Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Kinodynamic Trajectory Following with STELA: Simultaneous Trajectory Estimation & Local Adaptation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 single factor graph simultaneously estimates a robot's past trajectory and adapts its controls, for any dynamical system with first- or second-order state updates, starting from a kinodynamic sampling-based plan.

desk verdict Good incremental extension of factor-graph control with a real-robot evaluation, but the 'any dynamical system' claim is not supported by the dynamics factor actually implemented. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20009 v1 pith:WOMD6Q6G submitted 2025-04-28 cs.RO

Edgar Granados , Sumanth Tangirala , Kostas E. Bekris This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords factorgraphssimultaneoustrajectoryestimationlocaladaptationkinodynamicmotionplanningnon-holonomicrobotsslidingwindowinferenceincrementalsmoothingsampling-based
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

STELA asks whether one probabilistic factor graph can do both jobs that autonomous robots usually split: estimate where the robot has been and decide what controls to send next. Earlier factor-graph methods for this combined task worked only for idealized holonomic robots with linear time-varying models and depended heavily on hand-chosen Gaussian priors. STELA claims to remove those restrictions by initializing with a feasible trajectory from a kinodynamic sampling-based planner and then solving one optimization that simultaneously smooths the past trajectory and adapts future controls, with the time between states as an optimization variable. If the claim holds, a robot with non-linear, second-order dynamics and a large gap between its planning model and reality can still follow a collision-free trajectory online at control rates around 10–30 Hz.

What carries the argument

The central object is the STELA factor graph and the maximum a posteriori inference performed over it. In this context, a factor graph is a bipartite graph in which variable nodes hold robot states, controls, and edge durations, while factor nodes penalize violations of dynamics, observations, priors, obstacle clearance, and control or duration limits. What carries the argument is the factorization of the posterior into a trajectory-estimation product over a short history and a local-adaptation product over a forward horizon, both re-optimized incrementally with a sliding window so the graph size stays bounded as new observations arrive. The duration variable is the distinctive mechanism: it lets the optimizer stretch or shrink the time allocated to each edge, which is how the method absorbs execution noise and recovers from model error without abandoning the planned, collision-free path.

What would settle it

Simulate a damped double integrator with known damping coefficient $c$, so the true dynamics are $­\ddot{q} = -c \dot{q} + u$, and run STELA with the paper's dynamics factor, which predicts $­\dot{q}_{i+1} = \dot{q}_i + f(u_i)\Delta t$ without the $-c \dot{q}$ term. If the forward predictions become systematically biased and the success rate falls as $c$ grows, the claim that the representation applies to any dynamical system with first- or second-order state updates is not supported beyond the control-affine form.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that simultaneous trajectory estimation and local adaptation can be written as inference in one factor graph, with posterior proportional to the product of a trajectory-estimation term and a local-adaptation term. The graph is initialized node-by-node from the edge representation of a kinodynamic sampling-based plan, so the initial guess is dynamically feasible and collision-free rather than a naive straight line. Each edge carries configuration, velocity, control, and duration variables; the duration of execution between two states is optimized, and the integration factor uses forward integration on the configuration manifold. The paper argues that this representation applies to any dynamical system expressible by first- or second-order state update equations, and it demonstrates the method on an idealized linear time-varying stochastic differential equation model and on a second-order car-like robot, including real-robot runs with control updates at 10–30 Hz. Across the reported experiments, STELA matches or exceeds previous factor-graph control methods on the idealized model and succeeds on the car-like model where those methods do not directly apply.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim stands on the assumption that, on each short segment, acceleration is a function of the control input alone and constant-velocity Euler integration accurately propagates the state; for systems where acceleration also depends on pose or velocity, the dynamics factor used in the graph does not actually represent the system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For robots whose acceleration can be written as a function of control input, the same factor graph now covers both estimation and control, so a separate low-level controller and state estimator do not have to be engineered for trajectory following.
  • Using a feasible kinodynamic plan as initialization removes the naive straight-line prior that made earlier factor-graph planners fall into local minima, so obstacle-rich environments become more tractable.
  • Optimizing edge durations lets the controller slow down or speed up automatically, and the reported experiments show this timing adaptation is what keeps trajectories collision-free under high noise.
  • The sliding window plus incremental updates keeps the factor graph bounded, making online control updates at 10–30 Hz practical rather than requiring full re-optimization of a long trajectory.
  • Because the graph smooths a short history instead of filtering only the latest state, it can correct past state estimates while choosing the next control, which supports the reported robustness to observation noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the “any dynamical system” claim should be read as bounded by the dynamics factor's form: the paper's acceleration model is $­\ddot{q} = f(u_i)$, so systems with acceleration that depends on velocity or pose, such as damping, friction, or slip, would need an extended factor rather than the exact same graph.
  • Beyond the paper, the duration variable suggests a concrete test: measure whether STELA's collision avoidance under noise comes mostly from timing adaptation rather than from reshaping the path; if so, combining STELA with a path-replanning module would extend it to dynamic obstacles and to new homotopy classes, which the paper itself notes as future work.
  • Beyond the paper, the sliding window size is a tuning knob with a predicted trade-off: a longer history gives smoothing benefits and a longer forward horizon gives anticipatory obstacle avoidance, while both increase computation; the ablation results support this, so an adaptive window-size policy is a plausible extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes STELA, a factor-graph framework for simultaneous trajectory estimation and local control adaptation during kinodynamic trajectory following. A kinodynamic sampling-based motion planner first generates a feasible, collision-free trajectory, which is converted into a factor graph. STELA then runs sliding-window incremental inference with iSAM2 to (i) estimate past robot states from noisy observations and (ii) locally adapt future controls, with the duration of each trajectory edge treated as an optimization variable. The method is evaluated in simulation on an LTV-SDE holonomic model and on a second-order MuSHR car model, compared against open-loop execution, SCATE variants, and SBMP replanning, and demonstrated on a real MuSHR robot. Ablation studies examine the sliding window, duration variables, obstacle factors, and SBMP initialization.

