Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Differentiable Composite Neural Signed Distance Fields for Robot Navigation in Dynamic Indoor Environments

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dual-mode composite neural SDF framework lets a mobile robot with an onboard RGB-D camera plan collision-free trajectories through dynamic indoor scenes without retraining the environment representation.

desk verdict A practical dual-mode SDF navigation system with real promise, but the per-object latent code selection is underspecified and the headline success rate is inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02664 v2 pith:L7VYDZK4 submitted 2025-02-04 cs.RO

S. Talha Bukhari , Daniel Lawson , Ahmed H. Qureshi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords neuralsigneddistancefieldsrobotnavigationdynamicenvironmentstrajectoryoptimizationRGB-Dperceptionobjectposealignmentdual-modeplanningiGibsonbenchmark
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 argues that a robot can navigate a changing indoor environment with only a single onboard RGB-D camera by composing pre-trained neural signed distance fields (SDFs) for known objects with a static scene SDF, rather than rebuilding the environment model at each step. It proposes a dual-mode planner: a fast primary stage that queries the robot body's SDF against the visible obstacle point cloud, and a slower secondary stage that aligns each detected object's point cloud to its shape prior and composes the resulting SDFs to supply accurate collision gradients. The secondary stage is invoked only when the primary stage gets trapped in a local minimum, so the average planning time stays low. If the claim holds, robots can adapt to moved chairs, toys, and other everyday objects from local perception alone, without external tracking or full-scene retraining.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the composite signed distance field $\Omega(x) = \min(\Omega_s(x),\, \min_i \Omega_{o_i}(H_i x))$ over the visible scene, built by aligning each detected object's point cloud to its DeepSDF shape prior through objective (1), which progressively narrows the allowed signed-distance band around the zero level set. Because both the object priors and the static scene field are neural, $\Omega$ is differentiable and supplies both collision penalties and push-out gradients to a trajectory optimizer minimizing the cost in (3). The fast pipeline replaces this with the robot-body SDF $\Omega_r$ queried at obstacle points via (4), so each mode is a different way of evaluating collision information, and the dual-mode trigger decides which one runs.

What would settle it

Re-run the iGibson 2.0 benchmark with obstacles drawn from categories not seen during training, or with objects placed in tipped or rotated poses, and compare success rates; if the dual-mode success rate falls toward the EgoTrajOpt baseline (78.33%) or the scene-SDF stage fails to align, the generalization claim fails. Additionally, reconcile the reported success rate: Section IV.C states 95.67% while the abstract and Table I state 98.0% for the same 300 simulations, so a re-run should establish the actual number.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a dynamic indoor scene can be navigated from a single onboard RGB-D camera by composing pre-trained neural SDFs instead of retraining an environment SDF each time the scene changes. The full scene SDF is formed as $\Omega(x) = \min(\Omega_s(x),\, \min_i \Omega_{o_i}(H_i x))$, where $\Omega_s$ is the static background field from a scene-level network, each $\Omega_{o_i}$ is an object-level shape prior, and $H_i$ maps workspace points into that prior's normalized domain. A fast planning stage instead queries the robot body's own SDF at the obstacle point cloud, yielding collision costs with well-defined gradients; only when that stage remains in collision does the framework compute the composite scene SDF and re-optimize from its gradients. On 300 randomized iGibson 2.0 simulations with 80 household objects, the dual-mode pipeline claims a 98.0% success rate (Section IV.C reports 95.67%) with 15.73 s average plan time, beating the EgoTrajOpt baseline's 78.33% at comparable cost.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that every movable obstacle belongs to a known category with a pre-trained shape model, can be spotted by an RGB object detector, and is aligned to its point cloud by moving and rotating around a single vertical axis—assumptions that hold by construction in the simulator, since all obstacles come from an 80-object set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot using this planner can react to objects moved into its path mid-run, because the scene representation is recomposed from the current RGB-D frame rather than retrained.
  • Most timesteps use the cheap robot-body stage, so amortized planning stays near the 13.87 s of the fast stage rather than the 55.97 s of the full scene-SDF stage.
  • Failures of the fast stage are not terminal: the scene-SDF stage's better gradients turn a local-minimum trajectory into a collision-free initialization that the fast stage can continue refining.
  • The composite field's differentiability means the same trajectory optimizer can switch between modes without changing the cost structure, only the source of the SDF queries.
  • The paper's obstacle-density analysis indicates the dual-mode success rate degrades more slowly than the baselines as clutter increases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An obvious extension is to replace the fixed detector and shape priors with category-agnostic instance segmentation and a generative shape model, which would relax the known-object requirement and let the planner handle unseen household items.
  • The in-plane-only pose alignment is the likely failure point in the real world: tipping an object beyond a few degrees would make the point cloud fail to match the prior's zero set, so a benchmark with arbitrary orientations would quantify how much of the reported success depends on upright objects.
  • The same composition rule could be applied to a manipulator arm by substituting the arm's SDF for the robot body's SDF, turning the framework into a whole-body motion planner for dynamic tabletop scenes.
  • The reported success-rate inconsistency (95.67% in Section IV.C versus 98.0% in Table I and the abstract) should be resolved by re-running the 300-simulation benchmark, since the absolute number matters for downstream comparisons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dual-mode trajectory optimization framework for mobile robot navigation in dynamic indoor scenes using only an onboard RGB-D camera. The primary mode queries a learned SDF of the robot body, swept along the trajectory, at obstacle point-cloud points; the secondary mode aligns per-object DeepSDF latent-shape priors to detected objects, composes them with an iSDF static-scene SDF, and optimizes the trajectory against the composite field. The two modes are combined by triggering the scene-SDF stage only when the robot-SDF stage returns a colliding trajectory. The method is evaluated in iGibson 2.0 on 300 simulated runs across 10 scenarios and additionally demonstrated on a Turtlebot4 in a real office setting. The headline claim is a 98% success rate, 14.4% higher than baseline, with comparable amortized planning time.

