Navigation of a Quadratic Potential with Ellipsoidal Obstacles

Alejandro Ribeiro; Harshat Kumar; Santiago Paternain

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Navigation of a Quadratic Potential with Ellipsoidal Obstacles

T0 review · 4 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 This paper claims that a Hessian-corrected gradient flow navigates a convex quadratic potential around arbitrarily flat ellipsoidal obstacles from any free-space start.

desk verdict A simple and appealing correction to RK navigation dynamics, but the main theorem is unproven: the proof leans on a conjectured critical point and an unproved cycle argument. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08509 v2 pith:CZNRTKRU submitted 2019-08-22 math.OC

Harshat Kumar , Santiago Paternain , Alejandro Ribeiro This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OC MSC 93D30

keywords quadraticpotentialellipsoidalobstaclesnavigationfunctionsgradientflowHessiancorrectionLyapunovstabilityartificialfieldsmotionplanning

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

This paper claims that a point agent can always reach the minimum of a convex quadratic potential in a workspace punctured by disjoint ellipsoidal obstacles by following a modified gradient flow, no matter how flat the obstacles are. The modification multiplies each gradient in a Rimon-Koditschek navigation flow by the inverse Hessian of the function defining it, which for quadratics simplifies to moving toward the goal and away from each obstacle center, so no curvature measurements are needed in practice. The main theorem states that for a sufficiently large gain $k$, trajectories starting in free space stay in free space and converge to the target. The paper also shows numerically that the correction succeeds in worlds where the standard Rimon-Koditschek potential provably fails. What is at stake is replacing a geometric restriction on obstacle shape with a finite, start-independent tuning knob.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the curvature-corrected navigation flow (22). It is a gradient-like dynamical system in which each repulsive obstacle term is weighted by the omitted product $\bar\beta_i(x)$ and points from the ellipsoid center $x_i$, while the attractive term points from the goal $x^*$. The argument around it uses a global Lyapunov function $V(x)=\frac12\|x-x^*\|^2$, a per-obstacle Lyapunov function $V_i(x)=\frac12(x-x^*)^\top\nabla^2\beta_i(x)(x-x^*)$, and the repulsion zone $B_i^k(\delta)$, the thin region where the candidate Lyapunov functions fail to decrease. The key mechanism is that increasing $k$ shrinks the repulsion zones into $\varepsilon$-balls around obstacles, within which the flow points away from obstacle centers, forcing escape.

What would settle it

Simulate (22) with large $k$ on a symmetric two-obstacle world with the target between the obstacles, and numerically solve $\dot x=0$ over each repulsion zone $\partial B_i^k$; finding a second critical point or a stable node inside any repulsion zone would disprove Lemma 3. Separately, place several obstacles exactly equidistant from the target in a ring and test whether any trajectory under exact arithmetic revisits the same obstacle repeatedly, which would disprove the finite-visit claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for $f_0(x)=(x-x^*)^\top Q(x-x^*)$ and ellipsoidal obstacles $\beta_i(x)=\frac12(x-x_i)^\top A_i(x-x_i)-\frac12 r_i^2$, there is a finite threshold $K$ such that for all $k>K$ the flow $\dot x=-\beta(x)(x-x^*)+\frac{f_0(x)}{k}\sum_i \bar\beta_i(x)(x-x_i)$ keeps every free-space trajectory inside the free space and sends it to $x^*$. The flow is obtained by replacing $\nabla f_0$ and $\nabla\beta_i$ with Hessian-inverse products, which reduce to relative-position vectors; this recreates the dynamics of a spherical world without assuming the world is spherical. The proof splits the state space: far from obstacles a global Lyapunov function decreases; near each obstacle local Lyapunov functions define a repulsion zone that the agent leaves; and a graph-ordering argument limits the number of obstacles visited. The theorem is stated for every initial free-space position, though the proof's local lemmas establish escape only up to a measure-zero set, a gap the paper does not reconcile.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's load-bearing premise is that each repulsion zone has exactly one critical point, an unstable saddle near the line through $x^*$ and $x_i$, and that cycles are escaped because infinite looping would force crossing an obstacle center; both are asserted rather than proven, one explicitly as a conjecture, and the convergence claim collapses if either fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 1 is correct, the eccentricity restriction on Rimon-Koditschek navigation disappears for quadratic costs and ellipsoidal obstacles: condition (10) no longer needs to hold.
Implementation requires only relative positions and distances to the goal and obstacle centers, because the Hessian corrections collapse into $x-x^*$ and $x-x_i$.
The threshold $K$ is finite and independent of the starting point, so one gain setting works for all initial conditions in a given ellipsoidal world.
The simulations show that success rates stay above 95 percent for $k=60$ as the obstacle count grows, while uncorrected navigation degrades; the theorem explains this by removing the old curvature condition.

