Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Safe Gap-based Planning in Dynamic Settings

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gap-based planner can steer a robot through moving free-space gaps with a formal collision-free guarantee under ideal conditions.

desk verdict A serious, well-engineered extension of gap-based planning that ships code and strong benchmarks, but the central formal claim in Theorem 1 is not actually proven as written and the abstract oversells the results. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07239 v1 pith:NTDE6LAT submitted 2025-09-08 cs.RO

Max Asselmeier , Abdel Zaro , Dhruv Ahuja , Ye Zhao , Patricio A. Vela This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords gap-basedplanningdynamicobstacleavoidanceParallelNavigationpursuitguidancefree-spacetrackingmobilerobotcollision-freeguaranteegappropagation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that a robot can navigate dynamic environments by treating free space as moving geometric objects—gaps—and predicting how those gaps evolve, rather than reacting to obstacles frame by frame. It introduces a planner that detects gaps in laser scans, tracks their endpoints across time with a Kalman filter, propagates them forward to build 'gap tubes' describing future availability, and then applies the Parallel Navigation guidance law from pursuit theory to steer toward a point inside a feasible gap. Under ideal conditions—a first-order holonomic robot, constant-velocity gap endpoints, and an isolated local environment—the paper proves the PN policy yields collision-free passage through a moving gap. It also handles the opposite case, planning through occupied polar regions ('ungaps') when no gap exists. If the claims hold, the result is a local planner whose collision avoidance rests on a formal guarantee rather than emergent robustness, and the paper reports that it outperformed classical and learned baselines in simulation and ran successfully on real hardware.

What carries the argument

The enabling objects are gap tubes and the Parallel Navigation (PN) geometric rule. A gap is a polar wedge of free space between two moving endpoints (left and right gap points); a gap tube is a temporal sequence of gaps and lifespans that records how a gap closes, reopens, or changes dynamics over the planning horizon. PN, the constant-bearing guidance law, supplies the kinematics: the robot steers so the bearing to the gap goal stays fixed while range decreases, which gives explicit conditions for interception and an intercept time. Added machinery includes gap detection and simplification from raw scans, Hungarian-assignment tracking of gap points, a constant-velocity extended Kalman filt

What would settle it

Run the PN policy through a single manipulated gap whose endpoints are genuinely constant-velocity (measured, not assumed) in an otherwise empty environment; a collision before intercept would disprove Theorem 1. Conversely, a corridor test with an accelerating pedestrian, where the planner nevertheless commits to a gap tube, would show the constant-velocity condition is doing the safety work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1: for a first-order holonomic ego-robot, a feasible manipulated gap whose left and right points move at constant velocity, and an isolated environment, steering with the Parallel Navigation (constant-bearing) policy toward the gap goal point p_g yields collision-free passage. The proof works by defining the gap goal position and velocity as convex combinations of the two endpoint states, then observing that bearings and intercept headings are order-preserving under convex combination and monotone trigonometric functions. Because the ego-robot's intercept heading lies between the headings that would intercept the left and right endpoints, it passes between them.

Load-bearing premise

The planner's predictions and its safety proof both assume the gap's left and right points move at constant velocity over the planning horizon; if the agents accelerate, turn, or change speed, the propagated gap tubes are no longer correct and the collision-free guarantee does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gap-based planners can be made explicitly dynamic and perception-informed: free space is tracked as a stateful object rather than re-detected from scratch each scan.
  • Trajectory selection acquires a formal safety anchor: feasible gap tubes come with an intercept-time condition, so the planner can refuse gaps that will close before the robot arrives.
  • The planner can exploit gaps that are currently closed but predicted to reopen, and can follow receding occupied regions ('ungaps') when no gap is passable.
  • In simulation benchmarks across empty, factory, and hospital environments with fifteen dynamic agents, the holonomic version of dynamic gap outperformed all classical and learned baselines, while the nonholonomic variant performed worse due to model mismatch.
  • Hardware tests on a differential-drive robot confirmed the planner's behaviors in real dynamic environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test the paper does not run: replace the constant-velocity assumption with bounded acceleration, and check whether inflating the gap or widening the feasibility inequalities preserves collision-free passage; the tube representation would likely need a safety margin that grows with the acceleration bound.
  • The proof's convexity argument suggests the guarantee is not specific to PN: any intercept law whose commanded bearing varies monotonically with the gap goal bearing should preserve the between-the-endpoints property, so the same framework could host other guidance laws.
  • The gap-tube representation could be coupled with learned trajectory predictors: instead of assuming constant velocity, plug predicted endpoint distributions into the propagation step and score gap tubes by probability of remaining open; this would extend the formal core to uncertain, human-dominated scenes without abandoning it.
  • The model mismatch noted for the nonholonomic robot is a concrete next target: integrating turning constraints into the PN feasibility check, rather than planning holonomic and tracking with a nonholonomic controller, may close the performance gap.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents "dynamic gap," a perception-informed gap-based local planner for dynamic environments. The planner detects and tracks polar free-space gaps, estimates their dynamics with a Kalman filter in the egocentric frame, propagates gaps forward to form gap tubes, uses parallel-navigation (PN) guidance from pursuit theory to determine gap feasibility and generate trajectories, and adds "ungap" planning when no gap exists. The central theoretical claim is Theorem 1: under ideal conditions—first-order holonomic ego-robot, constant-velocity gap points, and an isolated local environment—the PN policy toward a convex-combination gap goal yields collision-free gap passage. The paper also reports extensive simulation benchmarking in Arena-Rosnav against classical, learned, and prior gap-based planners, plus hardware experiments on a TurtleBot2. The authors state clearly that in practice few gaps satisfy the ideal assumptions, so the formal guarantee is conditional and supplementary modules provide robustness.

