Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Cataglyphis ant navigation strategies solve the global localization problem in robots with binary sensors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Global localization is possible with only a binary sensor and wheel odometry.

desk verdict A clean proof-of-concept for binary-sensor global localization whose general claim is undercut by in-sample tuning; worth reviewing, but only after held-out maps and ideally a real robot. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04564 v1 pith:TEHB3ZQP submitted 2019-08-13 cs.RO

Nils Rottmann , Ralf Bruder , Achim Schweikard , Elmar Rueckert This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords globallocalizationbinarysensorCataglyphispathintegrationlandnavigationparticlefilterwallfollowinglow-costrobots
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

Global localization—working out where a robot is on a map when it starts completely lost—is usually treated as a problem for cameras, lidar, or range sensors. This paper claims it can be done with wheel odometry plus a single binary sensor that says only 'inside the area' or 'outside the area', the kind of signal a boundary wire or a grass detector already provides. The proposed solution splits the task like the desert ant Cataglyphis: first a coarse pose from the shape of the driven path compared with the map boundary, then a systematic refinement while following the boundary. If the claim holds, low-cost robots such as lawn mowers and vacuum cleaners could replace random bouncing with deliberate navigation using sensors they already have.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orientation profile $\theta_b(x)$: a piecewise-constant function giving the absolute orientation of each straight boundary segment as a function of distance traveled along the boundary. The robot's odometry path is compressed into dominant points, each representing a segment that is straight within tolerance $e_{\max}$, and from these a second profile $\theta_r$ is built. The algorithm slides $\theta_r$ against vertex-shifted copies of $\theta_b$ and computes the mean absolute correlation error $c_i$; the vertex with the smallest $c_i$ below the trained threshold $c_{\min}$ becomes the first pose estimate. The particle filter then takes over, producing binary-consistent poses by giving each particle weight $\hat{w}$ if its simulated sensor would read the same as the real one and $1-\hat{w}$ otherwise.

What would settle it

Run the same two-stage pipeline on a map with a symmetric or repeated boundary, such as a square or a series of identical straight segments, using the paper's calibrated odometry noise: if a wrong vertex repeatedly gives a correlation error below the threshold and the particle filter converges to a pose far from the true one, the claim that binary sensing plus odometry suffices for global localization in general environments is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery claimed is that global localization is possible with only odometry plus one binary boundary sensor, provided the problem is split the way Cataglyphis splits it: path integration first, then systematic search. The robot follows the boundary in a wiggly path that keeps the sensor's inside/outside duty cycle near 50%, records the odometry-determined shape of the segment it has traversed, and matches that shape to the map's boundary orientation function. The best-matching vertex, if below a trained correlation threshold, gives a coarse pose in position and heading. Particles are then drawn around that pose and updated by comparing each particle's predicted binary reading with the actual sensor while the robot continues along the wall; the variance of the particles decides when the pose is certain enough to leave the boundary. Simulations in two polygonal maps with noise calibrated to a real lawn mower show position errors around 0.13–0.23 m after the coarse stage and a clear improvement in heading after the particle filter, with 3 of 100 runs failing the accuracy threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline depends on the boundary's orientation profile being distinctive enough that one vertex stands out below the trained error threshold, and that distinctiveness was only shown on two maps with parameters tuned on those same maps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lawn mowers with boundary wires can localize without adding any sensor hardware, since the wire signal is exactly the binary measurement used here.
  • The two-stage design converts global localization into local refinement, so the particle filter needs far fewer particles than a full global particle filter.
  • A robot can leave the boundary to execute a task and re-localize each time it returns to the boundary, because the boundary encounter resets accumulated odometry uncertainty.
  • The reported position accuracy near 0.1 m is comparable to a previously published method using a short-range sensor, but achieved with only a cheaper binary sensor.
  • The wall follower remains stable up to roughly 40% random sensor noise, suggesting tolerance for noisy, low-cost binary hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: in environments with repetitive or symmetric boundary segments—long straight fences, regular polygons, mirrored layouts—the coarse shape match may become ambiguous, and a natural extension is to require confirmation over a longer path or to incorporate segment lengths into the matching score.
  • Editorial inference: the trained parameters could be learned online in an unknown environment by treating repeated boundary traversals as a self-supervised calibration loop, which the paper itself flags as an open question.
  • Editorial inference: the same two-stage strategy should transfer to other sparse boundary signals, such as mowed/grass moisture sensors or magnetic tape, as long as the sensor has a known lever arm from the odometry frame.
  • Editorial inference: the framework suggests a deliberate control policy of periodically returning to the boundary to re-anchor the pose, which could keep long-duration lawn-mowing tasks accurate despite unbounded odometry drift.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a global localization method for a differential-drive robot equipped only with odometry and a binary sensor that reports whether the sensor is inside or outside a known polygonal boundary. The approach is inspired by Cataglyphis ant navigation and consists of three stages: a wall-following controller that keeps the sensor near the boundary, a land-navigation module that compresses the odometry path into dominant points and matches the resulting orientation profile against the map to obtain an initial vertex-based pose estimate, and a particle filter that samples a Gaussian around that estimate and refines it by continued wall following. The method is evaluated in simulation on two maps, with velocity and odometry noise parameters calibrated from a real lawn mower using a motion-capture system. The reported results show low pose errors after the land-navigation stage and improved orientation estimates after the particle-filter stage, but all algorithm-specific parameters are tuned on the same two maps used for evaluation.