Reading between the lines

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

The same flow should extend to disjoint strictly convex obstacles by locally replacing each obstacle with an inscribed ellipsoid or a quadratic barrier, at the cost of reintroducing shape estimation.
The no-second-order-information feature is special to quadratic potentials and ellipsoidal barriers; for a general strongly convex potential, $\nabla^2 f_0^{-1}\nabla f_0$ is not $x-x^*$, so the simplification would not survive without curvature measurements.
The proof's measure-zero caveat predicts that non-converging initial conditions, if they exist, lie on stable manifolds of repulsion-zone saddles; a numerical search initialized exactly on those manifolds could test whether the 'every initial position' form of Theorem 1 is actually necessary.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I agree with the stress-test reading, and I think the reader's verdict is right. The short version: this paper has a genuinely attractive idea, namely replacing the second-order RK correction with a simple sum of relative-position terms, and the simulations show it works in worlds where condition (10) fails. But the proof of Theorem 1 has two load-bearing gaps, and the theorem as stated is not established.

What is new: the dynamics (22) themselves, which require only distances and relative positions, and the claimed guarantee for all initial positions in ellipsoidal environments with arbitrarily flat obstacles. That is stronger than the companion paper [31], which needs second-order information and an epsilon-away start. The numerical study is extensive for a theory paper: comparisons against standard RK and second-order corrections, 3-D examples, and random worlds with up to seven obstacles. I believe the empirical evidence: the corrected field does avoid the local minima that plague (12).

Where it breaks. Lemma 3's proof in Appendix C begins 'We conjecture that the saddle point on the border of the repulsion zone will be close to...'. Then it analyzes that conjectured point and shows it is unstable, but it never proves the point is on ∂B_i^k, that it is a critical point, or that no other critical point exists there. The sentence 'What is left to show is that there is no other critical point' is followed by a gamma-neighborhood argument that assumes the very uniqueness it needs. Since escape from the repulsion zone hinges on Lemma 3, this is not a small gap. Section IV-B's cycle argument is also asserted: 'For cycles to exist, it must be that the obstacles are equidistant from the objective' and that infinite looping forces crossing the obstacle center. Lemma 2 only gives a normal-velocity sign condition in a hyperplane; it does not imply those geometric claims. So the all-initial-conditions guarantee, and even the abstract's 'almost every' in the header, are unsupported. The paper is honest about the conjecture, which I appreciate, but an honest conjecture inside a proof of the main theorem is still a missing proof.

Minor: the saturation constant K is existential, never characterized; for an implementation-oriented paper, that leaves a tuning parameter entirely unspecified. And the abstract is inconsistent, 'every initial position' versus 'almost every', which probably reflects the proof gap.

Bottom line: the idea deserves attention and the numerics are real, but this needs a serious rewrite of the proof. A weaker theorem with a complete proof, or a genuine proof of Lemma 3 and the cycle claim, would change my verdict. I would send it to peer review, with a clear request for major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a modified gradient flow (Eq. 22) for navigating a point agent in a convex quadratic potential toward its minimizer while avoiding disjoint ellipsoidal obstacles. The modification applies a Hessian-inspired correction to the Rimon-Koditschek dynamics so that the agent only needs relative positions and distances, not curvature estimates. Theorem 1 claims that for a sufficiently large gain k the flow stays in the free space and converges to the target from every initial condition. The proof introduces global and local Lyapunov functions, a repulsion zone near each obstacle, and lemmas about escape from that zone and finite obstacle visits, followed by numerical comparisons with the uncorrected and second-order-corrected dynamics.

