Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Congestion-Aware Robot Tour Planning in Crowded Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an online tour planner that explicitly reasons over stochastic human congestion completes robot tours faster than a baseline that assumes congestion is static, with statistically significant speedups across map sizes

desk verdict Nice integration of CLiFF-human prediction into an online SSP-MDP tour planner, but the headline speedup over the Hamiltonian baseline is confounded because the baseline lacks the wait and revisit actions the MDP has. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.19031 v2 pith:FSYYCQ57 submitted 2026-06-17 cs.RO

Stefano Bernagozzi , Charlie Street , Masoumeh Mansouri , Lorenzo Natale This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords congestion-awaretourplanningCLiFFmapMarkovdecisionprocessLRTDPhumanmotionpredictionrecedinghorizoncrowdnavigationservicerobots
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

The paper tries to establish that a mobile service robot can plan faster tours through crowded spaces by treating congestion as a stochastic, time-varying quantity rather than a static snapshot. It builds this reasoning on CLiFF maps, which predict human trajectories from observed motion, and embeds the resulting congestion probabilities into a Markov decision process that is solved online with a real-time heuristic search. In simulations replaying real shopping-mall crowd data, both the full and time-bounded versions of the planner complete tours faster than a Hamiltonian path solver that uses a fixed congestion estimate, and the differences pass a statistical significance test. The practical message is that tour planning should be coupled to human-motion prediction, and that even a coarse congested/uncongested split may capture most of the benefit.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a pipeline that converts raw human observations into time-dependent congestion probabilities over topological edges: CLiFF-LHMP samples multiple trajectories per human, each trajectory is mapped onto the rectangles around edges, a Poisson-binomial distribution gives the probability of q humans on an edge at time t, and these counts are aggregated into congestion bands. The bands feed a stochastic-shortest-path MDP (the tour MDP), whose states track the robot's node, current time, and visited POIs; costs are expected traversal durations under each band. The MDP is solved online by LRTDP with an MST-based admissible heuristic, and the robot executes one action before r

What would settle it

Run the planner on the held-out half of the ATC dataset with a perfect-forecast oracle as an upper bound and a static-congestion baseline as a lower bound; if the CLiFF-based planner's advantage over the static baseline disappears when predicted trajectories are replaced with ground-truth future positions, the claimed benefit is an artifact of the simulator's cost model. Alternatively, deploy the planner on a real robot in the mall and compare measured tour durations against a non-congestion-aware route under matched conditions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that stochastic congestion modeling pays off at the tour-planning level: an MDP whose edge costs are time-dependent distributions over the number of humans on each edge, updated at every step from CLiFF-map trajectory predictions, produces tours that are faster to execute than those of a baseline that solves a Hamiltonian path problem under a one-time congestion estimate. The paper demonstrates this on four topological maps built from ATC shopping-mall data, with two, five, and eight congestion bands, and shows that the online time-bounded planner performs nearly as well as the converged planner, while median first-step planning time stays around one second even on t

Load-bearing premise

The planning advantage rests on the assumption that CLiFF-LHMP trajectories, sampled from a map learned on one half of the shopping-mall data, faithfully predict where humans will be on the held-out half; the paper reports no accuracy measure for these predictions, and the simulator further assumes every human is observed and each encounter costs exactly ten seconds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tour plans that explicitly reason over congestion produce shorter expected tours than static-congestion Hamiltonian paths in the tested shopping-mall scenarios, statistically significant at p=0.05.
  • A time-bounded version of LRTDP (3 seconds per planning step) achieves nearly identical tour durations to a converged LRTDP, suggesting the approach is usable online.
  • Even with coarse congestion bands (congested versus not), execution times are similar to finer-grained band settings, implying a binary congestion model may be sufficient in practice.
  • Planning time scales reasonably: median first-step planning time is about one second on the largest map tested (26 nodes), suitable for online replanning.
  • The framework is reactive: replanning after each action lets the robot adapt to humans entering or leaving the environment during execution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The core formulation is domain-generic: the same MDP construction applies to any human-populated environment, from malls and museums to fulfilment centres, provided a map of dynamics and a topological graph are available.
  • If the binary-band result holds beyond these simulations, simpler congestion-aware planners (even hand-tuned rules based on predicted crowd levels) might capture most of the benefit, potentially reducing computation further.
  • The fidelity of the CLiFF-LHMP trajectory predictions is the load-bearing external input; a direct measure of prediction accuracy against the held-out half of the ATC data would clarify how much of the speedup derives from prediction quality rather than from the planning formulation itself.
  • The 10-second per-human penalty and the assumption that every human is observed are simulation simplifications; a real deployment would need to quantify how trajectory prediction errors and partial sensor coverage degrade the expected gains.
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 presents an online tour planning framework for crowded environments. It uses CLiFF maps learned from human data to predict multiple trajectories for each observed human, maps predicted positions onto topological edges, computes time-dependent congestion probabilities over discrete congestion bands, and formulates tour planning as an SSP MDP with navigation and wait actions. The MDP is solved online with LRTDP and a bounded-time variant. Experiments on the ATC shopping mall dataset, replayed in a synthetic simulator across four topological map sizes and three congestion-band settings, report statistically significant reductions in tour duration compared to a Hamiltonian-path baseline.