Significance. If validated, the compositional approach is a useful step toward practical neural-SDF navigation: it avoids per-timestep retraining of a scene SDF, operates under partial observability, and is modular, allowing individual SDF components to be swapped. The authors provide code and video links, which is a strength for reproducibility. However, the central quantitative claim is currently undercut by internal inconsistencies in the reported success rate and by an unspecified mechanism for obtaining the per-instance DeepSDF latent codes that Eq. (1) requires. The real-world demonstration replaces DeepSDF with convex-hull SDFs, so it does not validate the compositional learned-prior mechanism. These issues need to be resolved before the paper's generalization claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Section IV.C / Table I] The headline success rate is reported inconsistently: the abstract states 98%, Section IV.C states 95.67%, and Table I reports 98.0%. Since the abstract's 14.4% improvement and the entire quantitative contribution rest on this number, the authors must identify the correct value and explain the discrepancy. In addition, with 300 simulations, the binomial standard error is roughly 1–2 percentage points, so differences such as 98.0% versus 96.33% are not obviously significant; confidence intervals or significance tests should be reported.
  2. [Algorithm 1 / Section III.C, Eq. (1)] The source of the per-instance DeepSDF latent code z_i is never specified. Algorithm 1 receives only a YOLOv5 class label and the point cloud, but Eq. (1) evaluates Ω_{o_i}(R_i x̄) with a latent code z_i. If z_i is retrieved from a table of the 80 iGibson objects, the experiment is closed-set by construction and does not test compositional generalization to novel instances; if z_i is inferred online from the point cloud, the inference objective, initialization, and cost are absent, making Eq. (1) not computable as written. This is load-bearing for the claimed general dynamic-indoor navigation and must be clarified.
  3. [Section III.C, Eq. (2)] The composition Ω(x) = min(Ω_s(x), min_i Ω_{o_i}(H_i x)) does not define a signed distance field in the workspace unless each H_i is an isometry. The transformation H_i includes a scaling S_i, and the text specifies s = [1,1,1,γ], so the object-SDF values evaluated at H_i x are not Euclidean signed distances in the workspace. The zero level set and sign information remain meaningful, but the claimed 'SDF of the visible scene' and the gradient interpretation used in Eq. (3) are not mathematically justified as stated. The authors should either restrict the alignment to isometries, account for the non-isometric Jacobian, or explicitly present the composition as a pseudo-SDF whose gradients are only approximate.
  4. [Abstract / Section IV.B / Table I] The '14.4% higher than baseline' claim does not name the baseline. In Table I, Dual Mode has 98.0% and DWA+PC-Mem has 85.67%; the relative improvement (98.0−85.67)/85.67 is approximately 14.4%, suggesting DWA+PC-Mem is the intended baseline. The baseline should be named in the abstract and in Section IV.C, and the comparison should be framed carefully, since the margin over the Robot SDF pipeline (96.33%) is only 1.67 percentage points.
  5. [Section IV.E] The real-world evaluation is anecdotal and does not exercise the compositional Scene SDF pipeline: the convex-hull SDFs replace the DeepSDF priors, so the real-world results do not validate the central learned-composition mechanism. The section should report the number of runs, success/failure outcomes, and any failure modes, and should be positioned as a demonstration of the Robot SDF pipeline (or as a separate convex-hull variant) rather than as evidence for the full dual-mode method.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.C, Eq. (1)] The bracket parameters δ_l and δ_u are said to be 'progressively reduced,' but no schedule, stopping criterion, or final values are given; please specify the update rule and convergence condition.
  2. [Section III.D, Eq. (4)] The indicator α_i is written as I(Ω_r(M_i x) < ζ) inside the sum over x_o, but the subscript i refers to trajectory points while x is an obstacle point; clarify whether the indicator is evaluated per obstacle point, per trajectory point, or as a joint condition.
  3. [Section III.F] The text says the Scene SDF pipeline 'requires a minimum distance assumption,' but this assumption is never defined; please state the minimum distance and its role in the algorithm.
  4. [Section IV.D / Figure 6] The scalability plot reports trends without error bars or per-density sample sizes; please add error bars or confidence intervals and state how many simulations were run per obstacle-density level.
  5. [Introduction and throughout] There are several language issues, including 'robot-centeric' in the Introduction and the repeated use of 'formidable workspace' where 'occupied workspace' or 'forbidden workspace' is likely intended; a careful proofread is recommended.
  6. [Section IV.A] The hardware and simulator setup are clear, but the number of YOLOv5 detections that were incorrect or missing in the simulation is not reported; this matters because the Scene SDF pipeline depends on detection outputs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed navigation results come from an externally benchmarked pipeline whose SDF costs are defined from pretrained external representations, not from parameters fitted to the reported success rate.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense used here. The Scene SDF pipeline (Section III-C) defines the composite SDF by Eq. (2), which is the minimum of the static iSDF value and the per-object DeepSDF values under alignment transforms, and the trajectory costs in Eqs. (3) and (4) are explicit functions of these SDFs. No cost parameter is fitted to the reported success rate. DeepSDF [4] and iSDF [5] are external pretrained representations, and the main evaluation is carried out in iGibson 2.0 against external baselines (EgoTrajOpt, DWA+PC-Mem, iRRT*), so the 98.0% success-rate claim is a benchmark measurement rather than a quantity forced by construction. The only self-citation is the unrelated related-work entry [26] (Ni and Qureshi), which is not load-bearing. Two issues are visible but are not circularity: (i) Algorithm 1 and Section III-C never specify how the per-instance DeepSDF latent code z_i is obtained for a detected object, so Eq. (1) is under-specified and the reported iGibson result may be a closed-set retrieval benchmark rather than a test of compositional generalization; and (ii) the abstract and Table I report 98% / 98.0% while Section IV-C reports 95.67% for the same condition. These are completeness and consistency concerns, not reductions of the derivation to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of pretrained models (DeepSDF object priors, iSDF scene prior, YOLOv5), many hand-selected constants, and strong assumptions about object catalog coverage, upright object orientation, and accurate robot pose. These are reasonable for the simulated setup, but they are loaded assumptions rather than derived results, and they are not stress-tested for generalization to unseen object categories.

