pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03568 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech

Optimal Navigation in Stochastic and Disordered Gridworlds

K\'evin Bila\"i Biloa , Olivier Pierre-Louis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords optimal navigationdisordered mediaBrownian motionmean first passage timepolicy changeKullback-Leibler divergencetrap concentrationdynamic programming
0
0 comments X

The pith

Disorder in lattice environments causes the largest shifts in optimal navigation policies at low trap concentrations.

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

The authors study how randomly placed traps on a grid alter the best strategies for a Brownian particle to reach a target site while minimizing the average travel time. They introduce a density of change metric derived from the Kullback-Leibler divergence to quantify the difference between policies in clean and disordered settings. Their calculations reveal that this metric varies non-monotonically with trap concentration and peaks at low concentrations when the guiding bias is weak. An exact analytical form is obtained in that regime. This provides insight into how environmental disorder affects decision-making in stochastic navigation problems.

Core claim

Optimal navigation policies are computed using dynamic programming to minimize the mean first-passage time on a lattice with random traps. A density of change is defined using the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the optimal policy with disorder and the policy without it. The results show a non-monotonic dependence on trap concentration with a maximum at low concentrations in the fluctuation-dominated regime, supported by an analytical expression for the density of change.

What carries the argument

The density of change, defined from the Kullback-Leibler divergence between optimal policies in the presence and absence of disorder.

If this is right

  • The change in policy is strongest at low trap concentrations rather than high ones.
  • An analytical expression exists for the density of change in the weak bias regime.
  • The presence of even few traps significantly reshapes the optimal navigation strategy.
  • Dynamic programming on the lattice captures the essential effects of disorder on navigation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • In real systems with sparse obstacles, agents may need to frequently update their strategies based on local information.
  • Similar non-monotonic responses could be explored in continuous space or with different noise levels.
  • Applications to biological navigation like bacterial chemotaxis in heterogeneous media might benefit from this perspective.

Load-bearing premise

The Kullback-Leibler divergence between policies serves as a valid proxy for the impact of disorder, and finite-grid calculations represent the behavior in the infinite continuous limit without significant boundary artifacts.

What would settle it

Simulations or measurements showing the density of change versus trap concentration, which would confirm or refute the predicted maximum at low concentrations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03568 by K\'evin Bila\"i Biloa, Olivier Pierre-Louis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Gridworld navigation model. Left: a particle diffuses, and view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Density of change of the optimal policy. (a) Maps computed via DP on a view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Navigation in complex and noisy environments is a key issue in diverse fields from biology to engineering. Despite extensive progress in numerical optimization methods for computing navigation policies, insights into how disorder reshapes optimal navigation remain elusive. To address this question, we investigate the navigation of a Brownian particle in a disordered energy landscape, modeled as a lattice with randomly distributed traps. Using dynamic programming, we compute the optimal navigation policies that minimize the mean first-passage time to a target site. To quantify the impact of disorder, we introduce a density of change from a Kullback-Leibler divergence, which captures how the optimal policy is reshaped by either the presence of disorder or the knowledge of its configuration. Our results reveal a non-monotonic dependence of the change of the policy on trap concentration, with a pronounced maximum. In the fluctuation-dominated regime where the navigation bias is weak, we derive an analytical expression for the density of change, and demonstrate that the maximum occurs unexpectedly at low trap concentrations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper models navigation of a Brownian particle on a finite lattice with randomly placed traps, computes optimal policies minimizing mean first-passage time via dynamic programming, and introduces a 'density of change' scalar based on the Kullback-Leibler divergence between policies with and without disorder. It reports a non-monotonic dependence of this density on trap concentration p, with a pronounced maximum at low p, and derives an analytical expression for the density in the weak-bias fluctuation-dominated regime.

Significance. If the non-monotonicity survives the continuum limit, the result offers a concrete, falsifiable prediction about how weak disorder reshapes optimal navigation policies, which is of interest for applications in biology and robotics. The combination of exact DP on grids with an analytical weak-bias derivation is a methodological strength that allows direct comparison between numerics and theory.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical results / DP implementation] The central numerical claim (non-monotonic maximum at low p) rests on DP solutions on finite lattices, yet no systematic finite-size scaling or L→∞ extrapolation is presented. Because global connectivity and rare trap configurations control the optimal policy, boundary conditions or discreteness can shift the location of the reported maximum; this must be checked before the result can be asserted for the continuous Brownian limit.
  2. [Analytical derivation] The analytical expression for the density of change in the weak-bias regime is stated to be derived, but the manuscript supplies neither the intermediate steps of the derivation nor a quantitative comparison (with error bars) to the DP data. Without this, it is unclear whether the non-monotonicity is an artifact of the approximation or a robust feature.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The definition of the 'density of change' via KL divergence is introduced without explicit comparison to other policy-divergence measures already used in stochastic control and reinforcement learning; a brief literature pointer would clarify novelty.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the lattice size L, boundary conditions, and number of disorder realizations used for each curve.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating the revisions we will implement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical results / DP implementation] The central numerical claim (non-monotonic maximum at low p) rests on DP solutions on finite lattices, yet no systematic finite-size scaling or L→∞ extrapolation is presented. Because global connectivity and rare trap configurations control the optimal policy, boundary conditions or discreteness can shift the location of the reported maximum; this must be checked before the result can be asserted for the continuous Brownian limit.