Significance. The formal construction is coherent: the MDP formulation is standard, the congestion band abstraction is a reasonable way to bound branching, and the use of CLiFF-LHMP predictions separates the learned motion model from the planning objective (no circularity). The paper also ships an open-source implementation (link removed for anonymity) and includes statistical tests over 40 runs per condition. If the empirical claim were properly supported, the framework would be a useful contribution to service-robot tour planning. The main weaknesses are that the evaluation is entirely synthetic, the cost model is hand-designed, and the baseline is representationally weaker than the MDP, so the specific claim that stochastic congestion modelling drives the speedup is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V-A and V-B; Problem 1; Def. 7] The central empirical claim that LRTDP beats the Hamiltonian path solver is confounded by an asymmetric action space. Problem 1 explicitly allows POIs to be revisited, and Def. 7 includes a wait action. The baseline uses LKH 3 to synthesize a Hamiltonian path over the remaining POIs, which prohibits revisits and has no wait action. The MDP can wait out congestion or defer an edge by visiting other nodes, while the baseline cannot. Thus the sentence in Sec. V-A that this baseline 'allows us to evaluate the benefits of modelling stochastic crowd movement' is unsupported. Please add a baseline with the same action space (e.g., re-planning with wait and revisit allowed but using static congestion estimates), or ablate the tour MDP without wait/revisit, before claiming the speedup is due to stochastic congestion reasoning.
  2. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (1), Sec. V-A] The congestion probabilities used in Eqs. (3)-(4) are computed from m=10 sampled CLiFF-LHMP trajectories per human. The CLiFF map is trained on half of the ATC dataset and evaluated on the other half, but no prediction-accuracy measure is reported for the trajectory or edge-occupancy predictions. If the predictions are inaccurate, the MDP's transition probabilities are mis-specified and the simulated speedup may not transfer to real environments. Please report a prediction-error metric on the held-out data (e.g., displacement error or edge-occupancy error) and, ideally, a sensitivity analysis with respect to m.
  3. [Sec. V-A; Def. 1; Eq. (4)] The simulator's traversal duration is a hand-designed formula: 'edge distance multiplied by the robot speed' plus a fixed 10-second penalty per human encountered. This cost model is not derived from the ATC data or from any empirical relationship between crowd density and robot traversal time, and the paper does not specify how the duration distributions ρ(e,c_j) are set in the experiments. The quantitative gains (e.g., 109s vs 132s on the 26-node map) are therefore sensitive to an arbitrary constant. Please specify ρ explicitly and include a sensitivity analysis over the penalty magnitude to show that the qualitative conclusions are robust.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. V-A] Typo: 'the edge distance multiplied by the robot speed' should be 'divided by the robot speed'. Also 'ten 50second trajectories' should be 'ten 50-second trajectories'.
  2. [Def. 4] The location l_i is written as l_i ∈ R, but a 2D location should be l_i ∈ R². Please correct.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The expression Ψx_i(t) ∈ R_e is a boolean test; use indicator notation (e.g., 1[Ψx_i(t) ∈ R_e]) to avoid ambiguity. Similarly, in Eq. (3), '1e=wait' is unclear; write 1_{e=wait}.
  4. [Table III] The p-values are not corrected for multiple comparisons. Although most are very small, a multiple-comparison correction or a footnote explaining the family-wise error rate would strengthen the statistical claims. Also, 'Values in bold' is not visible in the plain-text table; mark the significant entries explicitly.
  5. [Sec. IV-A] The assumption of external sensors that observe all humans is stated, but the impact of detection noise, occlusion, or missed detections on the congestion model is not discussed. Please add a sentence on this limitation or a reference to work that handles perception uncertainty in this setting.
  6. [Sec. VI] The conclusion says 'demonstrate efficacy on a real-world crowd dataset', but the evaluation is a synthetic simulation that only uses the ATC data to train the CLiFF map and replay human movements. A limitations paragraph acknowledging the synthetic cost model and the absence of physical robot experiments would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CLiFF-based congestion predictions are independent of the reported tour times; only a minor self-citation to [35] for MDP construction is present.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an LRTDP-based tour planner using CLiFF-LHMP congestion predictions outperforms a Hamiltonian-path baseline on real ATC shopping-mall data. The congestion probabilities feeding the MDP (Eqs. 1 and 2) are computed from sampled CLiFF-LHMP trajectories, not from the tour times reported in Sec. V-B. The CLiFF map is learned on one half of the ATC dataset and evaluated on the other half, so the empirical speedup is not fitted to the evaluation data. The MDP formulation (Def. 7, Eqs. 3 and 4) is adapted from the authors' prior work [35], with the text explicitly saying it is 'similar to the single-robot MDPs used for multi-robot planning under congestion in [35]'. This is a methodological self-citation, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or an unverified premise on which the empirical claim rests. The comparison against the Hamiltonian solver is confounded because the baseline lacks wait and revisit actions, but that is an experimental-design concern, not a circularity: the quoted equations do not reduce to their inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore, no circular steps are flagged.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on the fidelity of CLiFF-LHMP predictions, full observability, and the hand-designed simulation cost model. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters are experimental/algorithmic choices rather than fitted scientific constants.

