Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

SPOT: Spatio-Temporal Obstacle-free Trajectory Planning for UAVs in Unknown Dynamic Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a mapless, time-aware path planner with backup trajectories lets quadrotors navigate unknown dynamic environments and raises success rates by over 20 percent in dense obstacle fields.

desk verdict Nice integration of known pieces with a genuinely useful deadlock fallback, but Table I's success rates can't be derived from 50-trial runs — that needs fixing before we can trust the headline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.01189 v3 pith:3D7BVRSA submitted 2026-02-01 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Astik Srivastava , Thomas J Chackenkulam , Bitla Bhanu Teja , Antony Thomas , Madhava Krishna This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY MSC 68T40
keywords quadrotormotionplanningdynamicobstacleavoidancespatio-temporalRRT*safeflightcorridorbackuptrajectorymaplessnavigationvision-basedperceptiondeadlockrecovery
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's core claim is that a quadrotor can navigate unknown, dynamic environments without a map by treating time as a fourth planning dimension and by adding a backup trajectory for deadlock situations. The proposed pipeline, SPOT, uses onboard depth perception to classify static versus dynamic points, builds a safe flight corridor from a spatio-temporal RRT* path, and optimizes a smooth trajectory inside it. In simulations with 10, 20, and 30 moving obstacles, the paper reports success rates of 100%, 92%, and 80.2%, and its ablation shows that the backup module alone raises the 30-obstacle success rate from 52.2% to 80.2%. If correct, this matters because it removes the need for map fusion or motion-capture infrastructure, making reactive UAV navigation feasible with onboard sensing and computation alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 4D node state n_i=(x,y,z,t_i) in a spatio-temporal RRT*: arrival time is propagated from parent to child, and the feasibility set F(n_i) requires the child's arrival time to be strictly later than the parent's and reachable under a maximum velocity bound. Collision checking queries a spatio-temporal hash grid that stores where each dynamic point will be at discrete times under constant-velocity prediction, together with a kd-tree for static points. The safe flight corridor is constructed by aggregating static point clouds with dynamic point clouds predicted over the interval between nodes, then performing convex decomposition; trajectory optimization minimizes

What would settle it

Re-run the 30-obstacle benchmark with the backup module disabled and compare to the reported 80.2% success rate with backup on; the paper's claim of more than a 20-point gain fails if the gap does not reproduce. A second check: insert an obstacle that accelerates sharply within the 2-second prediction window and see whether the planner still avoids it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, SPOT establishes that reactive planning in unknown dynamic environments can be done by augmenting RRT* with arrival time at every node. Each node n_i=(x,y,z,t_i) is checked for collision at its predicted arrival time against a spatio-temporal hash grid built from detected moving obstacles, while static points form a kd-tree. The resulting path is inflated into overlapping convex polyhedra over the time interval, with predicted obstacle point clouds from a constant-velocity model aggregated into the obstacle set. Trajectory optimization then fits a minimum-jerk polynomial inside the corridor. When no goal-directed path is available, a backup module picks an escape di