Significance. If Theorem 1 is valid, the paper supplies one of the few formal collision-free guarantees for gap-based planning in dynamic settings, complementing the typically emergent robustness of learned planners. The practical contributions are substantial: an open-source implementation, a full perception-space pipeline including gap tracking, propagation, gap tubes, ungap planning, and dynamic scan propagation, and a broad benchmarking study in three environments with classical and learned baselines. The Monte Carlo experiment in Section 6.1 is a useful self-consistency check, and the hardware deployment strengthens the empirical case. However, the formal contribution is currently undermined by a genuine gap in the proof of Theorem 1, so the theoretical significance is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.5.3, Eqs. (18)–(22)] Theorem 1's proof is not established as written. The argument that θ_e ∈ [θ_{e/r}, θ_{e/l}] uses a single speed ratio K = v_e/v_g for all three interception headings. The left and right gap points have speeds ||v_l|| and ||v_r||, which generally differ from v_g = ||κ v_l + (1−κ) v_r||; their PN headings require K_l = v_e/||v_l|| and K_r = v_e/||v_r||, not K. Furthermore, even if an interval bound on θ_e were valid, the robot's actual velocity direction is γ_e = θ_e + β_g, whereas the endpoint directions are γ_{e/r} = θ_{e/r} + β_r and γ_{e/l} = θ_{e/l} + β_l. Since β_g generally differs from β_r and β_l, an interval on θ does not place γ_e between the endpoint velocity directions. The final conclusion "therefore performing collision-free gap passage" is asserted rather than derived. The theorem may be repairable—for instance by directly analyzing the convex cone swept by the two gap poin
  2. [§5.5.3 and §5.5.2] The proof assumes a "feasible manipulated gap" but Section 5.5.2 defines feasibility only as the existence of a PN intercept of the gap goal point. The proof jumps from "the ego-robot will intercept the gap goal point between the left and right gap points" to "collision-free gap passage." This does not show that the entire trajectory up to that intercept remains inside the moving gap, nor does it account explicitly for the finite robot radius and the time at which the gap might close. The gap points are moving obstacles, and the gap tube model in Section 5.5.1 can include closure and re-opening; the theorem needs a precise statement of what "passage" means and why the straight-line PN trajectory is contained in the free space throughout the interval, not merely at the terminal intercept time.
  3. [§6.1] The Monte Carlo experiment is presented as demonstrating "provably safe trajectories" under ideal conditions, but it cannot substitute for the proof. Of 10,000 trials, 2,668 were declared kinematically infeasible and 345 timed out; only 6,987 executed a gap passage, and the sampling distribution over gap geometries is limited. The experiment is a reasonable sanity check that is consistent with the theorem, but the paper should not imply that it validates the universal claim. Once the proof of Theorem 1 is repaired, this experiment can serve as supporting evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.5.3, Eqs. (19)–(20)] The statement that "arctan is a monotonically increasing function" is not by itself a sufficient argument for the interval inclusion of a convex combination of two-dimensional vectors. The authors should state the angular-span condition (convex polar triangle) and use the positive cone property explicitly.
  2. [Figure 18] The captions for panels (b) and (c) both say "control thread," but the text indicates that one should be the planning thread. Please correct the labels.
  3. [§6.4.2, Table 1] The header "Reported Computation Times (Hz)" mixes units and quantity; "planning rates" would be clearer.
  4. [§6.5, Eq. (26)] The social compliance cost formula is typeset in a garbled way; the vector notation and the definition of V_rel should be made explicit.
  5. [§1] The text refers to "Figure 4.3" for the information flow; the actual figure is numbered Figure 4. Please reconcile the cross-reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the collision-free guarantee is derived from standard parallel-navigation geometry, not from its own assumptions.

