Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Long Range Navigator (LRN): Extending robot planning horizons beyond metric maps

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A robot can reason further out by learning to identify distant affordable frontiers as intermediate goals, trading full-map knowledge for a learned visual sense of which openings lead somewhere.

desk verdict A genuine system paper with a useful CoTracker-based auto-labeling pipeline, but the central horizon-extension claim rests on an unverified bearing-only projection. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13149 v1 pith:SJAZVLUR submitted 2025-04-17 cs.RO

Matt Schmittle , Rohan Baijal , Nathan Hatch , Rosario Scalise , Mateo Guaman Castro , Sidharth Talia , Khimya Khetarpal , Byron Boots
show 1 more author
Siddhartha Srinivasa
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords long-rangenavigationaffordablefrontiersaffordancelearningegocentricvideoself-supervisedlabelingoff-roadroboticsgoal-conditionedplanningvisual
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 robot with only local sensing and no map can navigate toward a distant goal by learning to recognize affordable frontiers: visually open regions that appear to offer a path through and beyond. On camera images, the robot predicts which distant openings are affordable, projects those scores onto headings, and steers toward the heading most aligned with the goal. The authors show that augmenting a local navigation stack with this long-range heading selection reduces human interventions on two outdoor platforms and leads to faster decisions. If correct, LRN turns long-range navigation from a mapping problem into a visual affordance problem, extending the effective planning horizon from the sensor's local map to the visible scene.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the learned affordance heatmap: a goal-agnostic image-space map of which distant regions are affordable frontiers. A frozen visual encoder produces features from the robot's cameras, and a small decoder predicts heatmaps; the paper trains it with unlabeled ego-centric video by tracking points over time and labeling the endpoint of each track as the hotspot. The heatmap is projected into angular bins using camera intrinsics, thresholded, smoothed with an exponential moving average, and multiplied by a Gaussian around the goal heading and a separate Gaussian around the previous selected heading. This projection is the mechanism that extends the horizon: it converts a visual opening in the distance into a heading the local planner can aim at, without requiring depth or a larger costmap.

What would settle it

Take an outdoor site with two visually open corridors leaving the robot's position at similar angles, one ending after ten meters and the other continuing for several hundred meters, with the goal beyond the long corridor; if LRN repeatedly selects the short corridor because it never perceives distance, the angular-proxy assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that long-range navigation does not require extending the metric map; it suffices to identify affordable frontiers as intermediate goals. Formally, LRN scores each frontier $f$ by $V(s,g,f)=A(s,f)D(f,g)$, where $A$ is the probability that a path exists from the robot to $f$ and that beyond $f$ the robot can continue to some distant goal, and $D$ estimates goal alignment. The affordance term $A$ is learned from camera images only, trained on egocentric videos labeled automatically by tracking where the camera actually went, with the end of each track treated as the affordable frontier. At run time, the predicted heatmap is binned into headings, multiplied by Gaussian scores around the goal heading and the previous heading, and the top heading is handed to the local planner as an intermediate goal. Across trials on a quadruped and a 12-ton tracked vehicle, LRN avoided obstacles earlier than a goal-charging heuristic and recorded zero human interventions on the tested courses.