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every point outside a detected bounding box is static and every tracked obstacle moves at constant velocity for up to two seconds; if the detector misses an object or an obstacle accelerates inside that horizon, the planner's occupancy model is wrong and the nominal safe trajectory can collide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With only onboard depth sensing and odometry, a quadrotor can avoid 10 to 30 moving obstacles without a fused map or external motion capture.
  • Deadlock situations become survivable: instead of hovering in place, the UAV executes an obstacle-repelling backup trajectory and re-enters goal-directed planning once a path exists.
  • The success-rate gain concentrates in dense scenes: at 30 obstacles, reported success is 80.2% with backup versus 52.2% without, so backup planning is what makes dense dynamic navigation practical.
  • Because the spatio-temporal feasibility set naturally extends to bounded acceleration, the same planner can be adapted to different vehicle agility limits.
  • Since the safe flight corridor is built only within the sensing horizon and unexplored space is assumed free, computation stays bounded enough for onboard replanning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: the 2-second constant-velocity prediction horizon sets an upper bound on obstacle acceleration; in scenes with sudden stops or darting objects, the planner would likely need learned motion models or uncertainty-aware prediction.
  • My inference: a natural stress test is occlusion—an obstacle hidden behind another until it enters the field of view; the paper's assume-free-for-unexplored-space rule means such an object is invisible until detected, so performance likely depends heavily on tracker recall.
  • My inference: the backup-escape mechanism transfers beyond UAVs—any mobile robot with a convex free-space certificate and an escape direction could use the same deadlock-avoidance loop; a direct test would be deploying it on a ground robot with 2D lidar.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SPOT, a mapless reactive planning framework for quadrotor navigation in unknown environments with dynamic obstacles. The pipeline uses a 4D spatio-temporal RRT* planner over point clouds, with dynamic points propagated by a constant-velocity model, followed by spatio-temporal Safe Flight Corridor construction and MINCO-based trajectory optimization. A backup module is added to handle deadlocks. Validation is performed in simulation against two external baselines and in hardware experiments. The central claim is that SPOT with backup planning achieves higher success rates than the cited baselines in dense dynamic environments (Table I), and that the backup module improves success rates by more than 20%.

Significance. If the empirical results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution: a mapless, vision-based dynamic obstacle avoidance pipeline, a backup-planning mechanism for deadlock situations, and a public code release. The hardware experiments and external-baseline comparisons are also strengths. However, the central quantitative evidence is compromised by an internal inconsistency in the reported success rates, which are impossible under the stated 50-trial protocol. Because the contribution claims are largely empirical, the paper cannot be accepted in its current form; the issues are fixable by rerunning/reporting the experiments correctly, so major revision is appropriate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A.1, Table I] The text states that 'For each environment, 50 independent trials are performed.' With binary success per trial, any success rate must be a multiple of 2% (k/50). Table I reports 80.2%, 94.2%, 71.3%, 57.1%, 62.2%, 52.2%, 42.8%, and 10.2%, none of which is a multiple of 2%. For example, SPOT at 30 obstacles would need 40.1 successes out of 50, and SPOT-w/o backup at 20 obstacles would need 41.2. This is not a statistical nuance; it means the central empirical result cannot be reproduced from the described experimental design. Please report raw counts or, if the numbers are averages over a different protocol, describe that protocol explicitly and provide confidence intervals or statistical tests.
  2. [Section IV.A.1, text after Table I] The claim that 'incorporating a backup trajectory increases the success rate by more than 20%' is only true for the 30-obstacle case (80.2 vs 52.2, a 28.0 percentage-point gain). At 10 and 20 obstacles the gains are 5.8 and 9.6 percentage points, respectively. Additionally, Table II reports that at 10 obstacles the backup is invoked 0 times on average, yet Table I attributes a 5.8-point difference to the backup module at that density; with zero invocations, the difference is unexplained. This inconsistency further burdens the backup-contribution claim.
  3. [Section IV.A.1, comparison protocol] The baseline comparison is not fully matched: SPOT and [14] run at 1 m/s, while [7] is reported at both 1 m/s and 5 m/s. Since [7] is designed for high-speed navigation, the headline comparison should be against [7]-1m/s, and the [7]-5m/s row should not be used to argue that SPOT outperforms [7]. Also, no confidence intervals, standard deviations, or significance tests are provided for the 50-trial success rates. The current Table I does not support a claim of statistically significant superiority over the baselines.
  4. [Section III-A and III-C] The safety claims are conditional on assumptions that are not quantified: (i) every point not inside a tracked bounding box is classified as static, (ii) unexplored regions outside the sensor FOV are assumed obstacle-free, and (iii) obstacle motion follows the constant-velocity model of Eq. (5). The paper presents the achieved trajectories as 'collision-free' without reporting tracker recall, detection failure rates, or prediction-error statistics in the pipeline validation. These assumptions should be stated as limitations, and, if possible, the PX4 SITL validation should report how often the onboard detector missed or mis-tracked an obstacle.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A.1] The term 'success rate' is not formally defined. Is it 'reaching the goal without collision' or something else? Please state the criterion explicitly.
  2. [Section IV.B] The hardware results are qualitative (Fig. 9). To substantiate the claim of 'reliable performance using only onboard sensing and computation,' please include quantitative metrics such as trajectory tracking error, minimum distances to obstacles, or success/failure counts.
  3. [Throughout] Typos: 'All simulations were were executed' (Section IV.A), 'reachible' (Section III.B.2), 'MeitY ,' with an extra space (Acknowledgments). Please proofread.
  4. [Section III.B.3] The informed sampling in Eq. (3) is defined in 3D space, and the time coordinate is added via Eq. (4). This is a decoupled heuristic rather than a true 4D informed set. Please clarify this in the text to avoid overstating the extension.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the planner derivation is self-contained, predictions are not fitted to the benchmark data, and the only self-citation (CAPF [27]) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard planning pipeline: ST-RRT* with time-augmented nodes and kinematics-based feasibility (Eq. 1), spatio-temporal collision checking via a hash grid, SFC construction using constant-velocity obstacle propagation (Eq. 5), and MINCO trajectory optimization. No parameter is fitted to the reported success rates, and no 'prediction' is defined in terms of the benchmark outcomes. The central empirical claim is tested against external baselines [14] and [7] and through an internal ablation SPOT vs. SPOT-w/o backup, so the improvement from backup planning is an empirical result rather than a consequence of the equations. The only self-citation is [27], used in the backup module to compute an escape direction; this is an implementation detail and the deadlock-avoidance claim does not reduce to CAPF's equations. There is no imported uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation, and no renaming of a known result presented as a derivation. The constant-velocity model is a stated safety-relevant assumption, but assuming a model is not circularity. The Table I divisibility issue noted by the skeptic is a reproducibility/correctness concern, not a circular step. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity, force, or conserved quantity. It relies on algorithmic constructs (spatio-temporal hash grid, backup polygon, FSM modes) and on a set of hand-chosen planning hyperparameters. The central assumptions are the constant-velocity obstacle model and the accuracy of the bounding-box tracker.