Significance. If its claims are appropriately scoped, STELA is a solid engineering contribution to integrated estimation and control. It demonstrates, for the first time in this factor-graph line of work, successful online (10 Hz and above) simultaneous trajectory estimation and control on a non-holonomic, second-order vehicle, and it adds variable edge duration as an optimization variable. The experimental section is comparatively thorough, with multiple baselines, ablations, and real-robot validation under a substantial model gap, and the paper clearly identifies the SBMP plan as the source of the prior. The central 'any dynamical system' claim, however, is not supported by the factor equations, and the success-rate comparisons lack confidence intervals and are based on small trial counts in several scenes; both issues need to be addressed before the paper's advertised contributions can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [V-B (dynamics and integration factors)] The paper's advertised generality to 'any dynamical system given access to first or second-order state update equations' is not supported by the factor definitions. The dynamics factor constrains acceleration via a system-specific function q̈=f(u_i), with no dependence on q_i or q̇_i, and the integration factor predicts q_{i+1}=q_i∘Exp(q̇_i Δt_i), omitting the 0.5·q̈·Δt_i² term of a second-order update. Consequently, state-dependent forces such as gravity, drag, Coriolis effects, or friction cannot be encoded, and no first-order state-update factor ẋ=f(x,u) is defined. The two test models (LTV-SDE and MuSHR) both fit the restricted control-only-acceleration form, and the Limitations section does not qualify the model-class claim. Please either replace the 'any dynamical system' claim with a precise characterization of the supported model class, or extend the factor graph with state-dependent dynamics factors and validate on a nonlinear second-order system with state-dependent acceleration.
  2. [VI-A, Tables I-VII and Table V] The central success-rate comparisons are reported as point estimates without confidence intervals or significance tests, and several cells rest on very few trials: Table V gives one start-goal trajectory with five repetitions for Simple Obstacle and two trajectories with five repetitions for Bug Trap. Claims such as 'STELA achieves at least comparable performance' and 'maintains a high success rate' should be supported by binomial confidence intervals (or equivalent) and, where differences are modest, by a comparison against SCATE-SBMP; otherwise the reader cannot assess whether differences are within sampling noise.
  3. [V-A and IV (prior and Gaussian assumptions)] The statement that STELA 'does not make any assumptions in terms of Gaussian priors for the underlying processes' is contradicted by the construction: every factor has the form exp(−0.5·||h||²_Σ), and the SBMP initialization is injected through unary prior factors on q, q̇, and Δt with covariance matrices. The novelty is better described as using a feasible kinodynamic plan as the prior rather than hand-tuned trajectory priors. Please rephrase the claim to remove this inconsistency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption says 'LVT-SDE' but the model is LTV-SDE; please correct the typo.
  2. [V-B (obstacle factor)] In the paragraph introducing the obstacle factor, 'Th factor' should read 'The factor.'
  3. [VIII (Limitations)] 'Indeterminant Linear System Exception' should be 'Indeterminate Linear System Exception.'
  4. [VI-A (MuSHR model)] The MuSHR dynamics model is described only verbally; writing out the dynamics equations (or reference) would make the restricted model class and the controlled-acceleration assumption transparent.
  5. [V-C (Eq. 1)] The expression p(θ_STELA|e) ∝ f_TE f_LA should explicitly include the product or conjunction of the two factor groups; as written it looks like a product of two functions without a defined operation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: STELA's derivations are explicit and its evaluation is externally benchmarked.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution, the STELA factor graph of Section V-B, is stated explicitly with concrete error functions: the dynamics factor defines q_ddot = f(u_i), the integration factor uses q_{i+1} = q_i * Exp(qdot_i * dt_i), and the posterior is p(theta_STELA | e) proportional to f_TE * f_LA. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the offline system identification in Section VI-A is standard model calibration, and the evaluation metrics (goal reached without collision, trajectory error, estimation error) are measured against ground truth and external baselines including open-loop execution, SCATE variants, and SBMP replanning. The SBMP plan serves as an explicit prior/initialization, which is part of the method's design rather than a hidden fit of the outcome. Self-citations (e.g., refs. [23], [27]) refer to the kinodynamic planner used as a component, and the load-bearing factor equations are derived in the paper itself rather than imported from those citations. The stated limitation in Section VIII that STELA fails under extreme noise is honest and does not expose any circular dependence. The skeptic's concern that the dynamics factor only models acceleration as a function of control and therefore does not establish the claimed generality to 'any dynamical system' is a correctness/generality risk, not a circularity: the equations are openly stated and the tested models (LTV-SDE and MuSHR) match that restricted form. Consequently, there is no reduction of the paper's predictions to its inputs by construction or by self-citation chain.