Significance. The two-stage strategy is conceptually attractive: if the land-navigation stage reliably identifies the correct boundary vertex, the particle filter only needs to solve a local problem, potentially making binary-sensor localization feasible on low-cost hardware. Strengths of the paper include a clear algorithmic description, calibration of the motion model to a real platform, and an experimental setup inspired by earlier minimal-sensor localization work. However, the current evidence is limited to two simulated maps with in-sample parameter fitting, no real-robot experiment, and no systematic study of map properties that could cause the initial matching to fail. The contribution is therefore a proof of concept rather than a validated general solution, and the abstract's claim that the method 'can be used in real time on a low-cost robot' goes beyond what is demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 (Table 2) & Section 3.3 (Eq. (16))] The evaluation is in-sample. The parameters Lmin, emax, cmin, and Umin are described as 'trained specifically for the given maps' in Section 3.2, and the Gaussian sampling standard deviations in Eq. (16) are set to μΔx + 3σΔx and μΔφ + 3σΔφ using the pose-error statistics measured from the same 100 simulated runs on the same two maps. The reported stability and accuracy are therefore fits to the test environments, not predictions of performance on a new map. This is acknowledged in Section 4 (parameter learning on the fly and real-robot evaluation are listed as open), but the title and abstract still claim a general solution. Please either evaluate with a held-out set of maps after tuning on a training set, or provide a sensitivity analysis over parameter values and a diverse set of maps to show that the method is not critically dependent on per-map tuning.
  2. [Section 2.2 (Eq. (10)) & Section 3.2] The land-navigation matching step rests on the assumption that the true polygon vertex yields the smallest correlation error ci in Eq. (10) and that this minimum falls below the threshold cmin, while all other vertices produce errors above cmin. This distinctiveness is a property of the map's piecewise orientation function θb(x); it can fail for maps with repeated edges, near-symmetries, or long featureless straight segments, where several vertices generate similar orientation profiles. Because the particle filter samples only a Gaussian around the initial vertex estimate, a wrong match cannot be recovered. The two test maps appear to be generic polygons without such ambiguities, and the paper neither analyzes this condition nor tests maps where it fails. Please add experiments on maps with repeated structure or long straight segments, or characterize the class of maps for which the matching step is guaranteed to succeed.
  3. [Section 3.3] The final results of the complete pipeline are reported incompletely. Section 3 defines stability as the fraction of runs with pose error below 0.3 m, but for the systematic-search stage the text only states that '3 times the particle filter has not found a sufficiently accurate pose estimate' and does not give the overall stability, the mean and standard deviation of the final position and orientation errors across the 100 runs, or the number of particles and the resampling scheme used. Figure 14 shows a histogram, but the text does not state whether it aggregates all runs or a single representative run, and no numerical values are provided. Without these numbers, the claim that the particle filter 'improves the orientation estimate intensively' cannot be verified quantitatively, and the end-to-end success rate after the proposed restart procedure is not measured.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2, Algorithm 2] The prose states that the point S_end−1 is added to the dominant-point set when the line-fit error is acceptable, while Algorithm 2 adds S_end; please reconcile the text with the pseudocode.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (16)] The notation is confusing: the second argument of the Gaussian is written as μ + 3σ, where μ and σ are the mean and standard deviation of the pose error. Since μ+3σ is a bound rather than a standard deviation, please define the intended covariance matrix explicitly and clarify whether these values are used as variances or standard deviations.
  3. [Figure 14] The histogram lacks axis labels and units, and it is unclear whether it depicts the errors from all 100 runs or a subset; please add labels and describe the data summarized.