full rationale

The central formal claim, Theorem 1 (Section 5.5.3), is not circular. The proof defines the gap goal as a convex combination of the left/right gap point states (Eq. 18) and then uses the parallel-navigation kinematics (Eqs. 12–16, from the external guidance-law reference [81]) to derive that the ego-robot's intercept bearing θ_e lies between the endpoint intercept bearings. The 'feasible manipulated gap' assumption refers to the PN feasibility conditions in Section 5.5.2, which check whether the gap goal can be intercepted before the gap closes; it does not already assert that the trajectory stays between the endpoints. Thus the conclusion 'performing collision-free gap passage' is a derived property, not an input. The paper's self-citations ([2], [7], [65]–[67]) appear as baselines or as sources for adapted modules (trajectory cost, projection operator), but the formal guarantee does not rest on these; the PN derivation relies on the external textbook. The Monte Carlo experiment (Section 6.1) is a self-consistency check under the theorem's stated assumptions, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Any issue with the proof's step from θ_e ∈ [θ_{e/r}, θ_{e/l}] to the actual heading interval (e.g., differing endpoint speeds) is a logical-validity concern, not evidence of circularity, since the proof does not assume its conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central theorem relies on constant-velocity and isolation assumptions, while the empirical evaluation relies on hand-tuned planner parameters. The new representational entities (gap tube, ungap, unavailable gap) are internal to the algorithm and have no independent empirical evidence beyond the planner's demonstrated performance.

free parameters (4)
  • inflation ratio tau_infl = not reported
    Controls how conservatively gaps are inflated to account for robot radius; chosen by hand (Section 5.4.2).
  • minimum speed threshold v_min = not reported
    Used in Equations 1, 3, and 25 to classify points as dynamic; hand-chosen.
  • association threshold tau_assoc = not reported
    Gap point associations beyond this distance are discarded; hand-chosen (Section 5.2).
  • trajectory scoring weights w, c_obs, w2, r_max = not reported
    Weights in Eq. 23-24 for trajectory scoring; hand-tuned.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gap points move at constant velocity in the local frame (Eq. 6)
    Underlies the Kalman filter state model, gap propagation, and PN feasibility; if false, predicted gap tubes are incorrect.
  • domain assumption First-order holonomic ego-robot dynamics
    Assumed in Theorem 1 and trajectory generation; the paper later shows performance degrades under nonholonomic tracking.
  • domain assumption Isolated local environment (no other gaps enter the gap in focus)
    Assumption 3 of Theorem 1; the paper states few real gaps satisfy it.
  • standard math Monotonicity of arctan and arcsin over the relevant ranges
    Used in the Theorem 1 proof to claim theta_e lies between endpoint intercept bearings, but the proof does not establish theta_g range rigorously.
  • domain assumption Full FOV and accurate scan data
    Gap detection assumes the egocentric scan fully reveals local free space; restricted FOV is not analyzed in this chapter.
invented entities (3)
  • Gap tube
    purpose: Sequence of gaps and lifespans representing how a gap evolves over the planning horizon; enables planning through interrupted and reopened gaps.
    Internal representational construct; no external falsifiable handle beyond the planner's own behavior.
  • Ungap
    purpose: Polar region of obstacle space between adjacent gaps, used for planning when no gaps exist, e.g., trailing behind a receding agent.
    New representation introduced in this chapter; internal to planner.
  • Unavailable gap
    purpose: A gap that is geometrically present but currently blocked by crossing obstacles; used in propagation to track re-opening gaps.
    Internal bookkeeping construct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Safe Gap-based Planning in Dynamic Settings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTDE6LAT

@misc{pith2026250907239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Safe Gap-based Planning in Dynamic Settings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTDE6LAT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07239}
}
read the original abstract

This chapter extends the family of perception-informed gap-based local planners to dynamic environments. Existing perception-informed local planners that operate in dynamic environments often rely on emergent or empirical robustness for collision avoidance as opposed to performing formal analysis of dynamic obstacles. This proposed planner, dynamic gap, explicitly addresses dynamic obstacles through several steps in the planning pipeline. First, polar regions of free space known as gaps are tracked and their dynamics are estimated in order to understand how the local environment evolves over time. Then, at planning time, gaps are propagated into the future through novel gap propagation algorithms to understand what regions are feasible for passage. Lastly, pursuit guidance theory is leveraged to generate local trajectories that are provably collision-free under ideal conditions. Additionally, obstacle-centric ungap processing is performed in situations where no gaps exist to robustify the overall planning framework. A set of gap-based planners are benchmarked against a series of classical and learned motion planners in dynamic environments, and dynamic gap is shown to outperform all other baselines in all environments. Furthermore, dynamic gap is deployed on a TurtleBot2 platform in several real-world experiments to validate collision avoidance behaviors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. J. Gibson,The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, 2014

    2014

  2. [2]

    Potential Gap: A Gap-Informed Reactive Policy for Safe Hierarchical Navigation,

    R. Xu, S. Feng, and P. A. Vela, “Potential Gap: A Gap-Informed Reactive Policy for Safe Hierarchical Navigation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    GPF-BG: A hierarchical vision-based planning framework for safe quadrupedal navigation,

    S. Feng, Z. Zhou, J. Smith, M. Asselmeier, Y. Zhao, and P. A. Vela, “GPF-BG: A hierarchical vision-based planning framework for safe quadrupedal navigation,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Safer Gap: A Gap-based Local Planner for Safe Navigation with Nonholonomic Mobile Robots