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

The central method rests on the factor-graph MAP formulation, availability of a reasonably accurate dynamics model and obstacle map, and several user-set covariance values. No physically new entities are introduced. The main concern is that the dynamics factor only models acceleration as a function of control, which limits the claimed generality to arbitrary dynamical systems.

free parameters (5)
  • Sliding window sizes n_fwd and n_hist = 10 future and 10 past nodes
    Ablation shows smaller values degrade performance (Table VIII), but no principled selection rule is given.
  • Factor covariance matrices Sigma = Not reported in the text
    Each factor is a Gaussian likelihood with covariance Sigma; relative weights among dynamics, observation, prior, and obstacle factors are not specified.
  • Obstacle distance threshold epsilon = Not reported
    Activates obstacle factors when the robot is within epsilon of an obstacle; a user-set safety margin.
  • Edge duration thresholds = 0.5 s for LTV-SDE, 0.1 s for MuSHR
    Controls trajectory discretization from the SBMP solution and affects both integration accuracy and graph size.
  • Dynamics model parameters rho = Acceleration gain, angular velocity gain, and a five-degree polynomial steering bias
    Identified offline by least squares on real MuSHR data and then used in planning and STELA; standard practice but a fitted input to the method.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Factor graph MAP inference with iSAM2 solves the estimation and control problem when noise is zero-mean Gaussian with known covariances.
    Section IV defines the likelihood as Gaussian and relies on GTSAM's nonlinear least squares; this is the standard statistical model for the method.
  • ad hoc to paper The dynamics factor can use Euler integration with constant velocity and control-only acceleration.
    Section V-B defines h_dynamics with q_ddot = f(u_i); general second-order dynamics with state-dependent acceleration are not represented, making this a restrictive modeling choice presented as general.
  • domain assumption The robot has perfect knowledge of obstacle poses during execution.
    Section III states this assumption; the obstacle factor can only avoid obstacles present in the provided map.
  • domain assumption The SBMP planned trajectory remains a good enough prior that local adaptation converges.
    Section VIII admits failure under extreme noise and large deviation; the method does not globally replan.
  • standard math Lie group exponential, logarithm, and Between operations correctly represent SE(2) state composition.
    Section III and Section V-B rely on these operations for the integration and observation factors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinodynamic Trajectory Following with STELA: Simultaneous Trajectory Estimation & Local Adaptation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WOMD6Q6G

