pith. sign in

arxiv: 2407.01563 · v2 · submitted 2024-05-16 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.AI· cs.LG

NaviSlim: Adaptive Context-Aware Navigation and Sensing via Dynamic Slimmable Networks

Tim Johnsen , Marco Levorato This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 00:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG
keywords adaptive navigationslimmable neural networksmicro-dronescontext-aware sensingenergy efficiencydynamic model scalingautonomous vehiclessensor power management
0
0 comments X

The pith

NaviSlim uses one gated slimmable network to dynamically scale drone model complexity and sensor power based on context.

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

The paper presents NaviSlim as a neural navigation model for micro-drones that adjusts its own size and sensor settings to match the difficulty of the current environment and task. This adaptation aims to cut computing time, energy use, and sensor acquisition costs without requiring separate networks for different conditions. Micro-drones face tight limits on power and processing, so fixed high-complexity models often waste resources in easier settings. The approach keeps performance while lowering average demands, as shown through training and testing in a simulation environment with scenarios of varying difficulty.

Core claim

NaviSlim is designed as a gated slimmable neural network architecture that can dynamically select a slimming factor to autonomously scale model complexity, which consequently optimizes execution time and energy consumption. Moreover, NaviSlim can dynamically select power levels of onboard sensors to autonomously reduce power and time spent during sensor acquisition, without the need to switch between different neural networks. In Microsoft AirSim tests across scenarios with varying difficulty, the models showed a dynamic reduced model complexity on average between 57-92%, and between 61-80% sensor utilization, as compared to static neural networks designed to match computing and sensing of a

What carries the argument

Gated slimmable neural network that selects a slimming factor and sensor power levels on the fly.

If this is right

  • A single model suffices for navigation across easy and hard environments instead of maintaining multiple fixed networks.
  • Flight time increases in simpler contexts because both computation and sensor use drop automatically.
  • Sensor data collection finishes faster when lower power levels are selected without loss of necessary information.
  • No separate training or switching logic is required when the navigation goal or trajectory changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the simulation matches real dynamics closely, the same architecture could apply to other battery-limited robots or edge devices.
  • The method opens a route to testing whether context-aware scaling improves safety margins in uncertain outdoor settings.
  • Extensions could measure how the dynamic choices affect overall mission success rates beyond raw resource metrics.
  • Neighboring problems like adaptive planning or multi-agent coordination might benefit from similar gated selection mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The Microsoft AirSim simulation produces navigation and sensing dynamics close enough to real micro-drone hardware that the measured reductions will hold on physical systems.

What would settle it

Running the trained NaviSlim models on actual micro-drone hardware in real environments and checking whether energy use and execution time drop by similar percentages to the simulation results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2407.01563 by Marco Levorato, Tim Johnsen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: High-level schematics of the considered sensing-computing-control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two maps from Microsoft AirSim: on the left is ”Blocks” which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: NaviSlim: our novel solution for a context-aware framework capable of adapting resource allocation to that which is required by the difficulty of the current scenario. Shown is our specific implementation. The shapes with dotted lines represent components capable of adaptable resource allocation. factor, ρ, which controls the number of active nodes in each hidden layer, that is, c = [ρ] since ρ controls th… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the percentage of evaluation paths which successfully reach the goal versus distance to goal. The percentage of successful paths drops with increasing distance, as expected. The navigation models perform remarkably well when deployed to the more complex City map even though they are only trained using samples from the simple Blocks map. This illustrates the prowess, and generalization, of our navigat… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of a hyper-parameter grid search that explores different neural [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Mean results of the different adaptability variables that control various resource allocations as predicted from the auxiliary network, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results after reducing the resources allocated to computing a trained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Test set results ran on a Jetson Nano to measure the relative speedups [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An aerial 2D view of the two AirSim maps overlaid with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Small-scale autonomous airborne vehicles, such as micro-drones, are expected to be a central component of a broad spectrum of applications ranging from exploration to surveillance and delivery. This class of vehicles is characterized by severe constraints in computing power and energy reservoir, which impairs their ability to support the complex state-of-the-art neural models needed for autonomous operations. The main contribution of this paper is a new class of neural navigation models -- NaviSlim -- capable of adapting the amount of resources spent on computing and sensing in response to the current context (i.e., difficulty of the environment, current trajectory, and navigation goals). Specifically, NaviSlim is designed as a gated slimmable neural network architecture that, different from existing slimmable networks, can dynamically select a slimming factor to autonomously scale model complexity, which consequently optimizes execution time and energy consumption. Moreover, different from existing sensor fusion approaches, NaviSlim can dynamically select power levels of onboard sensors to autonomously reduce power and time spent during sensor acquisition, without the need to switch between different neural networks. By means of extensive training and testing on the robust simulation environment Microsoft AirSim, we evaluate our NaviSlim models on scenarios with varying difficulty and a test set that showed a dynamic reduced model complexity on average between 57-92%, and between 61-80% sensor utilization, as compared to static neural networks designed to match computing and sensing of that required by the most difficult scenario.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes NaviSlim, a gated slimmable neural network for adaptive navigation and sensing on micro-drones. It dynamically selects a slimming factor to scale model complexity (optimizing time and energy) and selects sensor power levels to reduce acquisition costs, all within a single network without switching models. Evaluation consists of training and testing in Microsoft AirSim across scenarios of varying difficulty, reporting average model complexity reductions of 57-92% and sensor utilization of 61-80% relative to static networks sized for the hardest case.