  4. [Section 4] The comparison with Stavrou and Panayiotou (2012) is qualitative ('similar accuracy') and no quantitative figures are given; since the paper's contribution is specifically the use of a binary sensor, a table with sensor types, map dimensions, and achieved accuracies would strengthen the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pose estimate is computed by correlation matching against the known map, not from the final pose; the main weakness is in-sample parameter tuning, which is a validity limitation rather than a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The initial pose is obtained by minimizing the correlation error in Eq. (10) between the odometry-driven orientation profile θ_r and the map-generated profile θ_b; neither the true pose nor the final particle-filter estimate enters this objective. The particle filter then updates weights from binary measurements and standard motion models, and the wall-follower is an independent control loop. I find no self-definitional equation, no load-bearing self-citation (the two self-citations in the Introduction are motivational), no author-imported uniqueness theorem, and no renamed known result. The only questionable element is statistical: Lmin, emax, cmin and Umin are trained on Map 1 and Map 2 (Table 2), and Eq. (16) sets the PF sampling widths from µ+3σ of the initial-error statistics measured on those same maps in Section 3.2. This makes the reported success rates in-sample; it does not support a claim that the parameters transfer to arbitrary new gardens. However, that is train/test leakage and acknowledged incompleteness, not an equation that reduces the output to the input: the reported pose errors are still produced by the matching and filtering algorithms rather than being equal to the fitted constants. Section 4 explicitly lists learning Lmin, emax, cmin, Umin on the fly and real-robot evaluation as open research, so the paper does not present the two-map results as an out-of-sample prediction. Under the required standard of exhibiting a specific reduction by construction, I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard probabilistic robotics machinery plus several domain assumptions about the map, sensor geometry, and start condition. The most significant implicit cost is the set of per-map trained parameters (Lmin, emax, cmin, Umin) and the empirically fitted particle filter widths. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • a_mu = 0.7 in main simulations
    Exponential smoothing rate for the wall follower sensor mean; selected by manual choice and varied in Figures 8-10. Affects wall-following accuracy and hence all subsequent steps.
  • a_v = 0.7 in main simulations
    Smoothing rate for the wall follower velocity; manually chosen, reported to have little effect on results.
  • K = 100
    Counter divider for the wiggly oscillation in the wall follower; chosen as a trade-off between scanning area and feasible robot motion.
  • Lmin = 0.5 for both maps
    Minimum segment length for dominant point extraction; trained per map in Section 3.2 and listed in Table 2.
  • emax = 0.01 for both maps
    Line fit error threshold for dominant point extraction; trained per map in Section 3.2 and listed in Table 2.
  • cmin = 0.2 for Map 1, 0.3 for Map 2
    Correlation error threshold for accepting a matching vertex; trained per map and listed in Table 2.
  • Umin = 0.5 for Map 1, 0.4 for Map 2
    Minimum portion of the boundary that must be traversed before shape comparison starts; trained per map in Section 3.2.
  • Particle filter sampling sigma = mu_delta_x + 3*sigma_delta_x and mu_delta_phi + 3*sigma_delta_phi
    Sampling standard deviations in Eq. 16 are computed from the empirical error distributions of the land navigation stage on the same maps, making the evaluation partly circular.
  • Particle weight w_hat = not specified, stated as > 0.5
    The particle filter weighting threshold is left unspecified, which affects reproducibility.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A known polygonal boundary map M and a known sensor-to-odometry transform are available.
    Section 2 states: 'we assume that a map of the environment is given as a boundary map M defined as a polygon' and Eq. 1 encodes the known sensor offset.
  • domain assumption The robot starts inside the mapped field so that the wall follower can initialize its sensor mean to 1.0.
    Algorithm 1, line 2 sets mu_d = 1.0 with the comment 'start within the field'.
  • domain assumption A lever arm between the robot frame and the binary sensor is required and known.
    Section 2 states: 'it is required that there is a lever arm between the robots frame and the sensor, such that if only the orientation of the robot changes the position of the sensor changes too.'
  • domain assumption The odometry and motion model noise parameters calibrated on a real lawn mower transfer to the simulated robot.
    Section 3 states the noise parameters were calibrated using OptiTrack on a Viking MI 422P and then used in the Matlab simulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The boundary shape is distinctive enough, and the trained parameters reliable enough, that the correlation method finds the correct matching vertex.
    Section 3.2 trains Lmin, emax, cmin, and Umin specifically for each map, and the method has no guaranteed behavior for maps with repeated or featureless boundary segments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cataglyphis ant navigation strategies solve the global localization problem in robots with binary sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TEHB3ZQP