free parameters (8)
  • lambda (path smoothing weight) = 0.1
    Used in Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 to weight path smoothing; hand-selected with no sensitivity analysis.
  • zeta (safety margin) = 0.05
    Used in alpha_i indicators to restrict updates to the safety margin; hand-selected.
  • delta_l and delta_u (alignment bracket) = -0.2 and 0.01
    Initial allowable SDF region in Eq. 1 alignment objective, progressively reduced; hand-selected.
  • d_traj (point cloud subset radius) = 0.5 m
    Radius around the trajectory over which obstacle points are used for robot SDF cost; hand-selected.
  • r_PC (point cloud memory radius) = 1 m
    Radius for persisting out-of-view point clouds in PC-Mem; hand-selected.
  • Memory zone boundaries = 0.5 m and 1 m
    Freeze, update, and dynamic zones in Obs-Mem; hand-selected.
  • Gamma scaling factor = from prior object dimensions
    Scales object point sets to the normalized object SDF domain using prior information; not formally estimated.
  • Robot body latent code z_r = optimized offline
    DeepSDF latent code inferred to represent the robot's bounding box shape; fitted offline and not independently validated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption All movable obstacles belong to a known object catalog modeled by pretrained DeepSDF codes.
    Sec. III-B and IV-A: the Scene SDF pipeline composes object SDFs for detected catalog objects; unseen object shapes cannot be aligned.
  • domain assumption Object detector (YOLOv5) detects and classifies each obstacle instance from RGB frames.
    Sec. III-C and IV-A: bounding box detections gate point-cloud assignment; missed detections remove objects from the composite SDF.
  • domain assumption Objects have plausible upright orientations; only translation and in-plane rotation need to be estimated.
    Sec. III-C: the alignment optimization assumes plausible orientations and optimizes translation and in-plane rotation only; tilted or upside-down objects break alignment.
  • domain assumption Robot pose p in SE(3) and camera extrinsics are accurate during navigation.
    Sec. III-A: posed depth frames are inputs to both pipelines; pose error propagates to point cloud placement and object alignment.
  • domain assumption Scene background SDF from iSDF trained offline separates static background from movable objects via the condition Omega_s(x) > 0.
    Sec. III-C: object point sets are extracted by thresholding the scene SDF; errors in the scene prior misclassify points.
  • domain assumption Adam optimization of the nonconvex trajectory cost with indicator-based alpha_i converges to feasible trajectories in the tested scenarios.
    Sec. III-C and III-D: no convergence guarantees are given; success depends on initialization and on triggering the Scene SDF pipeline when the Robot SDF pipeline is stuck.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differentiable Composite Neural Signed Distance Fields for Robot Navigation in Dynamic Indoor Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7VYDZK4

