pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18516 · v1 · pith:EG2S7MZ7new · submitted 2026-06-16 · 💻 cs.RO

Task Allocation and Motion Planning in Dynamic, Cluttered Environments via CBBA and Graphs of Convex Sets

Matthew D. Osburn , Cameron K. Peterson , John L. Salmon This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 00:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords task allocationmotion planninggraphs of convex setsconsensus-based bundle algorithmdynamic environmentsmulti-agent systemstrajectory optimizationtime-extended configuration space
0
0 comments X

The pith

Linking CBBA task allocations to GCS paths in 3D+time space produces collision-free trajectories and reliable completion times for dynamic tasks.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a combined method for multi-agent systems that must both assign tasks and generate safe trajectories when the environment and the tasks themselves are moving. It uses the Consensus-Based Bundle Algorithm to distribute task assignments across agents and Graphs of Convex Sets to compute optimal paths through a time-extended configuration space. These two components are connected so that allocation decisions incorporate the time and location where each task can actually be reached. The result is demonstrated in simulated cluttered settings containing both static obstacles and dynamic rendezvous objectives. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach addresses the mutual dependence between who gets which task and when that task can be completed without collisions.

Core claim

The central claim is that connecting CBBA allocations to GCS trajectories in the time-extended (3D+time) configuration space enables agents to avoid collisions while supplying accurate estimates of task completion times, and that this integrated procedure works for both static and dynamic tasks in cluttered simulated environments.

What carries the argument

The explicit connection between CBBA task bundles and GCS trajectory optimization inside the time-extended configuration space, which feeds collision-free paths and completion times back into the allocation process.

If this is right

  • Task assignments automatically adjust when new dynamic rendezvous objectives appear.
  • Agents receive feasible trajectories that already account for the motion of other agents through the shared time dimension.
  • Completion-time estimates become inputs that improve subsequent allocation rounds.
  • The method scales to multiple agents without requiring a central planner.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same linkage might allow online replanning when an obstacle moves after an initial allocation has been made.
  • Extending the time dimension further could incorporate predicted motion of external dynamic objects beyond the agents themselves.
  • Because GCS produces convex feasible sets, the approach may lend itself to formal safety certificates that current sampling-based planners lack.

Load-bearing premise

That the computed GCS paths will remain collision-free and the time estimates will stay accurate once the method is transferred from simulation to real environments that contain unmodeled dynamics or sensor noise.

What would settle it

Running the algorithm on physical robots in a cluttered room with moving targets and observing either inter-agent collisions or task completion times that deviate substantially from the GCS predictions.

read the original abstract

Multi-agent task planning in cluttered, dynamic environments requires assigning tasks to agents while simultaneously determining safe, time-efficient trajectories through the environment. When tasks are dynamic, such as rendezvous objectives, allocation decisions depend not only on which agent is best suited for a task, but also on when and where that task can be reached. This paper presents a solution to this problem, which combines Graphs of Convex Sets (GCS) for trajectory optimization with the Consensus-Based Bundle Algorithm (CBBA) for distributed task allocation. In our approach, GCS finds optimal trajectories through dynamic environments using a time-extended (3D+time) configuration space. At the same time, CBBA coordinates task assignments across agents, enabling informed decision-making in a moving environment. We then connect allocation and planning to allow the agents to avoid collisions in the 3D+time configuration space and provide accurate time estimates for task completion. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in simulated cluttered environments with static and dynamic tasks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a method for multi-agent task allocation and motion planning in dynamic, cluttered environments by combining the Consensus-Based Bundle Algorithm (CBBA) for distributed allocation with Graphs of Convex Sets (GCS) for optimizing trajectories in a time-extended 3D+time configuration space. The approach explicitly connects allocation decisions to planning to enable inter-agent collision avoidance and accurate task completion time estimates. Effectiveness is shown via simulation demonstrations in cluttered environments containing both static and dynamic tasks.

Significance. If the integration performs as described, the work addresses a relevant challenge in distributed robotics by providing a way to couple task assignment with time-dependent trajectory optimization. The use of time-extended GCS and the explicit linking step to CBBA are technically coherent choices. The simulation demonstration supplies initial evidence of feasibility in the target setting.

minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be strengthened by including at least one quantitative performance metric (e.g., success rate, computation time, or comparison to a baseline) from the simulation results to support the claims of collision avoidance and accurate time estimates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary, significance assessment, and recommendation of minor revision. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper describes an integration of two established algorithms—CBBA for distributed task allocation and GCS for trajectory optimization in a 3D+time space—followed by a connection step to enforce collision avoidance and produce time estimates. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are presented that reduce any claimed output to the inputs by construction. No self-citations appear as load-bearing premises, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes. The central contribution is a coupling of independent prior methods, which remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review based on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are stated. The approach rests on domain-standard assumptions about the applicability of CBBA and GCS to dynamic settings.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption GCS can produce optimal trajectories in a time-extended 3D configuration space for dynamic environments
    Invoked when the abstract states GCS finds optimal trajectories through dynamic environments using 3D+time space.
  • domain assumption CBBA allocations can be informed by and consistent with GCS-derived time estimates without destabilizing the distributed consensus
    Required for the claim that allocation and planning are connected to give accurate task completion times.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5710 in / 1291 out tokens · 33807 ms · 2026-06-27T00:07:24.934193+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multiple Mobile Robot Task and Motion Planning: A Survey,

    Antonyshyn, L., Silveira, J., Givigi, S., and Marshall, J., “Multiple Mobile Robot Task and Motion Planning: A Survey,”ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 55, No. 10, 2023, pp. 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3564696, URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/ 3564696

    work page doi:10.1145/3564696 2023

  2. [2]

    TravelingSalespersonProblemsfortheDubinsVehicle,

    Savla,K.,Frazzoli,E.,andBullo,F.,“TravelingSalespersonProblemsfortheDubinsVehicle,”IEEETransactionsonAutomatic Control, Vol. 53, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1378–1391. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.925814, URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/4610030/

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2008.925814 2008

  3. [3]

    Adversarial Actor-Critic Method for Task and Motion Planning Problems Using Planning Experience,

    Kim, B., Kaelbling, L. P., and Lozano-Pérez, T., “Adversarial Actor-Critic Method for Task and Motion Planning Problems Using Planning Experience,”Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33, No. 01, 2019, pp. 8017–8024. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33018017, URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/4803. 14

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33018017 2019

  4. [4]

    Integrating task and PRM motion planning: Dealing with many infeasible motion planning queries,

    Hauser, K., and Latombe, J.-C., “Integrating task and PRM motion planning: Dealing with many infeasible motion planning queries,”ICAPS09 Workshop on Bridging the Gap between Task and Motion Planning, 2009

    2009

  5. [5]

    Geometric backtracking for combined task and motion planning in robotic systems,

    Bidot, J., Karlsson, L., Lagriffoul, F., and Saffiotti, A., “Geometric backtracking for combined task and motion planning in robotic systems,”Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 247, 2017, pp. 229–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.03.005, URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000437021500051X

    work page doi:10.1016/j.artint.2015.03.005 2017

  6. [6]

    Multi-Robot Task and Motion Planning With Subtask Dependencies,

    Motes, J., Sandstrom, R., Lee, H., Thomas, S., and Amato, N. M., “Multi-Robot Task and Motion Planning With Subtask Dependencies,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2020, pp. 3338–3345. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020. 2976329, URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9013090/

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2020 2020

  7. [7]

    Computing Large Convex Regions of Obstacle-Free Space Through Semidefinite Programming,

    Deits, R., and Tedrake, R., “Computing Large Convex Regions of Obstacle-Free Space Through Semidefinite Programming,” Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI, Vol. 107, edited by H. L. Akin, N. M. Amato, V. Isler, and A. F. Van Der Stappen, SpringerInternationalPublishing, 2015, pp.109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_7, URLhttps://link.sprin...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_7 2015

  8. [8]

    Shortest Paths in Graphs of Convex Sets,

    Marcucci, T., Umenberger, J., Parrilo, P. A., and Tedrake, R., “Shortest Paths in Graphs of Convex Sets,” , Jul. 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11565, arXiv:2101.11565 [cs, math]

    arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Multi-Query Shortest-Path Problem in Graphs of Convex Sets,

    Morozov, S., Marcucci, T., Amice, A., Graesdal, B. P., Bosworth, R., Parrilo, P. A., and Tedrake, R., “Multi-Query Shortest-Path Problem in Graphs of Convex Sets,” , Sep. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.19543, URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.19543, arXiv:2409.19543 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.19543 2024

  10. [10]

    PlanningShorterPathsinGraphsofConvexSetsbyUndistortingParametrizedConfiguration Spaces,

    Garg,S.,Cohn,T.,andTedrake,R.,“PlanningShorterPathsinGraphsofConvexSetsbyUndistortingParametrizedConfiguration Spaces,” , Nov. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.18913, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18913, arXiv:2411.18913 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.18913 2024

  11. [11]

    Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,

    Marcucci, T., Petersen, M., Von Wrangel, D., and Tedrake, R., “Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,” Science Robotics, Vol. 8, No. 84, 2023, p. eadf7843. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.adf7843, URL https://www.science. org/doi/10.1126/scirobotics.adf7843