Load-bearing premise

LRN never measures depth, so it assumes that the direction to an affordable opening is a faithful stand-in for how far the robot must travel; when two openings lie at nearly the same angle but very different true distances, it can pick the wrong one and wander.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot using LRN can react to obstacles that lie beyond its local costmap, turning away from walls, treelines, and dense vegetation before the local planner would see them.
  • Because training labels come from unlabeled walking videos, the affordance model can be collected and retrained for new platforms without human annotation effort.
  • The quality of the affordance model directly affects navigation: overly permissive or overly restrictive heatmap thresholds both degrade path efficiency, so calibration of the threshold is part of the system.
  • LRN is compatible with existing local planners: it only rewrites the goal heading, so it can be layered on top of metric costmap stacks rather than replacing them.
  • The angular-only projection means LRN can make decisions faster than depth-based long-range methods, at the cost of occasional wandering when several openings look equal from the robot's viewpoint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension (editorial): if the angular proxy holds in most terrain, LRN could be used as a top-k subgoal proposer for any local planner, with the planner choosing among the top affordable headings instead of a single heading; this would make the interface robust to isolated heatmap errors.
  • Extension (editorial): the reported switching and wandering suggests a testable extension: add a memory of recently selected headings and a backtracking rule, so that when distance-to-goal stops improving the robot returns to the previous affordable frontier instead of oscillating.
  • Extension (editorial): one could combine LRN with near-to-far terrain classifiers by using the affordable-heading bias to guide a low-resolution long-range costmap, rather than using the heading only as an immediate goal.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Long Range Navigator (LRN), a system that augments a local metric-map navigation stack with a learned image-space affordance model. The affordance backbone is trained on egocentric videos to predict 'affordable frontiers' (visually open regions that allow continued navigation), and a goal-conditioned head steers the robot toward the frontier whose heading is most aligned with the goal, smoothed by an EMA filter and a consistency term. The authors evaluate LRN on a Spot robot across three courses (dump, night, helipad) with five trials per condition and four approaches, and on a Racer Heavy vehicle in a single trial per method. They report reduced human interventions and favorable distance/time suboptimality for LRN in several comparisons. The method is trained on unlabeled ego-centric video using CoTracker for automatic label generation, with a hand-labeled variant for the Racer Heavy deployment.