free parameters (6)
  • w
    Temporal weight in the edge cost (Eq. 2); interpreted as desired velocity; chosen by hand to trade distance versus time.
  • dt = 0.2 s
    Temporal resolution for the spatio-temporal hash grid and SFC construction; stated as empirically fixed in Section III-C.
  • max_prediction_interval = 2 s
    Maximum (t_j - t_i) interval for SFC construction; empirically fixed to keep constant-velocity prediction tractable (Section III-C).
  • r_min
    Prescribed safety threshold below which a node is considered unsafe (Section III-B.4); value not given in the text.
  • hash_grid_cell_size
    Cell size c for the spatio-temporal hash grid (Algorithms 1 and 2); value not specified.
  • v_max = 1 m/s (simulation cap)
    Maximum admissible velocity used in the feasibility set (Eq. 1) and imposed on SPOT and [14] in simulation; chosen by the authors for the comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dynamic obstacles follow a constant-velocity model o(t) = o(t_i) + v_o(t - t_i) over the prediction horizon.
    Used in Eq. 5 and Algorithm 1 for all dynamic-obstacle propagation; if obstacles accelerate or change direction, predicted occupancy is wrong.
  • domain assumption All points outside the detected bounding boxes are static.
    Section III-A: 'Each point lying inside a bounding box inherits the corresponding object velocity, while all other points are treated as static.' This makes safety depend on the tracker detecting every dynamic object.
  • domain assumption Unexplored regions outside the sensor field of view are obstacle-free.
    Section III-A: 'Unexplored regions outside the sensor’s field of view are assumed obstacle-free, consistent with the mapless design.' This is a standard mapless-navigation assumption but can hide undiscovered obstacles.
  • domain assumption The onboard tracker supplies sufficiently accurate positions and velocities for collision checking.
    The whole spatio-temporal SFC and RRT* collision checking consume tracker outputs; no uncertainty model or false-negative analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPOT: Spatio-Temporal Obstacle-free Trajectory Planning for UAVs in Unknown Dynamic Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3D7BVRSA