    S. Feng, A. Abuaish, and P. A. Vela, “Safer Gap: A Gap-based Local Planner for Safe Navigation with Nonholonomic Mobile Robots,” Mar. 2023, arXiv:2303.08243 [cs, eess]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Safe Hierarchical Navigation in Crowded Dynamic Uncertain Environments,

    H. Chen, S. Feng, Y. Zhao, C. Liu, and P. A. Vela, “Safe Hierarchical Navigation in Crowded Dynamic Uncertain Environments,” in2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Dec. 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Predictive Follow the Gap Method for Dynamic Obstacle Avoid- ance,

    E. C. Contarli and V. Sezer, “Predictive Follow the Gap Method for Dynamic Obstacle Avoid- ance,” in2024 13th International Workshop on Robot Motion and Control, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Dynamic Gap: Safe Gap-based Navigation in Dynamic Environments,

    M. Asselmeier, D. Ahuja, A. Zaro, Y. Zhao, and P. A. Vela, “Dynamic Gap: Safe Gap-based Navigation in Dynamic Environments,” 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Arena-Rosnav: Towards Deployment of Deep-Reinforcement-Learning-Based Obstacle Avoidance into Conventional Autonomous Navigation Systems,

    L. K ¨astner, T. Buiyan, X. Zhao, L. Jiao, Z. Shen, and J. Lambrecht, “Arena-Rosnav: Towards Deployment of Deep-Reinforcement-Learning-Based Obstacle Avoidance into Conventional Autonomous Navigation Systems,” Sep. 2021

    2021

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Arena-Bench: A Benchmarking Suite for Obstacle Avoidance Approaches in Highly Dynamic Environments,

    L. K ¨astner, T. Bhuiyan, T. A. Le, E. Treis, J. Cox, B. Meinardus, J. Kmiecik, R. Carstens, D. Pichel, B. Fatloun, N. Khorsandi, and J. Lambrecht, “Arena-Bench: A Benchmarking Suite for Obstacle Avoidance Approaches in Highly Dynamic Environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Arena-Rosnav 2.0: A Development and Benchmarking Platform for Robot Navigation in Highly Dynamic Environments,

    L. K ¨astner, R. Carstens, H. Zeng, J. Kmiecik, T. Bhuiyan, N. Khorsandi, V. Shcherbyna, and J. Lambrecht, “Arena-Rosnav 2.0: A Development and Benchmarking Platform for Robot Navigation in Highly Dynamic Environments,” Jul. 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Arena 3.0: Advancing Social Navigation in Collaborative and Highly Dynamic Environments,

    L. K ¨astner, V. Shcherbyna, H. Zeng, T. A. Le, M. H.-K. Schreff, H. Osmaev, N. T. Tran, D. Diaz, J. Golebiowski, H. Soh, and J. Lambrecht, “Arena 3.0: Advancing Social Navigation in Collaborative and Highly Dynamic Environments,” Jun. 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Model-free detection and tracking of dynamic objects with 2D lidar,

    D. Z. Wang, I. Posner, and P. Newman, “Model-free detection and tracking of dynamic objects with 2D lidar,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 7, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    Towards Provably Not-at-Fault Control of Autonomous Robots in Arbitrary Dynamic Environments,

    S. Vaskov, S. Kousik, H. Larson, F. Bu, J. Ward, S. Worrall, M. Johnson-Roberson, and R. Vasudevan, “Towards Provably Not-at-Fault Control of Autonomous Robots in Arbitrary Dynamic Environments,” Feb. 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Reactive Semantic Planning in Unexplored Semantic Environments Using Deep Perceptual Feedback,

    V. Vasilopoulos, G. Pavlakos, S. L. Bowman, J. D. Caporale, K. Daniilidis, G. J. Pappas, and D. E. Koditschek, “Reactive Semantic Planning in Unexplored Semantic Environments Using Deep Perceptual Feedback,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, no. 3, Jul. 2020, conference Nam...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Timed-Elastic-Bands for time-optimal point- to-point nonlinear model predictive control,

    C. R ¨osmann, F. Hoffmann, and T. Bertram, “Timed-Elastic-Bands for time-optimal point- to-point nonlinear model predictive control,” in2015 European Control Conference (ECC), 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Track and include dynamic obstacles via costmap converter,

    ——, “Track and include dynamic obstacles via costmap converter,” 2018. [Online]. Available: http://wiki.ros.org/teb local planner

    2018

  9. [17]

    Trajectron++: Dynamically-Feasible Trajectory Forecasting With Heterogeneous Data,

    T. Salzmann, B. Ivanovic, P. Chakravarty, and M. Pavone, “Trajectron++: Dynamically-Feasible Trajectory Forecasting With Heterogeneous Data,” Jan. 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    A method for registration of 3-D shapes,