Significance. If the central claim holds, LRN provides a practical and scalable way to extend the planning horizon of metric-map-based navigation without depth, using a learned intermediate affordance representation from unlabeled video. The real-robot deployments on two very different platforms, the automatic labeling pipeline, and the inclusion of statistical tests for the Spot trials are clear strengths. The work addresses a meaningful problem in outdoor long-range navigation and introduces a representation that could inspire further research. However, the evidence is uneven: the Racer Heavy result is a single trial, the auto-labeled model has very low precision/F1 in offline metrics, and the claimed horizon-extension mechanism itself is not directly measured, which tempers the significance until those points are addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B and projection step] The load-bearing step of the method—projecting image frontiers to a fixed distance H along their bearing—means that D(f,g_t) in Eq. (1) is not a function of the frontier's true distance; it is a fixed Gaussian over heading. The Limitations section (Section VII) admits: 'Without depth, we are implicitly assuming that the angular distance to goal from an LRN hotspot is a sufficient proxy for distance to goal.' Under this assumption, two hotspots at the same bearing but at very different true distances receive the same score, and the selected 'intermediate goal' may lie inside the local planner's existing costmap horizon. The reported improvements (fewer interventions, lower distance suboptimality) could therefore arise from the heading-based smoothing and consistency terms rather than from genuinely long-range reasoning. To substantiate the central claim, the paper should use the recorded robot logs to estimate (e.g., via sparse depth, map reconstruction, or post-hoc measurement) the metric distance to the selected hotspots relative to H, or otherwise demonstrate that LRN's chosen directions correspond to frontiers beyond the local horizon. Without this, the horizon-extension claim remains untested.
  2. [Table II and Section V-A] The text in Section V-A states that 'LRN outperforms Trav. Depth for all metrics,' but Table II shows that on the Spot test set, Trav. Depth has higher F1 (0.14 vs 0.10) and higher precision (0.14 vs 0.06) than the auto-labeled LRN model. This is an internal inconsistency. More importantly, the auto-labeled LRN model achieves precision of only 0.06–0.08 and F1 of 0.10–0.11, meaning that the vast majority of its predicted hotspots are false positives. The ablation in Section V-B (Fig. 9) varies the post-processing threshold hthresh, not the quality of the learned affinity model, so it does not directly support the claim that 'better affordances lead to better paths' in the sense of model accuracy. The authors should correct the overstated comparison, and either provide an analysis that manipulates true model quality (e.g., comparing auto vs hand-labeled training on the same platform) or temper the conclusion accordingly.
  3. [Section IV-D and Table I] The Racer Heavy comparison is based on a single trial per method, as the paper acknowledges in Section IV-D: 'Given time constraints, we were only able to run each method for one trial demonstrating the system but not fully testing it.' Nevertheless, the abstract and Remark I generalize the benefits ('reduces human interventions', 'faster decision making') across platforms. A single trial is anecdotal and cannot support claims of reduced interventions or higher speed; it should be clearly labeled as a qualitative demonstration, and the cross-platform claims should be restricted to the Spot experiments or supported with repeated trials.
  4. [Section IV-D (interventions protocol)] The human intervention metric—a headline result—is defined in subjective terms: 'Human interventions were taken when the system was not making progress or the robot was entering a dangerous situation,' and the intervention procedure involves the human manually reorienting the robot until it appears to plan reasonably. With only 5 trials per condition, the intervention counts are vulnerable to experimenter bias and are difficult to compare across methods. A more objective protocol (e.g., a rule-based progress timeout or a pre-specified definition of 'dangerous') or blinded evaluation would substantially strengthen the evidence for the paper's main claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-A] There is a typo: 'Elevaton Mapping CuPy' should be 'Elevation Mapping CuPy.'
  2. [Section III, Eq. (2)] The notation in the second term, 'P(∃ξ_fg, ∃g | d(s,g)>H)', is unclear because it mixes a specific goal (as used in Eq. (1) with g_t) with an existential 'some goal g'. Please rephrase to clarify the quantifiers.
  3. [Algorithm 1 and Section III-B] The symbol g is used both for the waypoint/goal in the problem setup and for the goal-heading angle in the Gaussian cost (Eq. (1) and Algorithm 1). This notation is confusing; consider using a distinct symbol such as θ_g for the heading.
  4. [Figure 7] The asterisks and confidence intervals in Fig. 7 are hard to read at the current resolution. Please ensure the figure is legible, report exact p-values (or adjusted p-values) in the text or supplementary, and clarify the sample size in the caption.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase 'leads to faster decision making' is vague; the reported metrics are total time and distance suboptimality, not decision latency. Please rephrase to accurately reflect the measured quantities.
  6. [Section V-A] The sentence noting that LRN, Trav. Depth, and NoMaD see higher total distance on Helipad is attributed to switching behavior; quantifying the switching frequency (e.g., heading changes per run) would make this explanation more concrete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LRN's affordance model is trained on external labels, and the goal-conditioned term is an acknowledged fixed heuristic, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. A(s,f) is learned by supervised regression on labels produced by external processes (CoTracker point tracks of egocentric video or human annotation), so the affordance backbone is not constructed from the downstream navigation outcome. The goal-conditioned term D(f,g_t) is not learned at all; it is an explicitly fixed Gaussian kernel over heading (Section III-B), so there is no 'prediction' secretly fitted to the reported results. The projection of image hotspots onto a ray at distance H (Section III) is an explicitly stated no-depth assumption, and the Limitations section acknowledges that angular distance is treated as a proxy for distance to goal—this is an admitted validity limitation, not a reduction of the claimed horizon extension to its inputs. Hyperparameters (sigma_g, sigma_p, alpha, hthresh) are hand-set and the threshold is ablated, but they are not renamed as predictions. Self-citations (e.g., TerrainNet, V-Strong) appear in related work and baselines and are not load-bearing for the central claim. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no circular step is present, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

LRN introduces no new physical entities; its central quantities are the learned affordance heatmap and the fixed goal-conditioned scoring. The paper relies on several domain assumptions (GPS, no depth, tracker accuracy) and hand-set hyperparameters (thresholds, width, smoothing) that are not derived from data.