Significance. If Theorem 1 were established, the result would be practically significant: it would remove the eccentricity restriction (10) that limits Rimon-Koditschek navigation functions, and it would achieve this with a simple dynamics that does not require second-order information about the obstacles or the potential. The numerical experiments, especially the success-rate comparison as obstacle count increases, support the plausibility of the claim. However, the proof as written contains load-bearing gaps: a central lemma is justified by an explicit conjecture, and the finite-visit argument for cyclic configurations is asserted rather than proved. The paper is therefore not currently a rigorous proof of its main theorem.

major comments (4)

[Appendix C (Lemma 3)] The proof of Lemma 3 begins with the sentence 'We conjecture that the saddle point on the border of the repulsion zone will be close to the point xs' satisfying (44), and the subsequent analysis only shows that such a point, if it exists, is unstable. It is never shown that a point satisfying (44) lies on ∂B_i^k, that it is a critical point of the restricted flow, or that no other critical point exists on that boundary. The passage beginning 'What is left to show is that there is no other critical point' is followed by an appeal to Lemma 2 and a maximum over K_i^γ, not by a derivation that rules out other critical points. Since Lemma 3 is essential for the claim that the agent escapes the repulsion zone, Theorem 1 is not established by the arguments given.
[Section IV-B] The finite-visit argument for cyclic configurations is asserted without proof. The text states that 'For cycles to exist, it must be that the obstacles are equidistant from the objective' and that an infinite loop 'requires it to cross the center of the obstacle,' but neither statement is derived from the dynamics. Lemma 2 only establishes that a particular normal component of the velocity is positive when (x−xi) is not aligned with (x−x*); it does not imply the geometric claims about cycle structure or obstacle centers. Consequently, the conclusion that the agent visits only finitely many obstacles is unsupported, and this conclusion is needed for the convergence part of Theorem 1.
[Theorem 1 and abstract] Theorem 1 states convergence from every initial condition x0, while the abstract limits the claim to 'almost every initial position (up to a set of measure one)' and the proof text in Section IV-A says 'Lemmas 2 and 3 guarantee that the agent will exit the repulsion zone for almost every initial position.' These are materially different statements. The universal quantification in Theorem 1 is stronger than anything the proof establishes, so either the theorem must be weakened or the measure-zero caveat must be eliminated in the proof.
[Appendix A (Lemma 1)] The proof of Lemma 1 derives, on the border of the repulsion zone, an expression that vanishes, but the lemma claims strict decrease in the interior and constancy on the boundary. The text says 'We have shown that the local Lyapunov function candidate is strictly negative except for on the border of the repulsion zone,' yet the displayed calculation only handles the boundary case. The interior strictness follows informally from the inequality in (33), but this step is not written out, and the notational shift between Vi in (31), V_i in (40), and the tilde function in (35) makes the argument harder to verify.

minor comments (4)

[Section IV, after Eq. (26)] There is a typo in 'the numerator on the right hand since of (26)': 'since' should be 'side.'
[Appendix D, Eq. (56)] In the proof of Lemma 4, the text refers to 'the functions f0(x), B(x), and β(x) are continuous,' but B(x) is not defined in this paper and does not appear in the expression being bounded; the factor is sum_i \barβ_i(x), so the reference to B(x) appears to be a remnant from the second-order dynamics.
[Reference [31]] Reference [31] has the same title and author list as the present manuscript and appears to be an unpublished companion or prior version; the paper should state its status and clarify how the present result differs from it, especially since the introduction compares the proposed dynamics with those of [31].
[Section V-B] The word 'centeres' should be 'centers' in 'The centeres are then chosen.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the proposed flow (22) is an independently stated ansatz whose proof uses Lyapunov arguments, not its own conclusion; the paper's real weaknesses are proof gaps, not self-reference.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 1, is not derived from its own conclusion. The dynamics (22) are constructed from Hessian-inverse corrections in (13)-(16), motivated by spherical worlds, but the convergence proof proceeds through independent Lyapunov candidates V, Vi, and V~i and through Lemmas 1-4. The global and local Lyapunov arguments do not assume the trajectory converges; they derive monotonicity conditions and then study the repulsion zone. The self-citation [31], which carries the same title and authors, is used only as a comparison baseline for the second-order dynamics gold and as a remark on its limitations; it is not the source of Theorem 1's proof. The numerical experiments are simulations of the proposed dynamics, not fitted predictions of the theorem. The paper does contain serious non-circularity problems: Lemma 3's proof begins with 'We conjecture that the saddle point on the border of the repulsion zone will be close to' and then never establishes uniqueness of the critical point on ∂B_i^k, and Section IV-B asserts without proof that cycles force the agent to cross obstacle centers. These are omitted proofs or unsupported assertions, which affect correctness, but they are not cases where a prediction reduces to its inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely relabeled. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameter is the gain k, whose threshold K is existential and not computable from the paper. Two additional unproven assumptions are embedded in the proof: Lemma 3's critical-point conjecture and the finite-visit property for cyclic obstacle graphs. These are the main gaps.