free parameters (9)
  • wait duration d_wait = 5 s
    Set to 5 seconds 'based on empirical observations' (Sec. V-A). Affects the MDP's ability to postpone edge traversals.
  • edge rectangle width R_e = 2 m
    Rectangles around topological edges are 2 m wide when mapping human positions to edges (Sec. V-A). Changes which edges humans are counted on.
  • human penalty per edge = 10 s / human
    Simulated edge traversal cost adds a 10-second penalty per human on the edge (Sec. V-A). This ground-truth cost model is hand-designed; if real robot cost differs, reported speedups may not transfer.
  • time bound D = 250 s
    Finite-horizon bound for the MDP (Sec. IV-C). Chosen to be large relative to measured tour durations (~109 s on the 26-node map), but affects optimality if set too tight.
  • number of sampled trajectories m = 10
    CLiFF-LHMP samples 10 trajectories per human to estimate congestion probabilities (Eq. 1, Sec. V-A).
  • prediction horizon = 50 s
    CLiFF-LHMP predicts trajectories 50 seconds into the future (Sec. V-A); congestion beyond this horizon is unseen.
  • LRTDP convergence threshold = 0.1
    Controls solution quality versus planning time (Sec. V-A).
  • LRTDP bounded planning limit = 3 s
    Maximum planning time per timestep for the online variant (Sec. V-A).
  • congestion band partitions = 2/5/8 bands
    The number and width of congestion bands are chosen by hand (Table II); the paper tests three settings rather than fitting them.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Stochastic shortest-path MDPs admit deterministic memoryless optimal policies
    Invoked when the tour planning problem is cast as an SSP MDP (Defs. 2-3) and solved with LRTDP.
  • domain assumption CLiFF map SWGMMs and CLiFF-LHMP trajectory sampling faithfully approximate future human motion
    The entire congestion model (Sec. IV-B) depends on sampled trajectories from CLiFF-LHMP [14] being representative enough to compute the probabilities in Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption External sensors provide full observability of all humans and their observation histories at each decision step
    Sec. IV-A states 'we consider external sensors that show all humans currently in the environment'; this is assumed throughout the experiments.
  • domain assumption Robot traversal time on an edge is linear in the number of humans present (base plus 10 seconds per human)
    Used as the ground-truth simulator in Sec. V-A; no real-robot duration model is validated.
  • domain assumption Human presence on an edge at time t can be modeled as independent Bernoulli trials combined via the Poisson binomial distribution
    Eq. (1) computes per-human edge probabilities; Eq. (2) uses the Poisson binomial distribution, which assumes independence between humans on an edge, ignoring trajectory correlations.
  • standard math The MST heuristic with congestion-free shortest-path durations is an admissible lower bound on remaining tour time
    Used in Sec. IV-C to guide LRTDP; requires the topological map with shortest-path distances to satisfy the triangle inequality, which is standard for metric graphs.
  • domain assumption Replacing random traversal durations with their expected values in the MDP transition function yields policies close to optimal
    Eq. (3) sets t' = t + E[rho(e,c_j)]; the paper calls this an approximation for tractability but does not bound the suboptimality introduced by ignoring duration variance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Congestion-Aware Robot Tour Planning in Crowded Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FSYYCQ57