free parameters (6)
  • hthresh (Spot) = 0.7
    Heatmap threshold above which affordance scores contribute; chosen after an ablation on the Dump test course (Fig. 9), a post hoc selection on a test site.
  • hthresh (Racer Heavy) = 0.15
    Lower threshold used in the one-shot Racer Heavy demonstration; not systematically tuned.
  • sigma_g = 90 (Spot), 70 (Racer Heavy)
    Width of the Gaussian scored around the goal heading; manually set, affects how strongly the goal pulls the chosen frontier.
  • sigma_p = 110 (Spot), 100 (Racer Heavy)
    Width of the consistency Gaussian around the previously chosen heading; manually set to suppress switching.
  • alpha (EMA) = 0.1
    Exponential moving average smoothing factor on affordance scores; manually set for both platforms.
  • goal switch distances = 12m and 30m (Spot), 75m (Racer Heavy)
    Distances at which LRN's goal bias narrows or the robot reverts to direct goal heading; hand-set.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Optimal substructure of navigation
    Section III assumes that if the optimal frontier f* lies on the global optimal path and the local policy is optimal up to horizon H, then planning to f* is globally optimal. This is a standard assumption in unknown environments but rarely strictly true.
  • domain assumption GPS and waypoint availability
    The problem setup assumes GPS localization and goal waypoints, with no prior map or satellite imagery.
  • domain assumption No reliable depth
    LRN uses only monocular cameras and no depth, which forces projection of image points to a fixed distance H along a ray.
  • domain assumption CoTracker provides sufficiently accurate trajectories
    The automatic labeling pipeline relies on point tracks from CoTracker to identify the end of each trajectory as an affordable frontier; tracking errors put heat on obstacles (noted in limitations).
  • domain assumption SAM features capture affordance-relevant structure
    The frozen SAM2/MobileSAM encoder is assumed to provide a visual embedding that supports long-range affordance prediction; results show it generalizes from day to night.
invented entities (1)
  • Affordable frontier heatmap independent evidence
    purpose: Learned intermediate representation from image to scalar heat indicating how good a far-away direction is as a subgoal.
    The heatmap is evaluated against human-labeled held-out images (Table II) and used to steer the robot; it is a model component rather than a physical entity, so it has no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper beyond these offline and online evaluations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long Range Navigator (LRN): Extending robot planning horizons beyond metric maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJAZVLUR

@misc{pith2026250413149,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long Range Navigator (LRN): Extending robot planning horizons beyond metric maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJAZVLUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13149}
}
read the original abstract

A robot navigating an outdoor environment with no prior knowledge of the space must rely on its local sensing to perceive its surroundings and plan. This can come in the form of a local metric map or local policy with some fixed horizon. Beyond that, there is a fog of unknown space marked with some fixed cost. A limited planning horizon can often result in myopic decisions leading the robot off course or worse, into very difficult terrain. Ideally, we would like the robot to have full knowledge that can be orders of magnitude larger than a local cost map. In practice, this is intractable due to sparse sensing information and often computationally expensive. In this work, we make a key observation that long-range navigation only necessitates identifying good frontier directions for planning instead of full map knowledge. To this end, we propose Long Range Navigator (LRN), that learns an intermediate affordance representation mapping high-dimensional camera images to `affordable' frontiers for planning, and then optimizing for maximum alignment with the desired goal. LRN notably is trained entirely on unlabeled ego-centric videos making it easy to scale and adapt to new platforms. Through extensive off-road experiments on Spot and a Big Vehicle, we find that augmenting existing navigation stacks with LRN reduces human interventions at test-time and leads to faster decision making indicating the relevance of LRN. https://personalrobotics.github.io/lrn