    P. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-D shapes,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 2, Feb. 1992

    1992

  11. [19]

    Efficient Terrain Map Using Planar Regions for Footstep Planning on Humanoid Robots,

    B. Mishra, D. Calvert, S. Bertrand, J. Pratt, H. E. Sevil, and R. Griffin, “Efficient Terrain Map Using Planar Regions for Footstep Planning on Humanoid Robots,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    The Hungarian method for the assignment problem,

    H. W. Kuhn, “The Hungarian method for the assignment problem,”Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 83–97, 1955. 42 Max Asselmeier, Abdel Zaro, Dhruv Ahuja, Ye Zhao, and Patricio A. Vela

    1955

  13. [21]

    Dynamic Hilbert Maps: Real-Time Occupancy Predictions in Changing Environments,

    V. Guizilini, R. Senanayake, and F. Ramos, “Dynamic Hilbert Maps: Real-Time Occupancy Predictions in Changing Environments,” in2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019, pp. 4091–4097

    2019

  14. [22]

    A real-time dynamic obstacle tracking and mapping system for UA V navigation and collision avoidance with an RGB-D camera,

    Z. Xu, X. Zhan, B. Chen, Y. Xiu, C. Yang, and K. Shimada, “A real-time dynamic obstacle tracking and mapping system for UA V navigation and collision avoidance with an RGB-D camera,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Bayesian Hilbert Maps for Dynamic Continuous Occupancy Mapping,

    R. Senanayake and F. Ramos, “Bayesian Hilbert Maps for Dynamic Continuous Occupancy Mapping,” inProceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning, Oct. 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Factor Graph based 3D Multi-Object Tracking in Point Clouds,

    J. Poschmann, T. Pfeifer, and P. Protzel, “Factor Graph based 3D Multi-Object Tracking in Point Clouds,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Las Vegas, NV, USA: IEEE, Oct. 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Collision-Free MPC for Legged Robots in Static and Dynamic Scenes,

    M. Gaertner, M. Bjelonic, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Collision-Free MPC for Legged Robots in Static and Dynamic Scenes,” Mar. 2021, arXiv:2103.13987

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Spatio-Temporal Hilbert Maps for Continuous Occupancy Representation in Dynamic Environments,

    R. Senanayake, L. Ott, S. O’ Callaghan, and F. T. Ramos, “Spatio-Temporal Hilbert Maps for Continuous Occupancy Representation in Dynamic Environments,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 2...

    2016

  19. [27]

    A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Min- imum Cost Paths,

    P. Hart, N. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Min- imum Cost Paths,”IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, 1968, publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

    1968

  20. [28]

    The D*Algorithm for Real-Time Planning of Optimal Traverses

    A. Stentz, “The D*Algorithm for Real-Time Planning of Optimal Traverses.”

  21. [29]

    D* Lite

    S. K. a. M. Likhachev, “D* Lite.”

  22. [30]

    Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,

    L. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J.-C. Latombe, and M. Overmars, “Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Au- tomation, no. 4, 1996

    1996

  23. [31]

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

    S. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,” 1998

    1998

  24. [32]

    Sampling-based Algorithms for Optimal Motion Planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based Algorithms for Optimal Motion Planning,” 2011

    2011

  25. [33]

    T-PRM: Temporal Probabilistic Roadmap for Path Planning in Dynamic Environments,

    M. H¨ uppi, L. Bartolomei, R. Mascaro, and M. Chli, “T-PRM: Temporal Probabilistic Roadmap for Path Planning in Dynamic Environments,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Multipartite RRTs for Rapid Replanning in Dy- namic Environments,

    M. Zucker, J. Kuffner, and M. Branicky, “Multipartite RRTs for Rapid Replanning in Dy- namic Environments,” inProceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Rome, Italy: IEEE, 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance,

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

    1997

  28. [36]

    Predictive Collision Avoidance for the Dynamic Window Approach,

    M. Missura and M. Bennewitz, “Predictive Collision Avoidance for the Dynamic Window Approach,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Motion planning in dynamic environments using the relative velocity paradigm,

    P. Fiorini and Z. Shiller, “Motion planning in dynamic environments using the relative velocity paradigm,” in[1993] Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1993

    1993

  30. [38]

    Motion Planning in Dynamic Environments Using Velocity Obstacles,

    ——, “Motion Planning in Dynamic Environments Using Velocity Obstacles,”The Interna- tional Journal of Robotics Research, 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    Reciprocal Velocity Obstacles for real-time multi- agent navigation,

    J. van den Berg, M. Lin, and D. Manocha, “Reciprocal Velocity Obstacles for real-time multi- agent navigation,” in2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Reciprocal n-Body Collision Avoid- ance,

    J. Van Den Berg, S. J. Guy, M. Lin, and D. Manocha, “Reciprocal n-Body Collision Avoid- ance,” inRobotics Research, B. Siciliano, O. Khatib, F. Groen, C. Pradalier, R. Siegwart, and G. Hirzinger, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011