@misc{pith2026250420009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinodynamic Trajectory Following with STELA: Simultaneous Trajectory Estimation & Local Adaptation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WOMD6Q6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20009}
}
read the original abstract

State estimation and control are often addressed separately, leading to unsafe execution due to sensing noise, execution errors, and discrepancies between the planning model and reality. Simultaneous control and trajectory estimation using probabilistic graphical models has been proposed as a unified solution to these challenges. Previous work, however, relies heavily on appropriate Gaussian priors and is limited to holonomic robots with linear time-varying models. The current research extends graphical optimization methods to vehicles with arbitrary dynamical models via Simultaneous Trajectory Estimation and Local Adaptation (STELA). The overall approach initializes feasible trajectories using a kinodynamic, sampling-based motion planner. Then, it simultaneously: (i) estimates the past trajectory based on noisy observations, and (ii) adapts the controls to be executed to minimize deviations from the planned, feasible trajectory, while avoiding collisions. The proposed factor graph representation of trajectories in STELA can be applied for any dynamical system given access to first or second-order state update equations, and introduces the duration of execution between two states in the trajectory discretization as an optimization variable. These features provide both generalization and flexibility in trajectory following. In addition to targeting computational efficiency, the proposed strategy performs incremental updates of the factor graph using the iSAM algorithm and introduces a time-window mechanism. This mechanism allows the factor graph to be dynamically updated to operate over a limited history and forward horizon of the planned trajectory. This enables online updates of controls at a minimum of 10Hz. Experiments demonstrate that STELA achieves at least comparable performance to previous frameworks on idealized vehicles with linear dynamics.[...]

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20009 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Middle: STELA execution on a real MuSHR robot. The middle image is a composite from 2 top-down cameras used for localization, covering a 7.6mx2.3m workspace. The robot follows a trajectory computed by a planner with knowledge of the obstacles (rocks and boxes) but no knowledge of the ramp, affecting execution. Top and Bottom: i) STELA estimation and plan when the robot is on the unknown ramp; ii) the robot recovers … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A typical trajectory estimation FG at time T uses state observations z x (0 : T) and the robot model x˙ t = ˆfρ(xt, ut) to generate state estimates X¯(0 : T). The unary factors impose a cost between observations and estimated states. The binary factors correspond to the robot’s dynamics. between the planned and the executed trajectory, as well as minimizing the cost of the executed trajectory. In this work, the cost… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. provides an example. For a general dynamical system, each factor f robot corre￾sponds to solving a steering function. Dynamics linearization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Asynchronous system architecture: Offline, a system iden￾tification process generates a FG-based dynamics model of the robot system. A motion planner receives the dynamics model, the environment, and a motion planning query as input to generate a desired solution plan …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) The dynamics factor graph corresponding to each edge of the desired trajectory with all associated factors. (Middle) For visualization purposes, the dynamics factor graph is also presented in a compressed form, which is symbolized by a hollow factor. (Right) A c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: STELA with a sliding window in action: Offline, the SBMP generates a graphical representation from which a feasible, collision-free, goal-reaching trajectory is obtained. At initialization, the factor graph converts forward-horizon nodes (image: n fwd = n hist = 2 ) in…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated environments used for experiments with the LTV￾SDE and MuSHR models. Letters indicate candidate starts and goals. The Simple Obstacle environment is a basic setup. Forest evaluates performance among many obstacles with some narrow passages. The Bug Trap is ch…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experiments on a real MuSHR. (Top) The robot navigates between (A-B), (C-A), and (D-B), avoiding obstacles. Initial poses in color, and final poses in gray. (Bottom) The robot follows a desired trajectory planned without obstacles. During execution, the environment has…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) System Identification results for the real MuSHR. The model closely predicts the behavior of the robot along constant control trajectories, but a gap is still present. (Right) Observations zt are camera estimates of the robot’s pose with the highest level of obs…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: LTV-SDE Forest - Comparison of the Time to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Aggregate results of the Normalized Trajectory Error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The effects of state-space noise in collision on the Forest environment for the Open-loop baseline (left) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34(5), 1195–1214 (2018)

    Agha-mohammadi, A.a., Agarwal, S., Kim, S.K., Chakravorty, S., Amato, N.M.: Slap: Simultaneous local- ization and planning under uncertainty via dynamic re- planning in belief space. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34(5), 1195–1214 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    State Supervised Steering Function for Sampling-based Kinodynamic Planning