free parameters (1)

k (navigation gain) = not specified; simulations use 15, 20, 40, 60
The dynamics (22) contain the gain k, and Theorem 1 requires k > K for an unspecified threshold K. The proof does not provide a computable bound, so k must be chosen by hand; simulations use a small set of values.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Assumption 1: target x* and initial condition x(0) lie in the free space F
Given in Section II, Assumption 1; required for problem feasibility.
domain assumption Assumption 2: obstacles O_i are pairwise disjoint
Section II, Assumption 2; needed for the barrier product sign property and disjoint ε-balls.
ad hoc to paper Uniqueness of the critical point on the repulsion-zone boundary (Lemma 3)
The proof of Lemma 3 states 'We conjecture that the saddle point ... will be close to ...' and never rigorously proves existence or uniqueness; this is load-bearing for Theorem 1.
ad hoc to paper Finite obstacle visits in cyclic graphs (Section IV-B)
The claim that cyclic configurations force the agent to cross obstacle centers and therefore cannot loop infinitely is asserted without proof; Theorem 1 depends on it to rule out infinite cycling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Navigation of a Quadratic Potential with Ellipsoidal Obstacles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZNRTKRU

@misc{pith2026190808509,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Navigation of a Quadratic Potential with Ellipsoidal Obstacles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZNRTKRU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08509}
}

read the original abstract

Given a convex quadratic potential of which its minimum is the agent's goal and a Euclidean space populated with ellipsoidal obstacles, one can construct a Rimon-Koditschek (RK) artificial potential to navigate. Its negative gradient attracts the agent toward the goal and repels the agent away from the boundary of the obstacles. This is a popular approach to navigation problems since it can be implemented with local spatial information that is acquired during operation time. However, navigation is only successful in situations where the obstacles are not too eccentric (flat). This paper proposes a modification to gradient dynamics that allows successful navigation of an environment with a quadratic cost and ellipsoidal obstacles regardless of their eccentricity. This is accomplished by altering gradient dynamics with a Hessian correction that is intended to imitate worlds with spherical obstacles in which RK potentials are known to work. The resulting dynamics simplify by the quadratic form of the obstacles. Convergence to the goal and obstacle avoidance is established from almost every initial position (up to a set of measure one) in the free space, with mild conditions on the location of the target. Results are corroborated empirically with numerical simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08509 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the different regions defined in Section IV-A. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** We consider placing an edge between obstacles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The graph G corresponding to the configuration in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a)Trajectories generated by following the negative gradient of the RK Potential – that is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: We set k = 40. Trajectories following the uncorrected dynamics gnav are shown in red, the corrected second order dynamics gold are shown in the dashed magenta, and the proposed dynamics gnew are shown in green. from [−r0, r0] 2 and is redrawn if it is not in the interi…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (a) Uncorrected Dynamics: Regardless of the value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[31]

Navigation of a quadratic potential with ellipsoidal obstacles

H. Kumar, S. Paternain, and A. Ribeiro, “Navigation of a quadratic potential with ellipsoidal obstacles.”

work page
[1]

Motion strategies for surveillance.,

S. Bhattacharya, S. Candido, and S. Hutchinson, “Motion strategies for surveillance.,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2007

work page 2007
[2]

A team of robotic agents for surveillance,

P. E. Rybski, S. A. Stoeter, M. D. Erickson, M. Gini, D. F. Hougen, and N. Papanikolopoulos, “A team of robotic agents for surveillance,” in Proceedings of the fourth international conference on autonomous agents, pp. 9–16, ACM, 2000

work page 2000
[3]

Search and rescue robotics,

R. R. Murphy, S. Tadokoro, D. Nardi, A. Jacoff, P. Fiorini, H. Choset, and A. M. Erkmen, “Search and rescue robotics,” in Springer handbook of robotics, pp. 1151–1173, Springer, 2008

work page 2008
[4]

Distributed search and rescue with robot and sensor teams,

G. Kantor, S. Singh, R. Peterson, D. Rus, A. Das, V . Kumar, G. Pereira, and J. Spletzer, “Distributed search and rescue with robot and sensor teams,” in Field and Service Robotics , pp. 529–538, Springer, 2003

work page 2003
[5]