    2011

  33. [41]

    Bridging the gap between safety and real-time performance in receding-horizon trajectory design for mobile robots,

    S. Kousik, S. Vaskov, F. Bu, M. Johnson-Roberson, and R. Vasudevan, “Bridging the gap between safety and real-time performance in receding-horizon trajectory design for mobile robots,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Guaranteed Safe Reachability-based Trajectory Design for a High-Fidelity Model of an Autonomous Passenger Vehicle,

    S. Vaskov, U. Sharma, S. Kousik, M. Johnson-Roberson, and R. Vasudevan, “Guaranteed Safe Reachability-based Trajectory Design for a High-Fidelity Model of an Autonomous Passenger Vehicle,” 2019. Safe Gap-based Planning in Dynamic Settings 43

    2019

  35. [43]

    Model Predictive Contouring Control for Collision Avoidance in Unstructured Dynamic Environments,

    B. Brito, B. Floor, L. Ferranti, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Model Predictive Contouring Control for Collision Avoidance in Unstructured Dynamic Environments,” 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Forward Invariance in Trajectory Spaces for Safety-critical Control,

    M. Vahs, R. I. C. Muchacho, F. T. Pokorny, and J. Tumova, “Forward Invariance in Trajectory Spaces for Safety-critical Control,” 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Proactive Model Predictive Control with Multi-Modal Human Motion Prediction in Cluttered Dynamic Environments,

    L. Heuer, L. Palmieri, A. Rudenko, A. Mannucci, M. Magnusson, and K. O. Arras, “Proactive Model Predictive Control with Multi-Modal Human Motion Prediction in Cluttered Dynamic Environments,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    Topology-Driven Parallel Trajectory Optimization in Dynamic Environments,

    O. de Groot, L. Ferranti, D. M. Gavrila, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Topology-Driven Parallel Trajectory Optimization in Dynamic Environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    2025

  39. [47]

    NMPC-LBF: Nonlinear MPC with Learned Barrier Function for Decentralized Safe Navigation of Multiple Robots in Unknown Environ- ments,

    A. S. Lafmejani, S. Berman, and G. Fainekos, “NMPC-LBF: Nonlinear MPC with Learned Barrier Function for Decentralized Safe Navigation of Multiple Robots in Unknown Environ- ments,” 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Safe Stabilizing Control for Polygonal Robots in Dynamic Elliptical Environments,

    K. Long, K. Tran, M. Leok, and N. Atanasov, “Safe Stabilizing Control for Polygonal Robots in Dynamic Elliptical Environments,” 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    How to Train Your Neural Control Barrier Function: Learning Safety Filters for Complex Input-Constrained Systems,

    O. So, Z. Serlin, M. Mann, J. Gonzales, K. Rutledge, N. Roy, and C. Fan, “How to Train Your Neural Control Barrier Function: Learning Safety Filters for Complex Input-Constrained Systems,” 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    gatekeeper: Online Safety Verification and Control for Nonlinear Systems in Dynamic Environments,

    D. R. Agrawal, R. Chen, and D. Panagou, “gatekeeper: Online Safety Verification and Control for Nonlinear Systems in Dynamic Environments,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Density Planner: Minimizing Collision Risk in Motion Planning with Dynamic Obstacles using Density-based Reachability,

    L. L¨ utzow, Y. Meng, A. C. Armijos, and C. Fan, “Density Planner: Minimizing Collision Risk in Motion Planning with Dynamic Obstacles using Density-based Reachability,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Towards Optimally Decentralized Multi-Robot Collision Avoidance via Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    P. Long, T. Fan, X. Liao, W. Liu, H. Zhang, and J. Pan, “Towards Optimally Decentralized Multi-Robot Collision Avoidance via Deep Reinforcement Learning,” 2018

    2018

  45. [53]

    Collision Avoidance in Pedestrian-Rich Environments with Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    M. Everett, Y. F. Chen, and J. P. How, “Collision Avoidance in Pedestrian-Rich Environments with Deep Reinforcement Learning,”IEEE Access, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    APPLR: Adaptive Planner Parameter Learning from Reinforcement,

    Z. Xu, G. Dhamankar, A. Nair, X. Xiao, G. Warnell, B. Liu, Z. Wang, and P. Stone, “APPLR: Adaptive Planner Parameter Learning from Reinforcement,” 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    DRL-VO: Learning to Navigate Through Crowded Dynamic Scenes Using Velocity Obstacles,

    Z. Xie and P. Dames, “DRL-VO: Learning to Navigate Through Crowded Dynamic Scenes Using Velocity Obstacles,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Robotics

    2023

  48. [56]

    From Agile Ground to Aerial Navigation: Learning from Learned Hallucination,

    Z. Wang, X. Xiao, A. J. Nettekoven, K. Umasankar, A. Singh, S. Bommakanti, U. Topcu, and P. Stone, “From Agile Ground to Aerial Navigation: Learning from Learned Hallucination,” 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Motion Planning and Control for Mobile Robot Navigation Using Machine Learning: a Survey,