@misc{pith2026260619031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Congestion-Aware Robot Tour Planning in Crowded Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FSYYCQ57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.19031}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous mobile service robots are often required to complete tours that require navigating through a set of locations in an environment. Example domains include guiding people through a shopping mall, delivering packages in a fulfilment centre, or giving guided tours in a museum. However, in crowded environments, the presence of people may negatively impact robot performance. For example, humans will activate robot collision avoidance manoeuvres that slow the robot down. Crowds move stochastically and vary throughout the day. In this paper we present a probabilistic tour planner for crowded environments which explicitly reasons over human congestion. We learn circular linear flow field (CLiFF) maps which predict human trajectories given an initial observation. We then use these predictions to build and solve a Markov decision process online which efficiently routes the robot through the environment. Our approach is scalable enough to re-plan as new people are observed. We evaluate our approach on a real-world crowd dataset in a shopping mall.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our approach for computing human congestion prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mapping human positions to topological edges. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The topological maps for the ATC environment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The execution time of the LRTDP solution (blue), the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The planning time for the first LRTDP planning step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The planning time for the first LRTDP planning step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references

  1. [35]

    Congestion- aware policy synthesis for multirobot systems,

    C. Street, S. P ¨utz, M. M¨uhlig, N. Hawes, and B. Lacerda, “Congestion- aware policy synthesis for multirobot systems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 262–280, 2022

    2022

  2. [1]

    Spencer: A socially aware service robot for passenger guidance and help in busy airports,

    R. Triebel, K. Arras, R. Alami, L. Beyer, S. Breuers, R. Chatila, M. Chetouani, D. Cremers, V . Evers, M. Fiore,et al., “Spencer: A socially aware service robot for passenger guidance and help in busy airports,” inField and Service Robotics: Results of the 10th International Conference, pp. 607–622, Springer, 2016

    2016

  3. [2]

    A guide robot at the airport: First im- pressions,

    M. Joosse and V . Evers, “A guide robot at the airport: First im- pressions,” inProceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 149–150, 2017

    2017

  4. [3]

    Direct and indirect social robot interactions in a hotel public space,

    Y . Pan, H. Okada, T. Uchiyama, and K. Suzuki, “Direct and indirect social robot interactions in a hotel public space,” in2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 1881–1886, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  5. [4]

    Service robots in hotels: understanding the service quality perceptions of human-robot interac- tion,

    Y . Choi, M. Choi, M. Oh, and S. Kim, “Service robots in hotels: understanding the service quality perceptions of human-robot interac- tion,”Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 613–635, 2020

    2020

  6. [5]

    Lindsey the tour guide robot-usage patterns in a museum long-term deployment,

    F. Del Duchetto, P. Baxter, and M. Hanheide, “Lindsey the tour guide robot-usage patterns in a museum long-term deployment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  7. [6]

    Tour guide robot: a 5g-enabled robot museum guide,

    S. Rosa, M. Randazzo, E. Landini, S. Bernagozzi, G. Sacco, M. Pic- cinino, and L. Natale, “Tour guide robot: a 5g-enabled robot museum guide,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 10, p. 1323675, 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    Tour-guide robot,

    A. Al-Wazzan, R. Al-Farhan, F. Al-Ali, and M. El-Abd, “Tour-guide robot,” in2016 International Conference on Industrial Informatics and Computer Systems (CIICS), pp. 1–5, IEEE, 2016

    2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Museum robot guides or conventional audio guides? an experimental study,

    A.-M. Velentza, D. Heinke, and J. Wyatt, “Museum robot guides or conventional audio guides? an experimental study,”Advanced Robotics, vol. 34, no. 24, pp. 1571–1580, 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    Enabling flow awareness for mobile robots in partially observable environments,