    Atreya, P., Biswas, J.: State supervised steering function for sampling-based kinodynamic planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07227 (2022)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    In: 2017 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    B ¨ahnemann, R., Burri, M., Galceran, E., Siegwart, R., Nieto, J.: Sampling-based motion planning for active multirotor system identification. In: 2017 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3931–3938. IEEE (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    In: Robotics: Science and Systems

    Barfoot, T.D., Tong, C.H., S ¨arkk¨a, S.: Batch continuous- time trajectory estimation as exactly sparse gaussian process regression. In: Robotics: Science and Systems. vol. 10, pp. 1–10. Citeseer (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    Cunningham, A., Paluri, M., Dellaert, F.: Ddf-sam: Fully distributed slam using constrained factor graphs. In: 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. pp. 3025–3030. IEEE (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Dellaert, F., Contributors, G.: borglab/gtsam (May 2022), https://github.com/borglab/gtsam)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 6(1- 2), 1–139 (2017)

    Dellaert, F., Kaess, M., et al.: Factor graphs for robot perception. Foundations and Trends® in Robotics 6(1- 2), 1–139 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    In: Robotics: Science and Systems XI (2015)

    Forster, C., Carlone, L., Dellaert, F., Scaramuzza, D.: Imu preintegration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a-posteriori estimation. In: Robotics: Science and Systems XI (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    In: 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)

    Gammell, J.D., Srinivasa, S.S., Barfoot, T.D.: Batch informed trees (bit*): Sampling-based optimal planning via the heuristically guided search of implicit random geometric graphs. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). pp. 3067–3074. IEEE (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation

    Goretkin, G., Perez, A., Platt, R., Konidaris, G.: Opti- mal sampling-based planning for linear-quadratic kinody- namic systems. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. pp. 2429–2436. IEEE (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Hauser, K.: Motion and Path Planning, pp. 1–11. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (2020), https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-41610-1 165-1

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    In: 2007 American control conference

    Hoffmann, G.M., Tomlin, C.J., Montemerlo, M., Thrun, S.: Autonomous automobile trajectory tracking for off- road driving: Controller design, experimental validation and racing. In: 2007 American control conference. pp. 2296–2301. IEEE (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    H ¨onig, W., Ortiz-Haro, J., Toussaint, M.: db-a*: Discontinuity-bounded search for kinodynamic mobile robot motion planning. In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 13540–13547. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Huang, E., Mukadam, M., Liu, Z., Boots, B.: Motion planning with graph-based trajectories and gaussian pro- cess inference. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 5591–5598. IEEE (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01609 (2021)

    Jiang, F., Marmon, A., De Courten, I., Rasi, M., Dellaert, F.: Probabilistic tracking with deep factors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.01609 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mechatronics 10(3), 403–418 (2000)

    Johansson, R., Robertsson, A., Nilsson, K., Verhaegen, M.: State-space system identification of robot manipula- tor dynamics. Mechatronics 10(3), 403–418 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    In: Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics IX: Selected Contributions of the Ninth International Work- shop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics

    Kaess, M., Ila, V ., Roberts, R., Dellaert, F.: The bayes tree: An algorithmic foundation for probabilistic robot mapping. In: Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics IX: Selected Contributions of the Ninth International Work- shop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics. pp. 1...

    2011

  10. [18]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 31(2), 216–235 (2012)

    Kaess, M., Johannsson, H., Roberts, R., Ila, V ., Leonard, J.J., Dellaert, F.: isam2: Incremental smoothing and map- ping using the bayes tree. The International Journal of Robotics Research 31(2), 216–235 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24(6), 1365–1378 (2008)

    Kaess, M., Ranganathan, A., Dellaert, F.: isam: Incre- mental smoothing and mapping. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24(6), 1365–1378 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    In: 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation

    Kalakrishnan, M., Chitta, S., Theodorou, E., Pastor, P., Schaal, S.: Stomp: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. pp. 4569–4574. IEEE (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    The international journal of robotics research 30(7), 846–894 (2011)

    Karaman, S., Frazzoli, E.: Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. The international journal of robotics research 30(7), 846–894 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    King-Smith, M., Tsiotras, P., Dellaert, F.: Simultaneous control and trajectory estimation for collision avoidance of autonomous robotic spacecraft systems. In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 257–264. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Kleinbort, M., Granados, E., Solovey, K., Bonalli, R., Bekris, K.E., Halperin, D.: Refined analysis of asymptotically-optimal kinodynamic planning in the state-cost space. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 6344–6350. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 47(2), 498–519 (2001)