    X. Xiao, B. Liu, G. Warnell, and P. Stone, “Motion Planning and Control for Mobile Robot Navigation Using Machine Learning: a Survey,” 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Benchmarking Reinforcement Learning Tech- niques for Autonomous Navigation,

    Z. Xu, B. Liu, X. Xiao, A. Nair, and P. Stone, “Benchmarking Reinforcement Learning Tech- niques for Autonomous Navigation,” 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    Autonomous Ground Navigation in Highly Constrained Spaces: Lessons Learned From the Third BARN Challenge at ICRA 2024 [Competitions],

    X. Xiao, Z. Xu, A. Datar, G. Warnell, P. Stone, J. J. Damanik, J. Jung, C. A. Deresa, T. D. Huy, C. Jinyu, C. Yichen, J. A. Cahyono, J. Wu, L. Mo, M. Lv, B. Lan, Q. Meng, W. Tao, and L. Cheng, “Autonomous Ground Navigation in Highly Constrained Spaces: Lessons Learned From the...

    2024

  52. [60]

    DynaBARN: Benchmarking Metric Ground Navigation in Dynamic Environments,

    A. Nair, F. Jiang, K. Hou, Z. Xu, S. Li, X. Xiao, and P. Stone, “DynaBARN: Benchmarking Metric Ground Navigation in Dynamic Environments,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    A survey on socially aware robot navigation: Taxonomy and future challenges,

    P. T. Singamaneni, P. Bachiller-Burgos, L. J. Manso, A. Garrell, A. Sanfeliu, A. Spalanzani, and R. Alami, “A survey on socially aware robot navigation: Taxonomy and future challenges,” Int. J. Rob. Res., vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1533–1572, Feb. 2024

    2024

  54. [62]

    Rethinking Social Robot Navigation: Leveraging the Best of Two Worlds,

    A. H. Raj, Z. Hu, H. Karnan, R. Chandra, A. Payandeh, and L. Mao, “Rethinking Social Robot Navigation: Leveraging the Best of Two Worlds,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024. 44 Max Asselmeier, Abdel Zaro, Dhruv Ahuja, Ye Zhao, a...

    2024

  55. [63]

    Demonstrating Arena 3.0: Advancing Social Navigation in Collaborative and Highly Dynamic Environm...|Robotics: Science and Systems,

    “Demonstrating Arena 3.0: Advancing Social Navigation in Collaborative and Highly Dynamic Environm...|Robotics: Science and Systems,” 2025

    2025

  56. [64]

    Dynamic path planning and replanning for mobile robots using RRT,

    D. Connell and H. M. La, “Dynamic path planning and replanning for mobile robots using RRT,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    PiPS: Planning in perception space,

    J. S. Smith and P. Vela, “PiPS: Planning in perception space,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017, pp. 6204–6209

    2017

  58. [66]

    Real-Time Egocentric Navigation Using 3D Sensing,

    J. S. Smith, S. Feng, F. Lyu, and P. A. Vela, “Real-Time Egocentric Navigation Using 3D Sensing,” inMachine Vision and Navigation, 2020, pp. 431–484

    2020

  59. [67]

    egoTEB: Egocentric, Perception Space Navigation Using Timed-Elastic-Bands,

    J. S. Smith, R. Xu, and P. Vela, “egoTEB: Egocentric, Perception Space Navigation Using Timed-Elastic-Bands,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 2703–2709

    2020

  60. [68]

    A novel obstacle avoidance algorithm: “Follow the Gap Method

    V. Sezer and M. Gokasan, “A novel obstacle avoidance algorithm: “Follow the Gap Method”,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2012

    2012

  61. [69]

    Admissible gap navigation: A new collision avoidance approach,

    M. Mujahed, D. Fischer, and B. Mertsching, “Admissible gap navigation: A new collision avoidance approach,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2018

    2018

  62. [70]

    Safe Gap based (SG) reactive navigation for mobile robots,

    ——, “Safe Gap based (SG) reactive navigation for mobile robots,” in2013 European Confer- ence on Mobile Robots, 2013, pp. 325–330

    2013

  63. [71]

    A new gap-based collision avoidance method for mobile robots,

    M. Mujahed and B. Mertsching, “A new gap-based collision avoidance method for mobile robots,” in2016 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), 2016, pp. 220–226

    2016

  64. [72]

    Tangential Closest Gap based (TCG) reactive obstacle avoidance navigation for cluttered environments,

    M. Mujahed, H. Jaddu, D. Fischer, and B. Mertsching, “Tangential Closest Gap based (TCG) reactive obstacle avoidance navigation for cluttered environments,” in2013 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), 2013

    2013

  65. [73]

    The admissible gap (AG) method for reactive collision avoidance,

    M. Mujahed and B. Mertsching, “The admissible gap (AG) method for reactive collision avoidance,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017

    2017

  66. [74]