    T. P. Kucner, M. Magnusson, E. Schaffernicht, V . H. Bennetts, and A. J. Lilienthal, “Enabling flow awareness for mobile robots in partially observable environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1093–1100, 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    M. L. Puterman,Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. John Wiley & Sons, 1994

    1994

  4. [11]

    Fremen: Frequency map enhancement for long-term mobile robot autonomy in changing environments,

    T. Krajn ´ık, J. P. Fentanes, J. M. Santos, and T. Duckett, “Fremen: Frequency map enhancement for long-term mobile robot autonomy in changing environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 964–977, 2017. (a) 11 node map. (b) 16 node map. (c) 21 node map. (d)...

    2017

  5. [12]

    Spatio-temporal rep- resentation for long-term anticipation of human presence in service robotics,

    T. Vintr, Z. Yan, T. Duckett, and T. Krajn ´ık, “Spatio-temporal rep- resentation for long-term anticipation of human presence in service robotics,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA), pp. 2620–2626, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  6. [13]

    Modelling and predicting rhythmic flow patterns in dynamic environments,

    S. Molina, G. Cielniak, T. Krajn ´ık, and T. Duckett, “Modelling and predicting rhythmic flow patterns in dynamic environments,” in Annual conference towards autonomous robotic systems, pp. 135–146, Fig. 5: The planning time for the first LRTDP planning step on different map s...

    2018

  7. [14]

    Cliff-lhmp: Using spatial dynamics patterns for long- term human motion prediction,

    Y . Zhu, A. Rudenko, T. P. Kucner, L. Palmieri, K. O. Arras, A. J. Lilienthal, and M. Magnusson, “Cliff-lhmp: Using spatial dynamics patterns for long- term human motion prediction,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 3795–3802, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Directional primitives for uncertainty-aware motion estimation in urban environments,

    R. Senanayake, M. Toyungyernsub, M. Wang, M. J. Kochenderfer, and M. Schwager, “Directional primitives for uncertainty-aware motion estimation in urban environments,” in2020 IEEE 23rd international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Human presence probabil- ity map (hpp): A probability propagation based on human flow grid,

    J. Saraydaryan, F. Jumel, and O. Simonin, “Human presence probabil- ity map (hpp): A probability propagation based on human flow grid,” inRobot World Cup, pp. 54–65, Springer, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    A lightweight crowd model for robot social navigation,

    M. Kazemi Eskeri, T. Wiedemann, V . Kyrki, D. Baumann, and T. Pi- otr Kucner, “A lightweight crowd model for robot social navigation,” arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–2508, 2025

    2025

  11. [18]

    Survey of maps of dynamics for mobile robots,

    T. P. Kucner, M. Magnusson, S. Mghames, L. Palmieri, F. Verdoja, C. S. Swaminathan, T. Krajn´ık, E. Schaffernicht, N. Bellotto, M. Han- heide,et al., “Survey of maps of dynamics for mobile robots,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 977– 1006, 2023

    2023

  12. [19]

    Risk-aware path planning using hir- erachical constrained markov decision processes,

    S. Feyzabadi and S. Carpin, “Risk-aware path planning using hir- erachical constrained markov decision processes,” in2014 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 297–303, IEEE, 2014

    2014

  13. [20]

    Human-aware naviga- tion planner for diverse human-robot interaction contexts,

    P. T. Singamaneni, A. Favier, and R. Alami, “Human-aware naviga- tion planner for diverse human-robot interaction contexts,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5817–5824, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    Socially aware navigation: A non-linear multi-objective optimization approach,

    S. B. Banisetty, S. Forer, L. Yliniemi, M. Nicolescu, and D. Feil-Seifer, “Socially aware navigation: A non-linear multi-objective optimization approach,”ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2021

    2021

  15. [22]

    Socially aware motion planning with deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . F. Chen, M. Everett, M. Liu, and J. P. How, “Socially aware motion planning with deep reinforcement learning,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1343–1350, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Enhancing navigational safety in crowded environments using semantic-deep-reinforcement- learning-based navigation,

    L. K ¨astner, J. Lil, Z. Shen, and J. Lambrecht, “Enhancing navigational safety in crowded environments using semantic-deep-reinforcement- learning-based navigation,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), pp. 87–93, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Feedback-efficient active prefer- ence learning for socially aware robot navigation,