    Kschischang, F., Frey, B., Loeliger, H.A.: Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 47(2), 498–519 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Larsen, E., Gottschalk, S., Lin, M.C., Manocha, D.: Fast proximity queries with swept sphere volumes. Tech. rep., Technical Report TR99-018, Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    Cambridge univer- sity press (2006)

    LaValle, S.M.: Planning algorithms. Cambridge univer- sity press (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Littlefield, Z., Bekris, K.E.: Efficient and asymptotically optimal kinodynamic motion planning via dominance- informed regions. In: 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 1–9. IEEE (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Science robotics 8(84), eadf7843 (2023)

    Marcucci, T., Petersen, M., von Wrangel, D., Tedrake, R.: Motion planning around obstacles with convex opti- mization. Science robotics 8(84), eadf7843 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Au- tonomous Robots 43, 415–434 (2019)

    Mukadam, M., Dong, J., Dellaert, F., Boots, B.: Steap: simultaneous trajectory estimation and planning. Au- tonomous Robots 43, 415–434 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(11), 1319–1340 (2018)

    Mukadam, M., Dong, J., Yan, X., Dellaert, F., Boots, B.: Continuous-time gaussian process motion planning via probabilistic inference. The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(11), 1319–1340 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(3), 5357–5364 (2021)

    Natarajan, R., Choset, H., Likhachev, M.: Interleaving graph search and trajectory optimization for aggressive quadrotor flight. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(3), 5357–5364 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10745 (2024)

    Ortiz-Haro, J., H ¨onig, W., Hartmann, V .N., Toussaint, M., Righetti, L.: idb-rrt: Sampling-based kinodynamic motion planning with motion primitives and trajectory optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10745 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    IEEE Transactions on intelligent vehicles 1(1), 33–55 (2016)

    Paden, B., ˇC´ap, M., Yong, S.Z., Yershov, D., Frazzoli, E.: A survey of motion planning and control techniques for self-driving urban vehicles. IEEE Transactions on intelligent vehicles 1(1), 33–55 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    In: Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XII: Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics

    Paden, B., Frazzoli, E.: A generalized label correcting method for optimal kinodynamic motion planning. In: Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XII: Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics. pp. 512–527. Springer (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 23(4), 298–298 (2008)

    Pheatt, C.: Intel® threading building blocks. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 23(4), 298–298 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    In: 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation

    Ratliff, N., Zucker, M., Bagnell, J.A., Srinivasa, S.: Chomp: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. pp. 489–494. IEEE (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Image and vision Computing 76, 38–47 (2018)

    Romero-Ramirez, F.J., Mu ˜noz-Salinas, R., Medina- Carnicer, R.: Speeded up detection of squared fiducial markers. Image and vision Computing 76, 38–47 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Schulman, J., Ho, J., Lee, A.X., Awwal, I., Bradlow, H., Abbeel, P.: Finding locally optimal, collision-free trajectories with sequential convex optimization. In: RSS. vol. 9, pp. 1–10. Berlin, Germany (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537 (2018)

    Sola, J., Deray, J., Atchuthan, D.: A micro lie the- ory for state estimation in robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08031 (2019)

    Srinivasa, S.S., Lancaster, P., Michalove, J., Schmittle, M., Summers, C., Rockett, M., Scalise, R., Smith, J.R., Choudhury, S., Mavrogiannis, C., et al.: Mushr: A low- cost, open-source robotic racecar for education and re- search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08031 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning

    Toussaint, M.: Robot trajectory optimization using ap- proximate inference. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning. pp. 1049– 1056 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    arXiv:1407.0414 (2014)

    Toussaint, M.: Newton methods for k-order markov con- strained motion problems. arXiv:1407.0414 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation

    Webb, D.J., Van Den Berg, J.: Kinodynamic rrt*: Asymp- totically optimal motion planning for robots with linear dynamics. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. pp. 5054–5061. IEEE (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    Wu, T., Movellan, J.: Semi-parametric gaussian process for robot system identification. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. pp. 725–731 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics (2024)

    Zheng, D., Ridderhof, J., Zhang, Z., Tsiotras, P., Agha- mohammadi, A.A.: Cs-brm: A probabilistic roadmap for consistent belief space planning with reachability guarantees. IEEE Transactions on Robotics (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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