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13149 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. LRN Overview. Our approach LRN finds affordable frontiers as intermediate representation for the robot to head towards and selects one near the goal heading. On the right is the local perception (TOP 50m, BOTTOM 8m) where LRN changes the default navigation direction (green) to an affordable one (blue). with long-range goals, creating large cost maps is intractable due to limited range of sensors together with comput… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our approach LRN. LRN is fed with egocentric camera images and a goal heading vector. LRN is composed of the following components, namely, 1) the Affordance Backbone: computes affordable frontiers in the image space as heatmaps agnostic of the goal. These affordance hotspots are then projected into a discrete set of affordable headings for the robot to follow, 2) the Goal Conditioned Head, wherein the af… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LRN’s formulation of the long-range navigation problem. LRN learns the value estimate V (s, g, f) using affordability score A(s, f) for each frontier and the cost to goal estimate D(f, gt). from s to f and the probability there exists some path from f to some distant goal g beyond the local horizon H. D(f, gt) measures the cost estimate of navigation from the frontier f conditioned on the goal. Given, V (s, g, f) an… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Learning Affordances from Unlabeled Videos. The fisheye image 4a shows the observation at the start of the trajectory and the path taken by the human. Fig. 4b shows the hotspots computed by the automatic data labeling pipeline. The blue part is the path leading up to t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Heatmaps computed by LRN. The two images on the left show examples from the Racer Heavy. Blue is lower confidence and red is high confidence. LRN finds affordable spots between trees and on hill crests. The two images on the right show heatmap examples from the Insta36…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: GPS plots of LRN and Goal Heuristic Baseline on each course. Where the Goal Heuristic blindly charges towards the goal, the LRN makes earlier decisions to avoid difficult terrain. The round image at the bottom right of each Spot image shows the image the robot observes…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of LRN, Goal Heuristic, Trav. Depth, and NoMaD on Spot tests. We report average and 95 % confidence intervals for 5 real world experiments. Time and Distance suboptimality are with respect to human baseline runs. We use asterisks ∗ to denote statistical sign…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Full scale LRN and Goal Heuristic demonstration. Paths taken by baseline Goal Heuristic and LRN systems given the same start and goal. The intervention and human teleop for the Goal Heuristic was due to it pushing into dense trees near a ditch. The LRN avoids the dense…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Better affordances can lead to more efficient paths To investigate this claim, we modify the heatmap threshold affecting the affordance set size. Low threshold means LRN considers more potentially poor options i.e. everything is affordable. High threshold means LRN see…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: GPS plots of all approaches on each course. Many of the baselines incurred interventions for going off course and exhibit various degrees of wandering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Racer Heavy heatmap predictions compared to human-labeled heatmaps on the test set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Spot heatmap predictions compared to human-labeled heatmaps on the test set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: shows the intermediate outputs that lead to the final heatmap scores on Spot. As shown, traversability reasonably covers the space of traversable terrain but emphasizes regions directly in front of the robot, likely due to training trajectories heading straight out. M…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Uncertainty-aware Accurate Elevation Modeling for Off-road Navigation via Neural Processes

    cs.RO 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A semantic-conditioned neural process with local ball-query attention estimates off-road terrain elevation and uncertainty more accurately than prior baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Trajectory bundle estimation For perception-driven planning

    Abraham Bachrach. Trajectory bundle estimation For perception-driven planning . Phd thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Learning long- range terrain classification for autonomous navigation

    Max Bajracharya, Benyang Tang, Andrew Howard, Michael Turmon, and Larry Matthies. Learning long- range terrain classification for autonomous navigation. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation, pages 4018–4024, 2008. doi: 10.1109/ROBOT. 2008.4543828

    arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Cormen, Charles E

    Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein. Introduction to Algorithms, Third Edition. The MIT Press, 3rd edition, 2009. ISBN 0262033844

    2009

  4. [4]

    Learning se- mantic traversability priors using diffusion models for uncertainty-aware global path planning