@misc{pith2026250202664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differentiable Composite Neural Signed Distance Fields for Robot Navigation in Dynamic Indoor Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7VYDZK4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02664}
}
read the original abstract

Neural Signed Distance Fields (SDFs) provide a differentiable environment representation to readily obtain collision checks and well-defined gradients for robot navigation tasks. However, updating neural SDFs as the scene evolves entails re-training, which is tedious, time consuming, and inefficient, making it unsuitable for robot navigation with limited field-of-view in dynamic environments. Towards this objective, we propose a compositional framework of neural SDFs to solve robot navigation in indoor environments using only an onboard RGB-D sensor. Our framework embodies a dual mode procedure for trajectory optimization, with different modes using complementary methods of modeling collision costs and collision avoidance gradients. The primary stage queries the robot body's SDF, swept along the route to goal, at the obstacle point cloud, enabling swift local optimization of trajectories. The secondary stage infers the visible scene's SDF by aligning and composing the SDF representations of its constituents, providing better informed costs and gradients for trajectory optimization. The dual mode procedure combines the best of both stages, achieving a success rate of 98%, 14.4% higher than baseline with comparable amortized plan time on iGibson 2.0. We also demonstrate its effectiveness in adapting to real-world indoor scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02664 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present a framework for trajectory optimization to navigate mobile robots in dynamic indoor environments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our proposed Dual Mode pipeline comprises the two pipelines shown above. Scene SDF pipeline (3a) infers the consolidated SDF of the robot’s workspace by computing the mapping from the workspace to the domain of each individual SDF representation. On the other hand, the Robot SDF pipeline (3b) directly operates on the visible scene’s point cloud by querying the robot body’s SDF along the robot trajectory. signed dist… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Execution of the proposed pipelines is demonstrated for a given object placement at time step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Operation of the Dual Mode pipeline is shown in a simulated indoor scenario (1), where the trajectory from Robot Body SDF pipeline is stuck in a local minima (2), triggering the Scene SDF pipeline which generates a collision-free trajectory (3). Subsequently, the Robot…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We measure the impact of obstacle density in the robot’s environment, using the scenes shown ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Predicted composite signed- distance fields for real-time motion planning in dynamic environ- ments,

    M. N. Finean, W. Merkt, and I. Havoutis, “Predicted composite signed- distance fields for real-time motion planning in dynamic environ- ments,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , vol. 31, 2021, pp. 616–624

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Chomp: Covariant hamiltonian optimization for motion planning,

    M. Zucker, N. Ratliff, A. D. Dragan, M. Pivtoraiko, M. Klingensmith, C. M. Dellin, J. A. Bagnell, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Chomp: Covariant hamiltonian optimization for motion planning,” The International journal of robotics research , vol. 32, no. 9-10, pp. 1164–1193, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on- board mav planning,

