Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 30 references

Deep Fuzzy Optimization for Batch-Size and Nearest Neighbors in Optimal Robot Motion Planning

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a learning-based planner, LIT*, that dynamically adjusts batch size and nearest-neighbor count via a fuzzy reinforcement learning policy, finds lower-cost paths and converges faster than current single-query sampling-

desk verdict LIT* is a plausible fuzzy-RL parameter scheduler for BIT*-style planners, but missing training details and an absent train/test split make the headline gains over FIT* uninterpretable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20884 v1 pith:3OL67WP3 submitted 2025-08-28 cs.RO

Liding Zhang , Qiyang Zong , Yu Zhang , Zhenshan Bing , Alois Knoll This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords sampling-basedmotionplanningdeepfuzzyreinforcementlearningadaptivebatchsizek-nearestneighborselectioninformedtreeshigh-dimensionalinvalid-stateratiodual-armmanipulation
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

LIT* is a sampling-based motion planner that treats two internal parameters—the number of samples per batch and the number of neighbors used to extend the tree—as learned controls rather than fixed constants. The planner fuzzifies three environmental signals (global invalid-state ratio, local invalid-state ratio around the current solution path, and the volume of the informed ellipsoid) and feeds them to a DDPG-trained actor that outputs fuzzy membership values; defuzzification yields concrete batch size and neighbor-factor values. The central claim is that this parameter adaptation to obstacle density improves both convergence speed and initial solution quality, with reported median initial-cost reductions of up to 31.59% on a narrow-passage R16 benchmark and a successful demonstration on a 14-DOF dual-arm manipulation task. The paper's insight is that invalid sampled states are a cheap, informative measure of environmental difficulty, and that spending more samples or more neighbors exactly where they are needed is better than any fixed trade-off.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Fuzzy-DDPG parameter tensor. Three features—the global invalid ratio ρ = |X_invalid|/(|X_valid| + |X_invalid|), the local invalid ratio computed in a radius around the current path and expansion center, and the Lebesgue measure of the informed set—are fuzzified with Gaussian membership functions into a 9-dimensional vector. An actor-critic DDPG network, with TSK defuzzification, maps this vector to crisp values B in [20, 200] and ψK in [3.0, 15.0]; K is then computed from ψK by Eq. 4. After training, the whole mapping is precomputed into a three-axis tensor, so inference at plan time is a single table lookup. The invalid ratio is the key information carrier: it

What would settle it

Take the frozen B and K tensors and run LIT* on a set of narrow-passage and random-rectangle maps that were not used during training, with all baselines given the same time limits; if the median initial-cost advantage over FIT* shrinks to noise, the central claim of learned adaptability fails. A sharper version would train only on R4 maps and evaluate on R8 and R16 maps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery claim is that adaptive, learned parameter setting outperforms the hand-designed or fixed parameter settings of prior informed-tree planners. Concretely, LIT* extends FIT*'s adaptive batch-size idea by adding a learned neighbor factor ψK, so that K = η e ψK (1 + 1/n) log |X_valid|. Both batch size B and ψK come from a fuzzy-DDPG policy whose observation is a 9-dimensional fuzzified vector built from the global invalid ratio, the local invalid ratio, and the informed-set measure. After training, the policy is frozen into a 3D lookup tensor indexed by the three features, so runtime queries are O(1). Evaluated over 100 runs on narrow-passage and random-rectangle map