    Ethan Fahnestock, Erick Fuentes, Philip R Osteen, Siddharth Ancha, and Nicholas Roy. Learning se- mantic traversability priors using diffusion models for uncertainty-aware global path planning. In IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Wild visual navigation: Fast traversabil- ity learning via pre-trained models and online self- supervision

    Jonas Frey, Matias Mattamala, Libera Piotr, Nived Che- brolu, Cesar Cadena, Georg Martius, Marco Hutter, and Maurice Fallon. Wild visual navigation: Fast traversabil- ity learning via pre-trained models and online self- supervision. In Robotics: Science and Systems , 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Efficient hierarchical reinforcement learning for mapless naviga- tion with predictive neighbouring space scoring

    Yan Gao, Jing Wu, Xintong Yang, and Ze Ji. Efficient hierarchical reinforcement learning for mapless naviga- tion with predictive neighbouring space scoring. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering ,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Learning long-range vision for autonomous off-road driving

    Raia Hadsell, Pierre Sermanet, Jan Ben, Ayse Erkan, Marco Scoffier, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Urs Muller, and Yann LeCun. Learning long-range vision for autonomous off-road driving. Journal of Field Robotics , 26(2):120– 144, 2009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.20276

    doi:10.1002/rob.20276 2009

  8. [8]

    V-strong: Visual self- supervised traversability learning for off-road navigation

    Sanghun Jung, JoonHo Lee, Xiangyun Meng, Byron Boots, and Alexander Lambert. V-strong: Visual self- supervised traversability learning for off-road navigation. icra, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    CoTracker: It is better to track together

    Nikita Karaev, Ignacio Rocco, Benjamin Graham, Natalia Neverova, Andrea Vedaldi, and Christian Rupprecht. CoTracker: It is better to track together. ECCV, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Learning navigation subroutines from egocentric videos

    Ashish Kumar, Saurabh Gupta, and Jitendra Malik. Learning navigation subroutines from egocentric videos. Proceedings in Machine Learning Research , 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    ara∗ : Anytime a∗ with provable bounds on sub- optimality

    Maxim Likhachev, Geoffrey J Gordon, and Sebastian Thrun. ara∗ : Anytime a∗ with provable bounds on sub- optimality. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 2003

    2003

  4. [12]

    Neural autonomous navigation with riemannian motion policy

    Xiangyun Meng, Nathan Ratliff, Yu Xiang, and Dieter Fox. Neural autonomous navigation with riemannian motion policy. CoRR, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Terrainnet: Visual modeling of complex terrain for high-speed, off- road navigation

    Xiangyun Meng, Nathan Hatch, Alexander Lambert, Anqi Li, Nolan Wagener, Matt Schmittle, JoonHo Lee, Wentao Yuan, Zoey Chen, Samuel Deng, Greg Okopal, Dieter Fox, Byron Boots, and Amir Shaban. Terrainnet: Visual modeling of complex terrain for high-speed, off- road navigation. ...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Elevation mapping for locomotion and navigation using gpu

    Takahiro Miki, Lorenz Wellhausen, Ruben Grandia, Fabian Jenelten, Timon Homberger, and Marco Hutter. Elevation mapping for locomotion and navigation using gpu. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 2273–2280. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Peyman Moghadam, Wijerupage Sardha Wijesoma, and M. D. P. Moratuwage. Towards a fully-autonomous vision-based vehicle navigation system in outdoor en- vironments. In International Conference on Control Automation Robotics & Vision , pages 597–602, 2010. doi: 10.1109/ICARCV .20...