Significance. If the simulation results hold and the adaptation generalizes, the approach could enable more efficient single-model navigation on severely constrained platforms by jointly adapting computation and sensing to context. The combination of dynamic slimmable gating with sensor power selection is a targeted contribution for embedded robotics under energy limits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: the central performance claims (57-92% complexity reduction, 61-80% sensor utilization) rest on quantitative simulation outcomes, yet the manuscript supplies no training procedure, loss functions, gating training details, baseline comparisons, variance measures, or exclusion criteria. Without these the reliability of the reported savings cannot be assessed.
  2. [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: all quantitative results and the autonomous selection behavior are obtained exclusively in Microsoft AirSim. No physical micro-drone hardware experiments, real power/latency measurements on embedded platforms, or sim-to-real transfer metrics are provided. Given that the motivating claim concerns operation under real compute/energy constraints, the absence of hardware validation is load-bearing for the applicability assertion.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that NaviSlim is 'different from existing slimmable networks' and 'different from existing sensor fusion approaches,' but does not cite the specific prior works being contrasted; adding these references would clarify the novelty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. We address the major comments point-by-point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and scope.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: the central performance claims (57-92% complexity reduction, 61-80% sensor utilization) rest on quantitative simulation outcomes, yet the manuscript supplies no training procedure, loss functions, gating training details, baseline comparisons, variance measures, or exclusion criteria. Without these the reliability of the reported savings cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from more explicit methodological details to allow independent assessment of the results. While Section 4 describes the overall training setup and architecture, we acknowledge that loss functions (including the composite objective for navigation and gating), specific gating training procedure, baseline configurations, variance reporting, and data exclusion criteria are not sufficiently detailed. In the revision we will expand the evaluation section with these elements, including the exact loss formulation, pseudocode for the dynamic slimming process, and mean±std results across multiple random seeds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation section: all quantitative results and the autonomous selection behavior are obtained exclusively in Microsoft AirSim. No physical micro-drone hardware experiments, real power/latency measurements on embedded platforms, or sim-to-real transfer metrics are provided. Given that the motivating claim concerns operation under real compute/energy constraints, the absence of hardware validation is load-bearing for the applicability assertion.

    Authors: We concur that hardware validation would strengthen applicability claims for real energy-constrained platforms. The present work deliberately uses AirSim for controlled, repeatable evaluation across difficulty levels with perfect ground truth. We cannot add physical experiments or embedded-platform measurements within the scope of a major revision. We will, however, insert a limitations paragraph that explicitly discusses the sim-to-real gap, expected transfer issues for power and latency, and directions for future hardware deployment. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Absence of physical micro-drone hardware experiments, real power/latency measurements, and sim-to-real transfer metrics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical simulation results with no self-referential derivations or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper introduces a gated slimmable neural network architecture (NaviSlim) and evaluates it via training/testing in Microsoft AirSim. Reported metrics (57-92% model complexity reduction, 61-80% sensor utilization) are direct empirical measurements from simulation experiments on varying scenarios, not quantities derived by construction from fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are presented that reduce the central claims to inputs. The derivation chain consists of architectural design choices followed by independent experimental validation, making the work self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the AirSim simulator and on standard supervised training assumptions for neural networks; no new physical constants or entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Microsoft AirSim produces navigation and sensing dynamics representative of real micro-drone hardware.
    All reported performance numbers are obtained inside this simulator.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5797 in / 1336 out tokens · 35878 ms · 2026-05-24T00:59:51.682829+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Towards fully autonomous uavs: A survey,