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Fuzzy-DDPG policy, whose training maps and hyperparameters are not reported, learns to generalize rather than memorizes the benchmark maps; without a shown train/test split, the reported improvements could come from tuning to the evaluation environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • High-dimensional planning (R8–R16) is where the reported gains are largest, suggesting that fixed batch and neighbor settings become a real bottleneck as the configuration-space dimension grows.
  • The O(1) tensor lookup means the learned parameter policy adds only microsecond-level overhead at runtime, preserving the anytime property of the planner.
  • Because the three input features are cheap to compute for any informed sampling-based planner, the learned batch-size and neighbor selection could be transferred to other batch-based planners.
  • The successful R14 dual-arm manipulation experiment indicates that the mechanism is not limited to synthetic random maps and may hold for real manipulation tasks.
  • Reward shaping that rewards fast initial solutions and short paths should make LIT* suitable for online replanning and time-critical manipulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not describe the Fuzzy-DDPG training environments or any train/test split; the most direct test of the contribution is whether the frozen tensor retains its advantage on maps never seen during training.
  • Since the tensor encodes only three scalar features, the learned mapping might generalize across problem classes with similar obstacle statistics; that transfer claim is not made by the paper but is testable.
  • The same fuzzified invalid-ratio encoding could plausibly control other resource parameters of sampling planners, such as rewiring radius or sampling-proposal variance, which the paper leaves implicit.
  • The acknowledged C++/Python shared-file communication is a training-time bottleneck; replacing it with direct in-process calls would strengthen the reported wall-clock gains.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LIT*, a sampling-based motion planner that learns to adapt two parameters of informed-sampling tree planners: the batch size B and the neighbor-count factor ψK (with K computed from Eq. 4). Environmental context is encoded by global invalid ratio, local invalid ratio, and Lebesgue measure of the informed set, fuzzified into a 9-dimensional representation and fed to a DDPG-based actor-critic whose defuzzified outputs are pre-mapped into a lookup tensor. During deployment, B and ψK are retrieved in O(1) from this fixed tensor. The authors evaluate LIT* against RRT-Connect, Informed RRT*, AIT*, BIT*, EIT*, and FIT* in Narrow Passage and Random Rectangles benchmarks from R4 to R16, plus a dual-arm robot manipulation task, reporting up to 31.59% lower median initial cost relative to FIT*.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper would make a useful contribution: it couples a fuzzy encoding of obstacle distribution with reinforcement learning to adapt batch size and neighbor count, and the tensor-lookup deployment is computationally attractive for repeated planning. The idea of using invalid sampled states to modulate both exploration density and local connectivity is intuitive and goes beyond fixed-parameter informed planners. However, the current manuscript does not provide enough information about the training procedure, environments, or hyperparameters to establish that the learned tensor generalizes. The paper also lacks quantitative comparisons against most claimed baselines. These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim is environmental adaptability, not merely the introduction of a new planner variant.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B and Algorithm 3] The training setup is underspecified. Algorithm 3 calls resetEnvironment() and loops over episodes, but the manuscript never states which maps are used for training, how many episodes are run, what DDPG hyperparameters are used (γ, τ, minibatch size, replay buffer size, PER exponent), or whether the NP/RR/dual-arm maps in Section IV were held out. Since deployment uses a fixed, precomputed tensor (Fig. 5) queried in O(1), all adaptation is frozen before evaluation. If the same maps were used during training, the reported gains in Table I could reflect memorization rather than generalization. The authors must report a train/test split, include held-out environments, and provide all fuzzification parameters (ϑ, σ), reward scales, and tensor discretization details.
  2. [Section IV, Table I and Fig. 6] The abstract and conclusion claim LIT* 'outperforms state-of-the-art single-query, sampling-based planners,' but Table I quantifies improvements only against FIT*, the authors' own prior method. No numerical success rates, cost statistics, or statistical tests are reported for RRT-Connect, Informed RRT*, AIT*, BIT*, or EIT*. The plots in Fig. 6 show median curves with confidence intervals, but the reader cannot determine, for example, whether LIT* is statistically better than BIT* or EIT* in each scenario. A complete comparison table with success rates, medians, and confidence intervals for all planners is needed to support the central claim.
  3. [Section III.B.1, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The reward functions directly minimize the same metrics used in evaluation (time and cost), which is not itself a flaw, but the scaling factors αB, βB, γB, αK, βK, γK are never reported, and the damping function κ(nupdate) = max(νmin, ν·log2(6.8 − nupdate)) is not fully specified: its domain and behavior for nupdate ≥ 6.8 are undefined, and ν, νmin are not given. Without these values, the learned policy cannot be reproduced, and it is impossible to tell whether the reported behavior comes from the learning algorithm or from hand-tuned reward shaping.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A.2, Eqs. (13)-(16)] Eq. (13) defines δ = Qφ′(s,a) − Qφ(s,a), which is not the TD error used in Eq. (8); the target should involve the reward and target networks. Eq. (15) updates W′_φ using W_θ, which appears to be a typo for W_θ′. Please correct these equations and the surrounding notation.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and inconsistent notations: 'Specificlly', 'Leaning-based', 'Lebesgue Messure', 'caucLocalRadius', 'Adoption' in Fig. 1, and 'T rain' in the abstract. In Table I the percentage column headers are ambiguous; please label whether they refer to t_med_init, c_med_init, or c_med_final. Also, the relationship between the 9×1 fuzzified vector and the convolutional layer with kernels 3, 5, and 7 could be explained more clearly.
  3. [Section V] The discussion mentions communication latency between C++ and Python as a limitation but does not quantify its impact on the reported computation times. A sentence clarifying whether evaluation time includes tensor lookup and inter-process communication would help interpret the runtime results.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