    H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on- board mav planning,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1366–1373

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation,

    J. J. Park, P. Florence, J. Straub, R. Newcombe, and S. Lovegrove, “Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation,” in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    isdf: Real-time neural signed distance fields for robot perception,

    J. Ortiz, A. Clegg, J. Dong, E. Sucar, D. Novotny, M. Zollhoefer, and M. Mukadam, “isdf: Real-time neural signed distance fields for robot perception,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes,

    A. Gropp, L. Yariv, N. Haim, M. Atzmon, and Y . Lipman, “Implicit geometric regularization for learning shapes,” in International Confer- ence on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 3789–3799

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Information theoretic active exploration in signed distance fields,

    K. Saulnier, N. Atanasov, G. J. Pappas, and V . Kumar, “Information theoretic active exploration in signed distance fields,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 4080–4085

    2020

  8. [8]

    Hio-sdf: Hierarchical incremental online signed distance fields,

    V . Vasilopoulos, S. Garg, J. Huh, B. Lee, and V . Isler, “Hio-sdf: Hierarchical incremental online signed distance fields,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 17 537–17 543

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Nfomp: Neural field for optimal motion planner of differential drive robots with nonholonomic con- straints,

    M. Kurenkov, A. Potapov, A. Savinykh, E. Yudin, E. Kruzhkov, P. Karpyshev, and D. Tsetserukou, “Nfomp: Neural field for optimal motion planner of differential drive robots with nonholonomic con- straints,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 991–10 998, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Vision for mobile robot navigation: A survey,

    G. N. DeSouza and A. C. Kak, “Vision for mobile robot navigation: A survey,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intel- ligence, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 237–267, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    Blanche-an experiment in guidance and navigation of an autonomous robot vehicle,

    I. J. Cox, “Blanche-an experiment in guidance and navigation of an autonomous robot vehicle,” IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 193–204, 1991

    1991

  4. [12]

    Experiences with an interactive museum tour-guide robot,

    W. Burgard, A. B. Cremers, D. Fox, D. H ¨ahnel, G. Lakemeyer, D. Schulz, W. Steiner, and S. Thrun, “Experiences with an interactive museum tour-guide robot,” Artificial intelligence , vol. 114, no. 1-2, pp. 3–55, 1999

    1999

  5. [13]

    Minerva: A second-generation museum tour-guide robot,

    S. Thrun, M. Bennewitz, W. Burgard, A. B. Cremers, F. Dellaert, D. Fox, D. Hahnel, C. Rosenberg, N. Roy, J. Schulte, et al., “Minerva: A second-generation museum tour-guide robot,” in Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 99CH36288...

    1999

  6. [14]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” The international journal of robotics research , vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Visual-inertial navigation, mapping and localization: A scalable real-time causal approach,

    E. S. Jones and S. Soatto, “Visual-inertial navigation, mapping and localization: A scalable real-time causal approach,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 407–430, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    Learning to explore using active neural slam,

    D. S. Chaplot, D. Gandhi, S. Gupta, A. Gupta, and R. Salakhutdinov, “Learning to explore using active neural slam,” in International Conference on Learning Representations , 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Activermap: Radiance field for active mapping and planning,

    H. Zhan, J. Zheng, Y . Xu, I. Reid, and H. Rezatofighi, “Activermap: Radiance field for active mapping and planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.12656, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cog- nitive mapping and planning for visual navigation,

    S. Gupta, J. Davidson, S. Levine, R. Sukthankar, and J. Malik, “Cog- nitive mapping and planning for visual navigation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 2616–2625

    2017

  11. [19]

    One-shot visual imitation learning via meta-learning,

    C. Finn, T. Yu, T. Zhang, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, “One-shot visual imitation learning via meta-learning,” in Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 2017, pp. 357–368

    2017

  12. [20]

    Language-conditioned imitation learning for robot ma- nipulation tasks,

    S. Stepputtis, J. Campbell, M. Phielipp, S. Lee, C. Baral, and H. Ben Amor, “Language-conditioned imitation learning for robot ma- nipulation tasks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 13 139–13 150, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Target-driven visual navigation in indoor scenes using deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . Zhu, R. Mottaghi, E. Kolve, J. J. Lim, A. Gupta, L. Fei-Fei, and A. Farhadi, “Target-driven visual navigation in indoor scenes using deep reinforcement learning,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 3357–3364

    2017

  14. [22]