@misc{pith2026190804564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cataglyphis ant navigation strategies solve the global localization problem in robots with binary sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TEHB3ZQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04564}
}
read the original abstract

Low cost robots, such as vacuum cleaners or lawn mowers, employ simplistic and often random navigation policies. Although a large number of sophisticated localization and planning approaches exist, they require additional sensors like LIDAR sensors, cameras or time of flight sensors. In this work, we propose a global localization method biologically inspired by simple insects, such as the ant Cataglyphis that is able to return from distant locations to its nest in the desert without any or with limited perceptual cues. Like in Cataglyphis, the underlying idea of our localization approach is to first compute a pose estimate from pro-prioceptual sensors only, using land navigation, and thereafter refine the estimate through a systematic search in a particle filter that integrates the rare visual feedback. In simulation experiments in multiple environments, we demonstrated that this bioinspired principle can be used to compute accurate pose estimates from binary visual cues only. Such intelligent localization strategies can improve the performance of any robot with limited sensing capabilities such as household robots or toys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Cataglyphis ant and the robot Create 2 from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Boundary Map: An example map of an envi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Wall Follower: Control method blocks represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A differential drive robot within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation errors between the actual DP and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of a path along the boundary line gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Lmin emax cmin Umin Map 1 0.5 0.01 0.2 0.5 Map 2 0.5 0.01 0.3 0.4 ing algorithm with aµ = 0.7, av = 0.7, M = 100 and a simulated sensor noise of 10%. The resulting param￾eters are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MSE and mean velocity for a noise factor of 0% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MSE and mean velocity for a noise factor of 20% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MSE and mean velocity for a noise factor of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Histogram of the difference between position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: We also evaluated the performance of the proposed systematic search. Therefore, we simulated the dif￾ferential drive robot 100 times sampling the particles as proposed in Equation (16). We then followed the boundary line until the standard deviation of the ori￾entatio…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Randomly sampled particles around the position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Randomly sampled particles around the position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Pose estimate of the robot after the systematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Moving within the map increases the uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: New information collected at the boundary leads [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_19.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    Bernini, F. (2009). Lawn-mower with sensor. US Patent 7,613,552

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Bobzin, C. (2013). Cataglyphis nodus. CC BY-SA 3.0, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataglyphis

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    F., Jadhav, S

    Carr, M. F., Jadhav, S. P., and Frank, L. M. (2011). Hippocampal replay in the awake state: a potential substrate for memory consolidation and retrieval. Nature neuroscience , 14(2):147

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Dellaert, F., Fox, D., Burgard, W., and Thrun, S. (1999). Monte carlo localization for mobile robots. In Robotics and Automation, 1999. Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on , volume 2, pages 1322--1328. IEEE

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Erdem, U. M. and Hasselmo, M. (2012). A goal-directed spatial navigation model using forward trajectory planning based on grid cells. European Journal of Neuroscience , 35(6):916--931

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    H., Knuth, J., O'Kane, J

    Erickson, L. H., Knuth, J., O'Kane, J. M., and LaValle, S. M. (2008). Probabilistic localization with a blind robot. In Robotics and Automation, 2008. ICRA 2008. IEEE International Conference on , pages 1821--1827. IEEE

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Feng, L., Bi, S., Dong, M., Hong, F., Liang, Y., Lin, Q., and Liu, Y. (2017). A global localization system for mobile robot using lidar sensor. In 2017 IEEE 7th Annual International Conference on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER) , pages 478--483. IEEE

    work page 2017

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Foster, D. J. and Wilson, M. A. (2006). Reverse replay of behavioural sequences in hippocampal place cells during the awake state. Nature , 440(7084):680

    2006

  2. [10]

    and Carreras, M

    Galceran, E. and Carreras, M. (2013). A survey on coverage path planning for robotics. Robotics and Autonomous systems , 61(12):1258--1276

    2013

  3. [11]

    Hess, J., Beinhofer, M., and Burgard, W. (2014). A probabilistic approach to high-confidence cleaning guarantees for low-cost cleaning robots. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE International Conference on , pages 5600--5605. IEEE

    2014

  4. [12]

    Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , 79(8):2554--2558

    1982

  5. [13]

