    Thesis ProQuest
  4. 1

    Low Cost ASV for High-Resolution Spatio-Temporal Aquatic Field Reconstruction via Dynamic Kernels

    R. Staggers Jr.*, B. Vedantha Desikan*, J. Das  —  *equal contribution

    IEEE ICRA 2025 Workshop on Robots in the Wild

    Published PDF

© 2026 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting or republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other works. The manuscripts posted here are the accepted versions; the published versions of record are on IEEE Xplore at the links above.

Experience

Jun – Jul 2026

Research aide, robotics perception and simulation

NASA STTR, DREAMS Lab, Arizona State University, Tempe

Built ROS 2 simulation frameworks with a coral-reef environment, Reef World, for testing and validating autonomous underwater vehicle operations. Developed perception pipelines using visual-inertial odometry for GPS-denied localisation, and modelled positional drift and sensor-fusion behaviour under realistic underwater conditions.

Jan – Jun 2024

Research intern

Shimono Laboratory, Yokohama National University, Japan

Designed and implemented a ROS 2 framework for bilateral teleoperation of Universal Robots manipulators, giving real-time force feedback between leader and follower arms. Built the full stack of nodes, controllers and communication, then tuned the control loops for stability and transparency and validated them under communication delay.

May – Jun 2023

ROS 2 intern

ROBIS, Motherson Group, India

Worked on motion planning and control system design for an automated guided vehicle moving from PLC-based automation to ROS 2. Integrated LiDAR with ROS 2 for SLAM-based mapping, generating the occupancy maps used for autonomous navigation on a factory floor.

Education

2024 – 2026

M.S. Robotics and Autonomous Systems

Arizona State University    GPA 3.74 / 4.00

Coursework in linear system theory, robotic systems, multi-robot systems, space robotics and AI, game-theoretic models, and statistical machine learning.

2020 – 2024

B.Tech. Mechatronics and Automation

Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai

Skills

Robotics

ROS 2, PX4 Autopilot, Gazebo, SLAM, LiDAR mapping, informative path planning, next-best-view planning

Perception and learning

Visual-inertial odometry, Gaussian processes, 3D Gaussian splatting, uncertainty-aware planning, PyTorch, GPyTorch, OpenCV

Systems

Low-SWaP hardware, bandwidth-constrained autonomy, GPS-denied operation

Tools

Python, C++, CUDA, MATLAB, Linux, Docker, Git, LaTeX

Contact

bharathvdesikan@gmail.com

Open to doctoral positions and research engineering roles in field robotics, perception and planning.