    Learning to navigate in complex environments,

    P. Mirowski, R. Pascanu, F. Viola, H. Soyer, A. Ballard, A. Banino, M. Denil, R. Goroshin, L. Sifre, K. Kavukcuoglu, et al. , “Learning to navigate in complex environments,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Auxiliary tasks and explo- ration enable objectgoal navigation,

    J. Ye, D. Batra, A. Das, and E. Wijmans, “Auxiliary tasks and explo- ration enable objectgoal navigation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 16 117– 16 126

    2021

  16. [24]

    Signed distance fields: A natural representation for both mapping and planning,

    H. Oleynikova, A. Millane, Z. Taylor, E. Galceran, J. Nieto, and R. Siegwart, “Signed distance fields: A natural representation for both mapping and planning,” in RSS 2016 workshop: geometry and beyond-representations, physics, and scene understanding for robotics. University ...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoor- thi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Ntfields: Neural time fields for physics- informed robot motion planning,

    R. Ni and A. H. Qureshi, “Ntfields: Neural time fields for physics- informed robot motion planning,” in The Eleventh International Con- ference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    V oxfield: Non-projective signed distance fields for online planning and 3d reconstruction,

    Y . Pan, Y . Kompis, L. Bartolomei, R. Mascaro, C. Stachniss, and M. Chli, “V oxfield: Non-projective signed distance fields for online planning and 3d reconstruction,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 5331–5338

    2022

  20. [28]

    Fiesta: Fast incremental euclidean distance fields for online motion planning of aerial robots,

    L. Han, F. Gao, B. Zhou, and S. Shen, “Fiesta: Fast incremental euclidean distance fields for online motion planning of aerial robots,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 4423–4430

    2019

  21. [29]

    Ego-planner: An esdf- free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors,

    X. Zhou, Z. Wang, H. Ye, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Ego-planner: An esdf- free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 478–485, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    iplanner: Imperative path planning,

    F. Yang, C. Wang, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “iplanner: Imperative path planning,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Vision-only robot navigation in a neural radiance world,

    M. Adamkiewicz, T. Chen, A. Caccavale, R. Gardner, P. Culbertson, J. Bohg, and M. Schwager, “Vision-only robot navigation in a neural radiance world,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4606–4613, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Regularized deep signed distance fields for reactive motion gen- eration,

    P. Liu, K. Zhang, D. Tateo, S. Jauhri, J. Peters, and G. Chalvatzaki, “Regularized deep signed distance fields for reactive motion gen- eration,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 6673–6680

    2022

  25. [33]

    Continuous implicit sdf based any-shape robot trajectory optimization,

    T. Zhang, J. Wang, C. Xu, A. Gao, and F. Gao, “Continuous implicit sdf based any-shape robot trajectory optimization,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 282–289

    2023

  26. [34]

    igibson 2.0: Object-centric simulation for robot learning of everyday household tasks,

    C. Li, F. Xia, R. Mart ´ın-Mart´ın, M. Lingelbach, S. Srivastava, B. Shen, K. E. Vainio, C. Gokmen, G. Dharan, T. Jain, et al. , “igibson 2.0: Object-centric simulation for robot learning of everyday household tasks,” in Conference on Robot Learning . PMLR, 2022, pp. 455– 465

    2022

  27. [35]

    R. C. Coulter et al., Implementation of the pure pursuit path tracking algorithm. Carnegie Mellon University, The Robotics Institute, 1992

    1992

  28. [36]

    Yolov5 by ultralytics,

    G. Jocher, “Yolov5 by ultralytics,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5

    2020

  29. [37]

    The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance,

    D. Fox, W. Burgard, and S. Thrun, “The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 23–33, 1997

    1997

  30. [38]

    Informed rrt: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic,

    J. D. Gammell, S. S. Srinivasa, and T. D. Barfoot, “Informed rrt: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems . IEEE, 2014, pp. 2997– 3004

    2014

  31. [39]

    An improved dynamic window approach algorithm for dynamic obstacle avoidance in mobile robot formation,

    Y . Cao and N. M. Nor, “An improved dynamic window approach algorithm for dynamic obstacle avoidance in mobile robot formation,” Decision Analytics Journal , vol. 11, p. 100471, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,

    S. Macenski, T. Foote, B. Gerkey, C. Lalancette, and W. Woodall, “Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,” Science Robotics , vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm6074,

  33. [2022]

    Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ scirobotics.abm6074

    [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ scirobotics.abm6074

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.