    2010

  8. [16]

    Omar Chavez-Garcia, Luca M

    Mirko Nava, J ´erˆome Guzzi, R. Omar Chavez-Garcia, Luca M. Gambardella, and Alessandro Giusti. Learning long-range perception using self-supervision from short- range sensors and odometry. IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters , 4(2):1279–1286, 2019. doi: 10.1109/LRA. 2019.2894849

    2019

  9. [17]

    Roadrunner m&m – learning multi-range multi-resolution traversability maps for autonomous off-road navigation, 2024

    Manthan Patel, Jonas Frey, Deegan Atha, Patrick Spieler, Marco Hutter, and Shehryar Khattak. Roadrunner m&m – learning multi-range multi-resolution traversability maps for autonomous off-road navigation, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Learning to move with affordance maps

    William Qi, Ravi Teja Mullapudi, Saurabh Gupta, and Deva Ramanan. Learning to move with affordance maps. In iclr, volume abs/2001.02364, 2020

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Rong- hang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman R ¨adle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Eric Mintun, Junting Pan, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Nicolas Carion, Chao-Yuan Wu, Ross Girshick, Piotr Doll ´ar, and Christoph Fei...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Self-supervised traversability prediction by learning to reconstruct safe terrain

    Robin Schmid, Deegan Atha, Frederik Scholler, Sharmita Dey, Seyed Abolfazl Fakoorian, Kyohei Otsu, Barry Ridge, Marko Bjelonic, Lorenz Wellhausen, Marco Hut- ter, and Ali-akbar Agha-mohammadi. Self-supervised traversability prediction by learning to reconstruct safe terrain. I...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Semantic terrain classification for off-road autonomous driving

    Amirreza Shaban, Xiangyun Meng, JoonHo Lee, Byron Boots, and Dieter Fox. Semantic terrain classification for off-road autonomous driving. In Conference on Robot Learning (CORL), volume 164, pages 619–629, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    ViNT: A foundation model for visual navigation

    Dhruv Shah, Ajay Sridhar, Nitish Dashora, Kyle Sta- chowicz, Kevin Black, Noriaki Hirose, and Sergey Levine. ViNT: A foundation model for visual navigation. In Conference on Robot Learning (CORL) , 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    NoMaD: Goal Masked Diffusion Poli- cies for Navigation and Exploration

    Ajay Sridhar, Dhruv Shah, Catherine Glossop, and Sergey Levine. NoMaD: Goal Masked Diffusion Poli- cies for Navigation and Exploration. OOD Workshop Conference on Robot Learning , 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Stein, Christopher Bradley, and Nicholas Roy

    Gregory J. Stein, Christopher Bradley, and Nicholas Roy. Learning over subgoals for efficient navigation of structured, unknown environments. Conference on Robot Learning (CORL), 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Learning long-range terrain perception for autonomous mobile robots

    Mingjun Wang, Jun Zhou, Jun Tu, and Chengliang Liu. Learning long-range terrain perception for autonomous mobile robots. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 7, 2010. doi: 10.5772/7245

    2010 doi

  18. [26]

    Safe robot navigation via multi-modal anomaly detection

    Lorenz Wellhausen, Ren ´e Ranftl, and Marco Hutter. Safe robot navigation via multi-modal anomaly detection. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 5:1326–1333, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    A frontier-based approach for au- tonomous exploration

    Brian Yamauchi. A frontier-based approach for au- tonomous exploration. In Proceedings 1997 IEEE In- ternational Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation CIRA’97. ’Towards New Computational Principles for Robotics and Automation’ , pages 146–151, 1997...

    1997

  20. [28]

    Depth anything v2

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Zhen Zhao, Xiaogang Xu, Jiashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything v2. arXiv:2406.09414, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications

    Chaoning Zhang, Dongshen Han, Yu Qiao, Jung Uk Kim, Sung-Ho Bae, Seungkyu Lee, and Choong Seon Hong. Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14289 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Long-range terrain perception using convolutional neural networks

    Wei Zhang, Qi Chen, Weidong Zhang, and Xuanyu He. Long-range terrain perception using convolutional neural networks. Neurocomputing, 2018. APPENDIX A QUALITATIVE SPOT RESULTS Fig. 10 shows sample paths each approach took on all courses. As shown there were multiple interventio...

    2018

  23. [2023]

    doi: 10.1109/TASE.2023.3312237

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.