LIT* trains B and ψK with DDPG rewards that directly minimize time and path cost, the same quantities reported in Table I, and no held-out environments are described; the headline advantage is therefore partly a fitted-input result rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B.1 (Eqs. 9-10), Algorithm 1 lines 13-14/21-22, Section IV Table I]
    "The reward function for B-Net is defined as: RB = αB · κ^t + βB · κ^{c(ξ)} − γB · nupdate, (9) ... The reward function for NearestK-Net is defined as: RK = αK · 1/t + βK · 1/c(ξ) + γK · #ξ, (10). ... The main goal was to minimize the median initial path length (cmed init) over 100 runs."

    B and ψK are learned by maximizing rewards whose explicit terms are computation time t and solution cost c(ξ); Section IV then reports the same quantities (tmed_init, cmed_init, cmed_final) as evidence of improvement. At inference, Algorithm 1 fetches B and ψK from precomputed tensors (tensorB/tensorK), so these are fitted values, not independent predictions. Algorithm 3 never specifies which environments are used by resetEnvironment(), and Section IV evaluates on NP/RR maps, so it is not shown that the test maps were held out. If the same maps were used in training, the reported reductions (up to 31.59% lower median initial cost) are a re-report of the fitted reward signal rather than a generalization result.

full rationale

The paper's parameter equations (Eqs. 1-4) are standard sampling-based planning formulas; LIT* replaces fixed batch size and k-neighbor factors with values from a learned tensor. There is no self-consistent derivation being presented, so the main circularity concern is empirical: the DDPG reward functions in Eqs. (9)-(10) optimize exactly the time and cost metrics used in Table I, and the deployed tensor is a frozen lookup table. Because no train/test environment split, episode count, or training-map description is given, the claimed 'environmental adaptability' is not independently demonstrated; the comparison can reduce to evaluating fitted hyperparameters on the objective used to fit them. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (FIT*, APT*, and related planners) are abundant but not load-bearing in a circular way: they serve as baselines and context rather than as justification that LIT* must work. For this reason, the central empirical claim is partially circular/unsecured rather than fully forced by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method contains no new physical entities. It relies on standard planning theory, a learned lookup table, and several unreported hyperparameters.

free parameters (6)
  • Fuzzification parameters (means and variances of Gaussian membership functions) = not reported
    Section III-A.1 defines ϑ and σ for three fuzzy sets per input; values are never given, yet they control the 9-dimensional state encoding that drives both training and runtime lookup.
  • Reward scaling factors (αB, βB, γB, αK, βK, γK) = not reported
    Section III-B.1 defines rewards in Eqs. 9 and 10 with unspecified scaling factors that determine the learned policy's trade-off between time, cost, and path states.
  • DDPG hyperparameters (γ, τ, minibatch size, replay buffer size, PER exponent) = not reported
    Algorithm 3 lists Lϕ and Lθ losses but gives no numeric hyperparameters or training schedule.
  • Batch size bounds and neighbor-factor bounds = B in [20,200], ψK in [3.0,15.0]
    Section II-B.2 states these limits are based on SOTA algorithms' limits and connectivity considerations, not derived.
  • Tensor discretization grid = not reported
    The runtime uses toIndex(ρglobal, ρlocal, λ) to query tensorB and tensorK; the number of bins per axis is not specified, which determines quantization error in K and B.
  • Damping function κ parameters (ν, νmin) = not reported
    κ(nupdate) = max(νmin, ν·log2(6.8 - nupdate)) is used in the B-Net reward but ν and νmin are not given.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Standard asymptotic-optimality condition for k-nearest neighbors (Eq. 2) extends to the learned factor ψK
    Eq. 4 replaces the constant e in Eq. 2 with a learned ψK, but no proof is given that the resulting K still satisfies the conditions for asymptotic optimality from Karaman and Frazzoli. The planner inherits BIT*'s guarantees only if ψK stays in a safe range.
  • ad hoc to paper The three input features (global invalid ratio, local invalid ratio, Lebesgue measure of the informed set) are a sufficient context for selecting optimal B and K
    The authors select these three features heuristically in Section III-A.1; no ablation or information-theoretic justification is provided.
  • domain assumption Fuzzy-DDPG converges to a generalizing policy
    Section III-B assumes the DDPG training with the given rewards yields a stable policy; no convergence guarantee is given and no training curves or environment count are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Fuzzy Optimization for Batch-Size and Nearest Neighbors in Optimal Robot Motion Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3OL67WP3