@misc{pith2026260201189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPOT: Spatio-Temporal Obstacle-free Trajectory Planning for UAVs in Unknown Dynamic Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3D7BVRSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.01189}
}
read the original abstract

We address the problem of reactive motion planning for quadrotors operating in unknown environments with dynamic obstacles. Our approach leverages a 4-dimensional spatio-temporal planner, integrated with vision-based Safe Flight Corridor (SFC) generation and trajectory optimization. Unlike prior methods that rely on map fusion, our framework is mapless, enabling collision avoidance directly from perception while reducing computational overhead. Dynamic obstacles are detected and tracked using a vision-based object segmentation and tracking pipeline, allowing robust classification of static versus dynamic elements in the scene. To further enhance robustness, we introduce a backup planning module that reactively avoids dynamic obstacles when no direct path to the goal is available, mitigating the risk of collisions during deadlock situations. We validate our method extensively in both simulation and real-world hardware experiments, and benchmark it against state-of-the-art approaches, showing significant advantages for reactive UAV navigation in dynamic, unknown environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.01189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UAV navigation in a dynamic environment with backup planning. (a) The nominal trajectory (green) becomes unsafe due to dynamic obstacles. (b) A backup trajectory (red) is generated reactively to move the UAV toward a safer region. (c) The UAV tracks the backup trajectory, replanning it as needed to maintain safety. (d) Once a feasible path to the goal becomes available, the UAV switches back to goal-directed plannin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System architecture of SPOT for reactive UAV motion planning in dynamic, unknown environments. the Euclidean Signed Distance Field (ESDF) to predict pedes￾trian motion, though their formulation remains limited to 2D environments. In this work, we construct a spatio-temporal SFC that simultaneously accounts for static and dynamic obstacles. A key distinction is that our framework explicitly incorporates backup trajec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FSM governing the spatio-temporal RRT⋆ planning pipeline, operating in three modes: Initial, Incremental, and Backup. discussed subsequently. The FSM determines whether to initiate a new search, refine an existing path, or invoke the backup planner, thereby ensuring safe and reliable UAV navigation under dynamic conditions. • Convex Decomposition and Trajectory Generation: The skeletal path is then inflated into a s… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In our implementation, we empirically fix the temporal resolution to ∆t = 0.2 s, while constraining the maximum interval (tj − ti) to 2 seconds. These choices strike a balance between prediction fidelity and computational tractability, en￾suring that the constant-veloc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hardware platform. onboard computation is performed using an NVIDIA Jetson Xavier NX. The UAV runs PX4 on an OmniNXT flight controller to enable trajectory tracking. We conduct two sets of experiments to evaluate performance in the presence of static and dynamic obstac…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation of UAV avoiding dynamic obstacles. The white polygons represent the spatio-temporal free space around the UAV, which follows the green trajectory. The obstacles within red bounding boxes are with UAVs sensing range, while the obstacles represented as green c…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation of UAV avoiding humans with walking/running motion profiles. Bounding Boxes provided by onboard detector [25] are used for segmenting pointclouds, which are then used by Spatio￾Temporal planner for generating collision free trajectory the direction of motion…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Hardware experiments demonstrating collision avoidance on an in-house developed UAV. (a–d) UAV avoiding a static obstacle: starting from the initial position, approaching the obstacle, executing avoidance, and clearing it. (e) The planned trajectory. (f–i) UAV avoiding…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [7]