    R. Wang, W. Wang, and B.-C. Min, “Feedback-efficient active prefer- ence learning for socially aware robot navigation,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 11336–11343, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Learning human- aware path planning with fully convolutional networks,

    N. P ´erez-Higueras, F. Caballero, and L. Merino, “Learning human- aware path planning with fully convolutional networks,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 5897–5902, 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    Crowd-aware robot navigation with switching between learning-based and rule-based methods using normalizing flows,

    K. Matsumoto, Y . Hyodo, and R. Kurazume, “Crowd-aware robot navigation with switching between learning-based and rule-based methods using normalizing flows,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4823–4830, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    A hybrid approach to indoor social navigation: Integrating reactive local planning and proactive global planning,

    A. Debnath, G. J. Stein, and J. Ko ˇseck´a, “A hybrid approach to indoor social navigation: Integrating reactive local planning and proactive global planning,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 10432–10438, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  21. [28]

    A survey on socially aware robot navigation: Taxonomy and future challenges,

    P. T. Singamaneni, P. Bachiller-Burgos, L. J. Manso, A. Garrell, A. Sanfeliu, A. Spalanzani, and R. Alami, “A survey on socially aware robot navigation: Taxonomy and future challenges,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1533–1572, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    A survey on human-aware robot navigation,

    R. M ¨oller, A. Furnari, S. Battiato, A. H ¨arm¨a, and G. M. Farinella, “A survey on human-aware robot navigation,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 145, p. 103837, 2021

    2021

  23. [30]

    Human-aware robot navigation: A survey,

    T. Kruse, A. K. Pandey, R. Alami, and A. Kirsch, “Human-aware robot navigation: A survey,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 1726–1743, 2013

    2013

  24. [31]

    Recent trends in social aware robot navigation: A survey,

    K. Charalampous, I. Kostavelis, and A. Gasteratos, “Recent trends in social aware robot navigation: A survey,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 93, pp. 85–104, 2017

    2017

  25. [32]

    Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey,

    C. Mavrogiannis, F. Baldini, A. Wang, D. Zhao, P. Trautman, A. Stein- feld, and J. Oh, “Core challenges of social robot navigation: A survey,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1– 39, 2023

    2023

  26. [33]

    A review of social-aware navigation frameworks for service robot in dynamic human environments,

    S. Chik, C. Yeong, E. Su, T. Lim, Y . Subramaniam, and P. Chin, “A review of social-aware navigation frameworks for service robot in dynamic human environments,”Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 41– 50, 2016

    2016

  27. [34]

    Ian: Multi-behavior navigation planning for robots in real, crowded environments,

    D. Dugas, J. Nieto, R. Siegwart, and J. J. Chung, “Ian: Multi-behavior navigation planning for robots in real, crowded environments,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 11368–11375, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Hamiltonian paths in large clustered routing problems,

    M. Sevaux, K. S ¨orensen,et al., “Hamiltonian paths in large clustered routing problems,” inProceedings of the EU/MEeting 2008 workshop on Metaheuristics for Logistics and Vehicle Routing, EU/ME, vol. 8, pp. 411–417, 2008

    2008

  29. [37]

    A simple and fast method for computing the poisson binomial distribution function,

    W. Biscarri, S. D. Zhao, and R. J. Brunner, “A simple and fast method for computing the poisson binomial distribution function,” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 122, pp. 92–100, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Labeled rtdp: Improving the convergence of real-time dynamic programming.,

    B. Bonet and H. Geffner, “Labeled rtdp: Improving the convergence of real-time dynamic programming.,” inICAPS, vol. 3, pp. 12–21, 2003

    2003

  31. [39]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein,Introduction to Algorithms. MIT press, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Person tracking in large public spaces using 3-d range sensors,

    D. Br ˇsˇci´c, T. Kanda, T. Ikeda, and T. Miyashita, “Person tracking in large public spaces using 3-d range sensors,”IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 522–534, 2013

    2013

  33. [41]

    An extension of the lin-kernighan-helsgaun tsp solver for constrained traveling salesman and vehicle routing problems,

    K. Helsgaun, “An extension of the lin-kernighan-helsgaun tsp solver for constrained traveling salesman and vehicle routing problems,” Roskilde: Roskilde University, vol. 12, pp. 966–980, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.