@misc{pith2026250820884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Fuzzy Optimization for Batch-Size and Nearest Neighbors in Optimal Robot Motion Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3OL67WP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20884}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient motion planning algorithms are essential in robotics. Optimizing essential parameters, such as batch size and nearest neighbor selection in sampling-based methods, can enhance performance in the planning process. However, existing approaches often lack environmental adaptability. Inspired by the method of the deep fuzzy neural networks, this work introduces Learning-based Informed Trees (LIT*), a sampling-based deep fuzzy learning-based planner that dynamically adjusts batch size and nearest neighbor parameters to obstacle distributions in the configuration spaces. By encoding both global and local ratios via valid and invalid states, LIT* differentiates between obstacle-sparse and obstacle-dense regions, leading to lower-cost paths and reduced computation time. Experimental results in high-dimensional spaces demonstrate that LIT* achieves faster convergence and improved solution quality. It outperforms state-of-the-art single-query, sampling-based planners in environments ranging from R^8 to R^14 and is successfully validated on a dual-arm robot manipulation task. A video showcasing our experimental results is available at: https://youtu.be/NrNs9zebWWk

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20884 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the deep-fuzzy motion planning framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Compare between with and without learning-based neighbor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the Fuzzy-DDPG architecture. The Actor and Critic net have the same structure of convolutional layers, flattened layers, and fully connected layers. The essential difference is the output generated by defuzzification. neighbor selection ψK ∈ R + ∩ [3.0, 15.0] will be applied in the following algorithm. The limits of batchsize are based on SOTA algorithms’ upper and lower limits, while the factor’s li… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrates the narrow passage (a) and random rectangles (b) tests in Planner Developer Tools (PDT) [24]. Fig. (c) and (d) illustrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visulization of the K-tensor and B-tensor The three axes of the tensor represent the global invalid ratio, the local invalid ratio, and the Lebesgue measure of the informed set. Each pair of these coordinates uniquely determines a specific value of K or B. functions (i…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Top: Percentage of runs that found a solution at any given time with a Clopper Fig. 6: Detailed experimental results from Section IV are presented above. Fig. (a), (b), and (c) depict test benchmark random rectangle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Motion planning for robotics: A review for sampling-based planners,

    L. Zhang, K. Cai, Z. Sun, Z. Bing, C. Wang, L. Figueredo, S. Had- dadin, and A. Knoll, “Motion planning for robotics: A review for sampling-based planners,” Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics , vol. 5, no. 1, p. 100207

    work page

  2. [2]

    A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,

    E. Dijkstra, “A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,” Numerische Mathematik, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 269–271, 1959

    1959

  3. [3]

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

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

    1968

  4. [4]

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

    S. M. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,” Iowa State University, Tech. Rep. 98-11, October 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Prob- abilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,

    L. E. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J.-C. Latombe, and M. H. Overmars, “Prob- abilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 566–580, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    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. [7]

    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

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Fast marching tree: A fast marching sampling-based method for optimal motion planning in many dimensions,

    L. Janson, E. Schmerling, A. Clark, and M. Pavone, “Fast marching tree: A fast marching sampling-based method for optimal motion planning in many dimensions,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 883–921, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Batch informed trees (BIT*): Informed asymptotically optimal anytime search,

    J. D. Gammell, T. D. Barfoot, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Batch informed trees (BIT*): Informed asymptotically optimal anytime search,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 39, no. 5, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Adaptively informed trees (AIT*) and effort informed trees (EIT*): Asymmetric bidirectional sampling- based path planning,

    M. P. Strub and J. D. Gammell, “Adaptively informed trees (AIT*) and effort informed trees (EIT*): Asymmetric bidirectional sampling- based path planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 390–417, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Tree- based grafting approach for bidirectional motion planning with local subsets optimization,

    L. Zhang, Y . Ling, Z. Bing, F. Wu, S. Haddadin, and A. Knoll, “Tree- based grafting approach for bidirectional motion planning with local subsets optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 5815–5822, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Genetic informed trees (GIT*): Path planning via reinforced genetic programming heuristics,

    L. Zhang, K. Cai, Z. Bing, C. Wang, and A. Knoll, “Genetic informed trees (GIT*): Path planning via reinforced genetic programming heuristics,” Biomimetic Intelligence and Robotics , vol. 5, no. 3, p. 100237, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Motion planning networks: Bridging the gap between learning-based and classical motion planners,