    Safety-assured high-speed navigation for mavs,

    Y . Ren, F. Zhu, G. Lu, Y . Cai, L. Yin, F. Kong, J. Lin, N. Chen, and F. Zhang, “Safety-assured high-speed navigation for mavs,”Science Robotics, vol. 10, no. 98, p. eado6187, 2025

    2025

  2. [14]

    Decentralized multi- agent trajectory planning in dynamic environments with spatiotemporal occupancy grid maps,

    S. Wu, G. Chen, M. Shi, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Decentralized multi- agent trajectory planning in dynamic environments with spatiotemporal occupancy grid maps,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 7208–7214

    2024

  3. [1]

    Mader: Trajectory planner in multiagent and dynamic environments,

    J. Tordesillas and J. P. How, “Mader: Trajectory planner in multiagent and dynamic environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 463–476, 2021

    2021

  4. [2]

    Fapp: Fast and adaptive percep- tion and planning for uavs in dynamic cluttered environments,

    M. Lu, X. Fan, H. Chen, and P. Lu, “Fapp: Fast and adaptive percep- tion and planning for uavs in dynamic cluttered environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 871–886, 2025

    2025

  5. [3]

    Teach- Repeat-Replan: A Complete and Robust System for Aggressive Flight in Complex Environments,

    F. Gao, L. Wang, B. Zhou, X. Zhou, J. Pan, and S. Shen, “Teach- Repeat-Replan: A Complete and Robust System for Aggressive Flight in Complex Environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1526–1545, 2020

    2020

  6. [4]

    Faster: Fast and safe trajectory planner for navigation in unknown environments,

    J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, M. Everett, and J. P. How, “Faster: Fast and safe trajectory planner for navigation in unknown environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 922–938, 2022

    2022

  7. [5]

    Geometrically Constrained Tra- jectory Optimization for Multicopters,

    Z. Wang, X. Zhou, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Geometrically Constrained Tra- jectory Optimization for Multicopters,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 3259–3278, 2022

    2022

  8. [6]

    Bubble planner: Planning high-speed smooth quadrotor trajectories using receding corridors,

    Y . Ren, F. Zhu, W. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Lin, F. Gao, and F. Zhang, “Bubble planner: Planning high-speed smooth quadrotor trajectories using receding corridors,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 6332–6339. (a)Start (b)Approaching obstacle (c)Avoiding obstacle (d)Cleared obstacle (e)Planned Tra...

    2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Robust vision-based obstacle avoidance for micro aerial vehicles in dynamic environments,

    J. Lin, H. Zhu, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Robust vision-based obstacle avoidance for micro aerial vehicles in dynamic environments,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2682–2688

    2020

  2. [9]

    Fast-dynamic-vision: Detection and tracking dynamic objects with event and depth sensing,

    B. He, H. Li, S. Wu, D. Wang, Z. Zhang, Q. Dong, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Fast-dynamic-vision: Detection and tracking dynamic objects with event and depth sensing,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2021, pp. 3071–3078

    2021

  3. [10]

    Dpmpc-planner: A real- time uav trajectory planning framework for complex static environments with dynamic obstacles,

    Z. Xu, D. Deng, Y . Dong, and K. Shimada, “Dpmpc-planner: A real- time uav trajectory planning framework for complex static environments with dynamic obstacles,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 250–256

    2022

  4. [11]

    Enhanced decentralized au- tonomous aerial robot teams with group planning,

    J. Hou, X. Zhou, Z. Gan, and F. Gao, “Enhanced decentralized au- tonomous aerial robot teams with group planning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9240–9247, 2022

    2022

  5. [12]

    Perception and avoidance of multiple small fast moving objects for quadrotors with only low-cost rgbd camera,

    M. Lu, H. Chen, and P. Lu, “Perception and avoidance of multiple small fast moving objects for quadrotors with only low-cost rgbd camera,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 657–11 664, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    Rast: Risk-aware spatio-temporal safety corridors for mav navigation in dynamic uncertain environments,