    T. Elmokadem and A. V . Savkin, “Towards fully autonomous uavs: A survey,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 18, p. 6223, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    On-board processing for autonomous drone racing: An overview,

    L. O. Rojas-Perez and J. Mart ´ınez-Carranza, “On-board processing for autonomous drone racing: An overview,”Integration, vol. 80, pp. 46–59, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Scalable distributed microservices for autonomous uav swarms,

    K. A. Irizarry, Z. Zhang, C. Stewart, and J. Boubin, “Scalable distributed microservices for autonomous uav swarms,” in Proceedings of the 23rd International Middleware Conference Demos and Posters , 2022, pp. 1– 2

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Autonomous swarm testbed with multiple quad- copters,

    R. Clark, G. Punzo, G. Dobie, R. Summan, C. N. MacLeod, G. Pierce, and M. Macdonald, “Autonomous swarm testbed with multiple quad- copters,” in 1st World Congress on Unmanned Systems Enginenering, 2014-WCUSEng, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [6]

    Reviewnet: A fast and resource optimized network for enabling safe autonomous driving in hazy weather conditions,

    A. Mehra, M. Mandal, P. Narang, and V . Chamola, “Reviewnet: A fast and resource optimized network for enabling safe autonomous driving in hazy weather conditions,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 4256–4266, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [7]

    Sensor and sensor fusion technology in autonomous vehicles: A review,

    D. J. Yeong, G. Velasco-Hernandez, J. Barry, and J. Walsh, “Sensor and sensor fusion technology in autonomous vehicles: A review,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 6, p. 2140, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [8]

    Deep convolutional neural network based autonomous drone navigation,

    K. Amer, M. Samy, M. Shaker, and M. ElHelw, “Deep convolutional neural network based autonomous drone navigation,” in Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Vision , vol. 11605. SPIE, 2021, pp. 16–24

    work page 2021

  8. [9]

    Slimmable Neural Networks

    J. Yu, L. Yang, N. Xu, J. Yang, and T. Huang, “Slimmable neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08928 , 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [10]

    Split computing and early exiting for deep learning applications: Survey and research challenges,

    Y . Matsubara, M. Levorato, and F. Restuccia, “Split computing and early exiting for deep learning applications: Survey and research challenges,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1–30, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [11]

    Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles,

    S. Shah, D. Dey, C. Lovett, and A. Kapoor, “Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles,” in Field and Service Robotics: Results of the 11th International Conference . Springer, 2018, pp. 621–635

    work page 2018

  11. [12]

    Unreal engine

    Epic Games, “Unreal engine.” [Online]. Available: https://www. unrealengine.com

    work page

  12. [13]

    Airsim drone racing lab,

    R. Madaan, N. Gyde, S. Vemprala, M. Brown, K. Nagami, T. Taubner, E. Cristofalo, D. Scaramuzza, M. Schwager, and A. Kapoor, “Airsim drone racing lab,” in Neurips 2019 competition and demonstration track. PMLR, 2020, pp. 177–191

    work page 2019

  13. [15]

    Air learning: a deep reinforcement learning gym for autonomous aerial robot visual navigation,

    S. Krishnan, B. Boroujerdian, W. Fu, A. Faust, and V . J. Reddi, “Air learning: a deep reinforcement learning gym for autonomous aerial robot visual navigation,” Machine Learning, vol. 110, pp. 2501–2540, 2021

    work page 2021

  14. [16]

    Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for reinforcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control,

    J. Panerati, H. Zheng, S. Zhou, J. Xu, A. Prorok, and A. P. Schoel- lig, “Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for reinforcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 7512–7519

    work page 2021

  15. [17]