    A. H. Qureshi, Y . Miao, A. Simeonov, and M. C. Yip, “Motion planning networks: Bridging the gap between learning-based and classical motion planners,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 48–66, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Learning to plan in high dimensions via neural exploration-exploitation trees,

    B. Chen, B. Dai, Q. Lin, G. Ye, H. Liu, and L. Song, “Learning to plan in high dimensions via neural exploration-exploitation trees,”

  7. [15]

    Neural informed RRT*: Learning-based path planning with point cloud state representations under admissible ellipsoidal constraints,

    Z. Huang, H. Chen, J. Pohovey, and K. Driggs-Campbell, “Neural informed RRT*: Learning-based path planning with point cloud state representations under admissible ellipsoidal constraints,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 8742–8748

    2024

  8. [16]

    Continuous motion planning for mobile robots using fuzzy deep reinforcement learning,

    F. Wu, W. Tang, Y . Zhou, S.-W. Lin, Y . Liu, and Z. Ding, “Continuous motion planning for mobile robots using fuzzy deep reinforcement learning,” in 2024 WRC Symposium on Advanced Robotics and Au- tomation (WRC SARA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 15–21

    2024

  9. [17]

    Estimated informed anytime search for sampling-based planning via adaptive sampler,

    L. Zhang, K. Cai, Y . Zhang, Z. Bing, C. Wang, F. Wu, S. Haddadin, and A. Knoll, “Estimated informed anytime search for sampling-based planning via adaptive sampler,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 22, pp. 18 580–18 593, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    APT*: Asymptotically optimal motion planning via adaptively prolated elliptical r-nearest neighbors,

    L. Zhang, S. Wang, K. Cai, Z. Bing, F. Wu, C. Wang, S. Haddadin, and A. Knoll, “APT*: Asymptotically optimal motion planning via adaptively prolated elliptical r-nearest neighbors,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 10 242–10 249, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Flexible informed trees (FIT*): Adaptive batch-size approach in informed sampling- based path planning,

    L. Zhang, Z. Bing, K. Chen, L. Chen, K. Cai, Y . Zhang, F. Wu, P. Krumbholz, Z. Yuan, S. Haddadin, and A. Knoll, “Flexible informed trees (FIT*): Adaptive batch-size approach in informed sampling- based path planning,” 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robo...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Elliptical k-nearest neighbors: Path optimization via coulomb’s law and invalid vertices in c-space obstacles,

    L. Zhang, Z. Bing, Y . Zhang, K. Cai, L. Chen, F. Wu, S. Had- dadin, and A. Knoll, “Elliptical k-nearest neighbors: Path optimization via coulomb’s law and invalid vertices in c-space obstacles,” 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), ...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Nearest neighbor search: the old, the new, and the impossible,

    A. Andoni, “Nearest neighbor search: the old, the new, and the impossible,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Fuzzy machine learning: A comprehen- sive framework and systematic review,

    J. Lu, G. Ma, and G. Zhang, “Fuzzy machine learning: A comprehen- sive framework and systematic review,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 3861–3878, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    Planner developer tools (pdt): Reproducible experiments and statistical analysis for developing and testing motion planners,

    J. D. Gammell, M. P. Strub, and V . N. Hartmann, “Planner developer tools (pdt): Reproducible experiments and statistical analysis for developing and testing motion planners,” in Proc. Workshop EMPP , IEEE/RSJ IROS, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Openrave: A planning architecture for autonomous robotics,

    R. Diankov and J. J. Kuffner, “Openrave: A planning architecture for autonomous robotics,” in Carnegie Mellon University , 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Curse of dimensionality for tsk fuzzy neural networks: Explanation and solutions,

    Y . Cui, D. Wu, and Y . Xu, “Curse of dimensionality for tsk fuzzy neural networks: Explanation and solutions,” in 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , 2021, pp. 1–8

    2021

  19. [27]

    Deep fuzzy rule-based classification system with improved wang–mendel method,

    Y . Wang, H. Liu, W. Jia, S. Guan, X. Liu, and X. Duan, “Deep fuzzy rule-based classification system with improved wang–mendel method,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems , vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 2957–2970, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Prioritized experience replay,

    T. Schaul, J. Quan, I. Antonoglou, and D. Silver, “Prioritized experience replay,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1511.05952

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The open motion planning library,

    I. A. Sucan, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki, “The open motion planning library,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 72–82, 2012

    2012

  22. [2020]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00070

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.00070

    1903 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.