    D., Stachniss, C., and Burgard, W

    Ito, S., Endres, F., Kuderer, M., Tipaldi, G. D., Stachniss, C., and Burgard, W. (2014). W-rgb-d: floor-plan-based indoor global localization using a depth camera and wifi. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE International Conference on , pages 417--422. IEEE

    2014

  6. [14]

    and Redish, A

    Johnson, A. and Redish, A. D. (2007). Neural ensembles in ca3 transiently encode paths forward of the animal at a decision point. Journal of Neuroscience , 27(45):12176--12189

    2007

  7. [15]

    Lambrinos, D., M \"o ller, R., Labhart, T., Pfeifer, R., and Wehner, R. (2000). A mobile robot employing insect strategies for navigation. Robotics and Autonomous systems , 30(1-2):39--64

    2000

  8. [16]

    and Jung, S

    Lee, H. and Jung, S. (2012). Balancing and navigation control of a mobile inverted pendulum robot using sensor fusion of low cost sensors. Mechatronics , 22(1):95--105

    2012

  9. [17]

    L., Battaglia, F

    McNaughton, B. L., Battaglia, F. P., Jensen, O., Moser, E. I., and Moser, M.-B. (2006). Path integration and the neural basis of the'cognitive map'. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 7(8):663

    2006

  10. [18]

    Miller, D. P. and Slack, M. G. (1995). Design and testing of a low-cost robotic wheelchair prototype. Autonomous robots , 2(1):77--88

    1995

  11. [19]

    and Durrant-Whyte, H

    Nebot, E. and Durrant-Whyte, H. (1999). Initial calibration and alignment of low-cost inertial navigation units for land vehicle applications. Journal of Robotic Systems , 16(2):81--92

    1999

  12. [20]

    O'Kane, J. M. and LaValle, S. M. (2007). Localization with limited sensing. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 23(4):704--716

    2007

  13. [21]

    and Nadel, L

    O'keefe, J. and Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map . Oxford: Clarendon Press

    1978

  14. [22]

    Pfeiffer, B. E. and Foster, D. J. (2013). Hippocampal place-cell sequences depict future paths to remembered goals. Nature , 497(7447):74

    2013

  15. [23]

    Redish, A. D. et al. (1999). Beyond the cognitive map: from place cells to episodic memory . MIT press

    1999

  16. [24]

    Rueckert, E., Kappel, D., Tanneberg, D., Pecevski, D., and Peters, J. (2016). Recurrent spiking networks solve planning tasks. Nature Publishing Group: Scientific Reports , 6(21142)

    2016

  17. [25]

    and McNaughton, B

    Samsonovich, A. and McNaughton, B. L. (1997). Path integration and cognitive mapping in a continuous attractor neural network model. Journal of Neuroscience , 17(15):5900--5920

    1997

  18. [26]

    and Panayiotou, C

    Stavrou, D. and Panayiotou, C. (2012). Localization of a simple robot with low computational-power using a single short range sensor. In Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2012 IEEE International Conference on , pages 729--734. IEEE

    2012

  19. [27]

    Su, Z., Zhou, X., Cheng, T., Zhang, H., Xu, B., and Chen, W. (2017). Global localization of a mobile robot using lidar and visual features. In Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2017 IEEE International Conference on , pages 2377--2383. IEEE

    2017

  20. [28]

    Tanneberg, D., Peters, J., and Rueckert, E. (2019). Intrinsic motivation and mental replay enable efficient online adaptation in stochastic recurrent networks. Neural Networks - Elsevier , 109:67--80. Impact Factor of 7.197 (2017)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Thrun, S., Burgard, W., and Fox, D. (2005). Probabilistic robotics . MIT press

    2005

  22. [30]

    and Dodds, Z

    Tribelhorn, B. and Dodds, Z. (2007). Evaluating the roomba: A low-cost, ubiquitous platform for robotics research and education. In ICRA , pages 1393--1399

    2007

  23. [31]

    Wehner, R. (1987). Spatial organization of foraging behavior in individually searching desert ants, cataglyphis (sahara desert) and ocymyrmex (namib desert). In From individual to collective behavior in social insects: les Treilles Workshop/edited by Jacques M. Pasteels, Jean-...

    1987

  24. [32]

    Zhang, J., Lv, H., He, D., Huang, L., Dai, Y., and Zhang, Z. (2017). Discrete bioinspired neural network for complete coverage path planning. International Journal of Robotics and Automation , 32(2)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.