S. M. LaValle, Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2006

2006
[6]

I-bug: An intensity-based bug algorithm,

K. Taylor and S. M. LaValle, “I-bug: An intensity-based bug algorithm,” in Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE International Con- ference on, pp. 3981–3986, IEEE, 2009

work page 2009
[7]

Performance comparison of bug navigation algorithms,

J. Ng and T. Br ¨aunl, “Performance comparison of bug navigation algorithms,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems , vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 73–84, 2007

work page 2007

Show all 36 references

[8]

A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,

P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100–107, 1968

1968
[9]

Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,

S. M. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,” 1998

1998
[10]

Path planning with modiﬁed a star algorithm for a mobile robot,

F. Ducho ˇn, A. Babinec, M. Kajan, P. Be ˇno, M. Florek, T. Fico, and L. Juri ˇsica, “Path planning with modiﬁed a star algorithm for a mobile robot,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 96, pp. 59–69, 2014

2014
[11]

Fast replanning for navigation in unknown terrain,

S. Koenig and M. Likhachev, “Fast replanning for navigation in unknown terrain,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 354–363, 2005

2005
[12]

On the complexity of admissible search algorithms,

A. Martelli, “On the complexity of admissible search algorithms,” Artiﬁcial Intelligence, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 1977

1977
[13]

Global path planning using artiﬁcial potential ﬁelds,

C. W. Warren, “Global path planning using artiﬁcial potential ﬁelds,” in Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion, pp. 316–321, Ieee, 1989

1989
[14]

Robot navigation functions on manifolds with boundary,

D. E. Koditschek and E. Rimon, “Robot navigation functions on manifolds with boundary,” Advances in applied mathematics , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 412–442, 1990

1990
[15]

Exact robot navigation using artiﬁcial potential functions,

E. Rimon and D. E. Koditschek, “Exact robot navigation using artiﬁcial potential functions,” IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 501–518, 1992

1992
[16]

The navigation transformation,

S. G. Loizou, “The navigation transformation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1516–1523, 2017

2017
[17]

Prescribed time scale robot navigation,

C. Vrohidis, P. Vlantis, C. P. Bechlioulis, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “Prescribed time scale robot navigation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1191–1198, 2018

2018
[18]

Formation stabilization of multiple agents using decentralized navigation functions.,

H. G. Tanner and A. Kumar, “Formation stabilization of multiple agents using decentralized navigation functions.,” in Robotics: Science and systems, vol. 1, pp. 49–56, Boston, 2005

2005
[19]

Communication-aware target tracking using navigation functions-centralized case,

A. Ghaffarkhah and Y . Mostoﬁ, “Communication-aware target tracking using navigation functions-centralized case,” in 2009 Second Interna- tional Conference on Robot Communication and Coordination , pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2009

2009
[20]

Navigation functions for every- where partially sufﬁciently curved worlds,

I. F. Filippidis and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “Navigation functions for every- where partially sufﬁciently curved worlds,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2012 IEEE International Conference on , pp. 2115–2120, IEEE, 2012

2012
[21]

Navigation functions for convex potentials in a space with convex obstacles,

S. Paternain, D. E. Koditschek, and A. Ribeiro, “Navigation functions for convex potentials in a space with convex obstacles,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 2944–2959, 2018

2018
[22]

The construction of analytic diffeo- morphisms for exact robot navigation on star worlds,

E. Rimon and D. E. Koditschek, “The construction of analytic diffeo- morphisms for exact robot navigation on star worlds,” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , vol. 327, no. 1, pp. 71–116, 1991

1991
[23]

The navigation transformation: Point worlds, time ab- stractions and towards tuning-free navigation,

S. G. Loizou, “The navigation transformation: Point worlds, time ab- stractions and towards tuning-free navigation,” in 2011 19th Mediter- ranean Conference on Control & Automation (MED) , pp. 303–308, IEEE, 2011

2011
[24]

Navigation functions in topologically complex 3-d workspaces,

S. G. Loizou, “Navigation functions in topologically complex 3-d workspaces,” in 2012 American Control Conference (ACC) , pp. 4861– 4866, IEEE, 2012

2012
[25]

Locally com- putable navigation functions for sphere worlds,

G. Lionis, X. Papageorgiou, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “Locally com- putable navigation functions for sphere worlds,” in Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 1998– 2003, IEEE, 2007

2007
[26]

Towards lo- cally computable polynomial navigation functions for convex obstacle workspaces,