    Closest Gap based (CG) reactive obsta- cle avoidance Navigation for highly cluttered environments,

    M. Mujahad, D. Fischer, B. Mertsching, and H. Jaddu, “Closest Gap based (CG) reactive obsta- cle avoidance Navigation for highly cluttered environments,” in2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2010

    2010

  67. [75]

    FNUG: Imperfect Mazes Traversal Based on Detecting and Following the Nearest-to-Final-Goal and Unvisited Gaps,

    Z. Ullah, X. Chen, S. Gou, Y. Xu, and M. Salam, “FNUG: Imperfect Mazes Traversal Based on Detecting and Following the Nearest-to-Final-Goal and Unvisited Gaps,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2022, conference Name: IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    2022

  68. [76]

    Improved Follow the Gap Method for obstacle avoidance,

    M. Demir and V. Sezer, “Improved Follow the Gap Method for obstacle avoidance,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), 2017

    2017

  69. [77]

    Topology-Driven Parallel Trajectory Optimization in Dynamic Environments,

    O. d. Groot, L. Ferranti, D. M. Gavrila, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Topology-Driven Parallel Trajectory Optimization in Dynamic Environments,” 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    Gaussian process occupancy maps,

    S. T. O’Callaghan and F. T. Ramos, “Gaussian process occupancy maps,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2012

    2012

  71. [79]

    Hilbert maps: Scalable continuous occupancy mapping with stochastic gradient descent,

    F. Ramos and L. Ott, “Hilbert maps: Scalable continuous occupancy mapping with stochastic gradient descent,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, no. 14, 2016

    2016

  72. [80]

    Polygonal Perception for Mobile Robots,

    M. Missura, A. Roychoudhury, and M. Bennewitz, “Polygonal Perception for Mobile Robots,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020

    2020

  73. [81]

    Shneydor,Missile Guidance and Pursuit: Kinematics, Dynamics and Control (1st ed.)

    N. Shneydor,Missile Guidance and Pursuit: Kinematics, Dynamics and Control (1st ed.). Horwood Series in Engineering Science. Chichester, UK: Horwood Publishing, 1998

    1998

  74. [82]

    Implementation of the Pure Pursuit Path Tracking Algorithm

    “Implementation of the Pure Pursuit Path Tracking Algorithm.” [Online]. Available: https:// www.ri.cmu.edu/publications/implementation-of-the-pure-pursuit-path-tracking-algorithm/

  75. [83]

    ArtPlanner: Robust Legged Robot Navigation in the Field,

    L. Wellhausen and M. Hutter, “ArtPlanner: Robust Legged Robot Navigation in the Field,” Field Robotics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 413–434, 2023

    2023

  76. [84]

    Polygons of pursuit,

    A. Bernhart, “Polygons of pursuit,”Scripta Mathematica, vol. 24, Jan. 1959

    1959

  77. [85]

    Curves of general pursuit,

    ——, “Curves of general pursuit,”Scripta Mathematica, vol. 24, Jan. 1959

    1959

  78. [86]

    Why the ant trails look so straight and nice,

    A. Bruckstein, “Why the ant trails look so straight and nice,”The Mathematical Intelligencer, vol. 15, pp. 59–62, Jan. 1993

    1993

  79. [87]

    Fuzzy logic implementation of proportional navigation guidance,

    V. Rajasekhar and A. G. Sreenatha, “Fuzzy logic implementation of proportional navigation guidance,”Acta Astronautica, 2000. Safe Gap-based Planning in Dynamic Settings 45

    2000

  80. [88]

    Terminal Guidance Law Based on Proportional Navigation,

    Y. Ulybyshev, “Terminal Guidance Law Based on Proportional Navigation,”Journal of Guid- ance, Control, and Dynamics, 2005

    2005

  81. [89]

    move base Package

    “move base Package.” [Online]. Available: https://wiki.ros.org/movebase

  82. [90]

    Human-Aware Navigation Planner for Diverse Human-Robot Interaction Contexts,

    P. Teja Singamaneni, A. Favier, and R. Alami, “Human-Aware Navigation Planner for Diverse Human-Robot Interaction Contexts,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021

    2021

  83. [91]

    Online Motion Planning based on Nonlinear Model Predictive Control with Non-Euclidean Rotation Groups,

    C. R ¨osmann, A. Makarow, and T. Bertram, “Online Motion Planning based on Nonlinear Model Predictive Control with Non-Euclidean Rotation Groups,” in2021 European Control Conference (ECC), 2021

    2021

  84. [92]

    Massively multi-robot simulation in stage,

    R. Vaughan, “Massively multi-robot simulation in stage,”Swarm Intelligence, 2008

    2008

  85. [93]

    Motion Planning Among Dynamic, Decision-Making Agents with Deep Reinforcement Learning,

    M. Everett, Y. F. Chen, and J. P. How, “Motion Planning Among Dynamic, Decision-Making Agents with Deep Reinforcement Learning,” 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.