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.adf7843 2023

  12. [12]

    Graphs of Convex Sets with Applications to Optimal Control and Motion Planning,

    Marcucci, T., “Graphs of Convex Sets with Applications to Optimal Control and Motion Planning,” Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 2024. URL https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/156598, accepted: 2024-09-03T21:10:34Z

    2024

  13. [13]

    Non-Euclidean motion planning with graphs of geodesically convex sets,

    Cohn, T., Petersen, M., Simchowitz, M., and Tedrake, R., “Non-Euclidean motion planning with graphs of geodesically convex sets,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2024, p. 02783649241302419. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 02783649241302419, URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02783649241302419

    work page doi:10.1177/02783649241302419 2024

  14. [14]

    Space-Time Graphs of Convex Sets for Multi-Robot Motion Planning,

    Tang, J., Mao, Z., Yang, L., and Ma, H., “Space-Time Graphs of Convex Sets for Multi-Robot Motion Planning,” , Jun. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.00583, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00583, arXiv:2503.00583 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.00583 2025

  15. [15]

    Systematic Constraint Formulation and Collision-Free Trajectory Planning Using Space-Time Graphs of Convex Sets,

    Osburn, M. D., Peterson, C. K., and Salmon, J. L., “Systematic Constraint Formulation and Collision-Free Trajectory Planning Using Space-Time Graphs of Convex Sets,” , Sep. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.10203, URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.10203, arXiv:2508.10203 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10203 2025

  16. [16]

    Motion Planning around Obstacles with Convex Optimization,

    Marcucci, T., Petersen, M., Wrangel, D. v., and Tedrake, R., “Motion Planning around Obstacles with Convex Optimization,” , May 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.04422, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.04422, arXiv:2205.04422 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.04422 2022

  17. [17]

    Consensus-Based Decentralized Auctions for Robust Task Allocation,

    Choi, H.-L., Brunet, L., and How, J. P., “Consensus-Based Decentralized Auctions for Robust Task Allocation,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2009, pp. 912–926. Retain this citation unless a different canonical CBBA reference is preferred for the final manuscript

    2009

  18. [18]

    Information-rich Task Allocation and Motion Planning for Heterogeneous Sensor Platforms,

    Luders, B., Levine, D., Ponda, S., and How, J., “Information-rich Task Allocation and Motion Planning for Heterogeneous Sensor Platforms,”Infotech@Aerospace 2011, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, St. Louis, Missouri, 2011. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-1588, URL https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2011-1588

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2011-1588 2011

  19. [19]

    Decentralized planning for complex missions with dynamic communication constraints,

    Ponda, S., Redding, J., Han-Lim Choi, How, J. P., Vavrina, M., and Vian, J., “Decentralized planning for complex missions with dynamic communication constraints,”Proceedings of the 2010 American Control Conference, IEEE, Baltimore, MD, 2010, pp. 3998–4003. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2010.5531232, URL http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5531232/

    work page doi:10.1109/acc.2010.5531232 2010

  20. [20]

    Consensus-based bundle algorithm with local replanning for heterogeneous multi-UAV system in the time-sensitive and dynamic environment,

    Chen, J., Qing, X., Ye, F., Xiao, K., You, K., and Sun, Q., “Consensus-based bundle algorithm with local replanning for heterogeneous multi-UAV system in the time-sensitive and dynamic environment,”The Journal of Supercomputing, Vol. 78, No. 2, 2022, pp. 1712–1740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-021-03940-z, URL https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11227- 0...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11227-021-03940-z 2022

  21. [21]

    GrowingConvexCollision-FreeRegionsinConfigurationSpaceusingNonlinearProgramming,

    Petersen,M.,andTedrake,R.,“GrowingConvexCollision-FreeRegionsinConfigurationSpaceusingNonlinearProgramming,” , Mar. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.14737, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14737, arXiv:2303.14737 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.14737 2023

  22. [22]

    Faster Algorithms for Growing Collision-Free Convex Polytopes in Robot Configuration Space,

    Werner, P., Cohn, T., Jiang, R. H., Seyde, T., Simchowitz, M., Tedrake, R., and Rus, D., “Faster Algorithms for Growing Collision-Free Convex Polytopes in Robot Configuration Space,” , Nov. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.12649, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12649, arXiv:2410.12649 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.12649 2024

  23. [23]

    P., and Vandenberghe, L.,Convex optimization, version 29 ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York Melbourne New Delhi Singapore, 2023

    Boyd, S. P., and Vandenberghe, L.,Convex optimization, version 29 ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge New York Melbourne New Delhi Singapore, 2023. 16

    2023