G. Lionis, X. Papageorgiou, and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “Towards lo- cally computable polynomial navigation functions for convex obstacle workspaces,” in Robotics and Automation, 2008. ICRA 2008. IEEE International Conference on , pp. 3725–3730, IEEE, 2008

2008
[27]

Stochastic artiﬁcial potentials for online safe navigation,

S. Paternain and A. Ribeiro, “Stochastic artiﬁcial potentials for online safe navigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.00033 , 2016

2016 arXiv
[28]

Exact robot navigation using power diagrams,

O. Arslan and D. E. Koditschek, “Exact robot navigation using power diagrams,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2016

2016
[29]

Sensor-based reactive navigation in unknown convex sphere worlds,

O. Arslan and D. E. Koditschek, “Sensor-based reactive navigation in unknown convex sphere worlds,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, p. 0278364918796267, 2016

2016
[30]

Boyd and L

S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex optimization. Cambridge univer- sity press, 2004

2004
[32]

Adjustable navigation functions for unknown sphere worlds,

I. Filippidis and K. J. Kyriakopoulos, “Adjustable navigation functions for unknown sphere worlds,” in Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-ECC), 2011 50th IEEE Conference on , pp. 4276–4281, IEEE, 2011

2011
[33]

Least squares ellipsoid speciﬁc ﬁtting,

Q. Li and J. G. Grifﬁths, “Least squares ellipsoid speciﬁc ﬁtting,” in null, p. 335, IEEE, 2004

2004
[34]

Direct least square ﬁtting of ellipses,

A. Fitzgibbon, M. Pilu, and R. B. Fisher, “Direct least square ﬁtting of ellipses,” IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 476–480, 1999

1999
[35]

Automatic assembly planning and control via potential functions,

L. L. Whitcomb and D. E. Koditschek, “Automatic assembly planning and control via potential functions,” in Intelligent Robots and Sys- tems’ 91. ’Intelligence for Mechanical Systems, Proceedings IROS’91. IEEE/RSJ International Workshop on , pp. 17–23, IEEE, 1991

1991
[36]

Toward the automatic control of robot assembly tasks via potential functions: The case of 2-d sphere assemblies,

L. L. Whitcomb, D. E. Koditschek, and J. B. Cabrera, “Toward the automatic control of robot assembly tasks via potential functions: The case of 2-d sphere assemblies,” in Robotics and Automation, 1992. Proceedings., 1992 IEEE International Conference on , pp. 2186–2191, IEEE, ...

1992

Pith tools

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

[1] [31]

Navigation of a quadratic potential with ellipsoidal obstacles

H. Kumar, S. Paternain, and A. Ribeiro, “Navigation of a quadratic potential with ellipsoidal obstacles.”

work page

[2] [1]

Motion strategies for surveillance.,

S. Bhattacharya, S. Candido, and S. Hutchinson, “Motion strategies for surveillance.,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2007

work page 2007

[3] [2]

A team of robotic agents for surveillance,

P. E. Rybski, S. A. Stoeter, M. D. Erickson, M. Gini, D. F. Hougen, and N. Papanikolopoulos, “A team of robotic agents for surveillance,” in Proceedings of the fourth international conference on autonomous agents, pp. 9–16, ACM, 2000

work page 2000

[4] [3]

Search and rescue robotics,

R. R. Murphy, S. Tadokoro, D. Nardi, A. Jacoff, P. Fiorini, H. Choset, and A. M. Erkmen, “Search and rescue robotics,” in Springer handbook of robotics, pp. 1151–1173, Springer, 2008

work page 2008

[5] [4]

Distributed search and rescue with robot and sensor teams,

G. Kantor, S. Singh, R. Peterson, D. Rus, A. Das, V . Kumar, G. Pereira, and J. Spletzer, “Distributed search and rescue with robot and sensor teams,” in Field and Service Robotics , pp. 529–538, Springer, 2003

work page 2003

[6] [5]

S. M. LaValle, Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2006

2006

[7] [6]

I-bug: An intensity-based bug algorithm,

K. Taylor and S. M. LaValle, “I-bug: An intensity-based bug algorithm,” in Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE International Con- ference on, pp. 3981–3986, IEEE, 2009

work page 2009

[8] [7]

Performance comparison of bug navigation algorithms,

J. Ng and T. Br ¨aunl, “Performance comparison of bug navigation algorithms,” Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems , vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 73–84, 2007

work page 2007