    Autonomous navigation via deep reinforcement learning for resource constraint edge nodes using transfer learning,

    A. Anwar and A. Raychowdhury, “Autonomous navigation via deep reinforcement learning for resource constraint edge nodes using transfer learning,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 26 549–26 560, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [18]

    Autonomous drone racing with deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . Song, M. Steinweg, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza, “Autonomous drone racing with deep reinforcement learning,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1205–1212

    work page 2021

  17. [19]

    Simultaneous localisation and mapping (slam): Part i the essential algorithms,

    H. D. Whyte, “Simultaneous localisation and mapping (slam): Part i the essential algorithms,” Robotics and Automation Magazine , 2006

    work page 2006

  18. [20]

    Hydrafu- sion: Context-aware selective sensor fusion for robust and efficient autonomous vehicle perception,

    A. V . Malawade, T. Mortlock, and M. A. Al Faruque, “Hydrafu- sion: Context-aware selective sensor fusion for robust and efficient autonomous vehicle perception,” in 2022 ACM/IEEE 13th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 68– 79

    work page 2022

  19. [21]

    Testudo: Col- laborative intelligence for latency-critical autonomous systems,

    M. Odema, L. Chen, M. Levorato, and M. A. Al Faruque, “Testudo: Col- laborative intelligence for latency-critical autonomous systems,” IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [22]

    Neural architecture search: A survey,

    T. Elsken, J. H. Metzen, and F. Hutter, “Neural architecture search: A survey,”The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1997–2017, 2019

    work page 1997

  21. [23]

    Universally slimmable networks and improved training techniques,

    J. Yu and T. S. Huang, “Universally slimmable networks and improved training techniques,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2019, pp. 1803–1811

    work page 2019

  22. [24]

    Dynamic slimmable network,

    C. Li, G. Wang, B. Wang, X. Liang, Z. Li, and X. Chang, “Dynamic slimmable network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 8607–8617

    work page 2021

  23. [25]

    Dynamic slimmable denoising network,

    Z. Jiang, C. Li, X. Chang, L. Chen, J. Zhu, and Y . Yang, “Dynamic slimmable denoising network,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 1583–1598, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [26]

    Efficient power control using variable resolution algorithm for lidar sensor-based autonomous vehicle,

    S. Lee and D. Park, “Efficient power control using variable resolution algorithm for lidar sensor-based autonomous vehicle,” in 2021 18th International SoC Design Conference (ISOCC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 341– 342

    work page 2021

  25. [27]

    Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,

    V . Mnih, K. Kavukcuoglu, D. Silver, A. A. Rusu, J. Veness, M. G. Bellemare, A. Graves, M. Riedmiller, A. K. Fidjeland, G. Ostrovski et al. , “Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning,” nature, vol. 518, no. 7540, pp. 529–533, 2015

    work page 2015

  26. [28]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, “Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 , 2015

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [29]

    Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementa- tions,

    A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dor- mann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementa- tions,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 12 348–12 355, 2021

    work page 2021

  28. [30]

    Automatic differentiation in pytorch,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, and A. Lerer, “Automatic differentiation in pytorch,” 2017

    work page 2017

  29. [31]

    Adapting rapid motor adaptation for bipedal robots,

    A. Kumar, Z. Li, J. Zeng, D. Pathak, K. Sreenath, and J. Malik, “Adapting rapid motor adaptation for bipedal robots,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1161–1168

    work page 2022

  30. [32]

    In-hand object rotation via rapid motor adaptation,

    H. Qi, A. Kumar, R. Calandra, Y . Ma, and J. Malik, “In-hand object rotation via rapid motor adaptation,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 1722–1732

    work page 2023

  31. [33]

    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

    work page 1968

  32. [34]

    Addressing function approxi- mation error in actor-critic methods,

    S. Fujimoto, H. Hoof, and D. Meger, “Addressing function approxi- mation error in actor-critic methods,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2018, pp. 1587–1596

    work page 2018

  33. [35]

    Temporal difference learning and td-gammon,

    G. Tesauro et al. , “Temporal difference learning and td-gammon,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 58–68, 1995

    work page 1995

  34. [36]

    Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning,

    H. Van Hasselt, A. Guez, and D. Silver, “Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 30, no. 1, 2016

    work page 2016