    G. Chen, S. Wu, M. Shi, W. Dong, H. Zhu, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Rast: Risk-aware spatio-temporal safety corridors for mav navigation in dynamic uncertain environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 808–815, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A state-time space approach for local trajectory replanning of an mav in dynamic indoor environments,

    F. Quan, Y . Shen, P. Liu, X. Lyu, and H. Chen, “A state-time space approach for local trajectory replanning of an mav in dynamic indoor environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Computing large convex regions of obstacle- free space through semidefinite programming,

    R. Deits and R. Tedrake, “Computing large convex regions of obstacle- free space through semidefinite programming,” inAlgorithmic Founda- tions of Robotics XI: Selected Contributions of the Eleventh International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics. Springer, 2...

    2015

  9. [17]

    Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-d complex environments,

    S. Liu, M. Watterson, K. Mohta, K. Sun, S. Bhattacharya, C. J. Taylor, and V . Kumar, “Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-d complex environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1688–1695, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Flying on point clouds: Online trajectory generation and autonomous navigation for quadrotors in cluttered environments,

    F. Gao, W. Wu, W. Gao, and S. Shen, “Flying on point clouds: Online trajectory generation and autonomous navigation for quadrotors in cluttered environments,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 710–733, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,

    T. Marcucci, M. Petersen, D. von Wrangel, and R. Tedrake, “Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,”ScienceRobotics, vol. 8, no. 84, p. eadf7843, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Fast iterative region inflation for computing large 2-d/3-d convex regions of obstacle-free space,

    Q. Wang, Z. Wang, M. Wang, J. Ji, Z. Han, T. Wu, R. Jin, Y . Gao, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Fast iterative region inflation for computing large 2-d/3-d convex regions of obstacle-free space,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02977, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Polynomial trajectory planning for aggressive quadrotor flight in dense indoor environments,

    C. Richter, A. Bry, and N. Roy, “Polynomial trajectory planning for aggressive quadrotor flight in dense indoor environments,” inRobotics Research: The 16th International Symposium ISRR. Springer, 2016, pp. 649–666

    2016

  14. [22]

    Robust collision avoidance for multiple micro aerial vehicles using nonlinear model predictive control,

    M. Kamel, J. Alonso-Mora, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “Robust collision avoidance for multiple micro aerial vehicles using nonlinear model predictive control,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 236–243

    2017

  15. [23]

    Panther: Perception-aware trajectory planner in dynamic environments,

    J. Tordesillas and J. P. How, “Panther: Perception-aware trajectory planner in dynamic environments,”IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 22 662– 22 677, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Risk-aware trajectory sampling for quadrotor obstacle avoidance in dynamic environments,

    G. Chen, P. Peng, P. Zhang, and W. Dong, “Risk-aware trajectory sampling for quadrotor obstacle avoidance in dynamic environments,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 12 606– 12 615, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Onboard dynamic- object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,

    Z. Xu, X. Zhan, Y . Xiu, C. Suzuki, and K. Shimada, “Onboard dynamic- object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 651– 658, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    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,” in2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, 2014, pp. 2997– 3004

    2014

  19. [27]

    A modified artificial potential field for uav collision avoidance,

    A. Srivastava, V . Vasudevan, R. N. Harikesh, and P. Sujit, “A modified artificial potential field for uav collision avoidance,” inProc. Int. Conf. Unmanned Aircr. Syst.(ICUAS), 2023, pp. 499–506

    2023

  20. [28]

    Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for reinforcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control,

    J. Panerati, H. Zheng, S. Zhou, J. Xu, A. Prorok, and A. P. Schoel- lig, “Learning to fly—a gym environment with pybullet physics for reinforcement learning of multi-agent quadcopter control,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2...

    2021

  21. [29]

    Raptor: Robust and perception- aware trajectory replanning for quadrotor fast flight,

    B. Zhou, J. Pan, F. Gao, and S. Shen, “Raptor: Robust and perception- aware trajectory replanning for quadrotor fast flight,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1992–2009, 2021

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.