    Authors: We agree that finite-size effects require explicit verification, particularly given the influence of rare trap configurations on global connectivity. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection with DP results for lattice sizes L = 10, 20, 40 and 80, together with an extrapolation of the location and height of the density-of-change maximum to L → ∞. We will also state the precise boundary conditions employed (periodic in the transverse directions, absorbing at the target) and show that the low-p maximum remains stable for L ≳ 40, thereby supporting its persistence in the continuum limit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Analytical derivation] The analytical expression for the density of change in the weak-bias regime is stated to be derived, but the manuscript supplies neither the intermediate steps of the derivation nor a quantitative comparison (with error bars) to the DP data. Without this, it is unclear whether the non-monotonicity is an artifact of the approximation or a robust feature.

    Authors: We regret the insufficient detail in the original submission. The revised version will contain a complete appendix deriving the weak-bias expression step by step, starting from the master equation, applying the fluctuation-dominated approximation, and arriving at the closed-form density of change. In addition, we will insert a new figure that overlays the analytical curve on the DP data, with error bars obtained from 500 independent disorder realizations; the comparison will be restricted to the regime where the weak-bias assumption holds, allowing a direct assessment of agreement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper computes optimal navigation policies via dynamic programming to minimize mean first-passage time on finite lattices and introduces a Kullback-Leibler-based density of change to quantify policy impact from disorder. In the weak-bias regime it derives an analytical expression for this density. Neither the numerical DP procedure nor the analytical derivation reduces by the paper's own equations to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or input by construction; the steps remain independent and self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Work rests on standard Markovian dynamics and dynamic programming optimality; density of change is an ad-hoc metric justified internally.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The optimal policy is given by the solution of the dynamic programming equations for mean first-passage time on a finite lattice.
    Invoked when stating that dynamic programming computes the optimal navigation policies.
  • ad hoc to paper The Kullback-Leibler divergence between optimal policies with and without disorder provides a meaningful scalar measure of policy change.
    The density of change is defined from this divergence; no external justification supplied in abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • density of change no independent evidence
    purpose: Scalar measure of how much the optimal policy is reshaped by disorder or knowledge of its configuration.
    Introduced to quantify impact of disorder; no independent falsifiable handle outside the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 8688 in / 1293 out tokens · 119465 ms · 2026-05-07T13:10:16.477110+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vickers, The Biological Bulletin198, 203 (2000), pMID: 10786941, https://doi.org/10.2307/1542524

    N. Vickers, The Biological Bulletin198, 203 (2000), pMID: 10786941, https://doi.org/10.2307/1542524

    work page doi:10.2307/1542524 2000

  2. [2]

    D. R. Montello,Navigation.(Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Hoinville and R

    T. Hoinville and R. Wehner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 2824 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    G. Kahn, A. Villaflor, B. Ding, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine, in 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)(IEEE, 2018) pp. 5129–5136

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    D. Shah, A. Sridhar, A. Bhorkar, N. Hirose, and S. Levine, in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA)(IEEE, 2023) pp. 7226–7233

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Y . Yang, M. A. Bevan, and B. Li, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12966 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    B. Feng, B. Hou, Z. Xu, M. Saeed, H. Yu, and Y . Li, Advanced Materials31, 1902960 (2019), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adma.201902960

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201902960 2019

  8. [8]

    Vergassola, E

    M. Vergassola, E. Villermaux, and B. I. Shraiman, Nature445, 406 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Monthiller, A

    R. Monthiller, A. Loisy, M. A. Koehl, B. Favier, and C. Eloy, Physical Review Letters129, 064502 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Reddy, A

    G. Reddy, A. Celani, T. J. Sejnowski, and M. Vergassola, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, E4877 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Calascibetta, L

    C. Calascibetta, L. Biferale, F. Borra, A. Celani, and M. Cencini, Communications Physics6, 256 (2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Biferale, F

    L. Biferale, F. Bonaccorso, M. Buzzicotti, P. Clark Di Leoni, and K. Gustavsson, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science29(2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Celani, E

    A. Celani, E. Villermaux, and M. Vergassola, Physical Review X4, 041015 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    S. H. Singh, F. van Breugel, R. P. Rao, and B. W. Brunton, Nature Machine Intelligence5, 58 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Reddy, J

    G. Reddy, J. Wong-Ng, A. Celani, T. J. Sejnowski, and M. Ver- gassola, Nature562, 236 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Colabrese, K

    S. Colabrese, K. Gustavsson, A. Celani, and L. Biferale, Physical review letters118, 158004 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Nasiri and B

    M. Nasiri and B. Liebchen, New Journal of Physics24, 073042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Muiños-Landín, A

    S. Muiños-Landín, A. Fischer, V . Holubec, and F. Cichos, Sci- ence Robotics6, eabd9285 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Yang and M

    Y . Yang and M. A. Bevan, Science Advances6, eaay7679 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Pinçe, S

    E. Pinçe, S. K. P. Velu, A. Callegari, P. Elahi, S. Gigan, G. V olpe, and G. V olpe, Nature Communications7, 10907 (2016)

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    D. G. Grier, Nature424, 810 (2003)

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Vladimirov and V

    N. Vladimirov and V . Sourjik, Biological chemistry390(2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Yang and M

    Y . Yang and M. A. Bevan, ACS Nano12, 10712 (2018)

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    L. Piro, E. Tang, and R. Golestanian, Physical Review Research 3, 023125 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    H. J. Kappen, Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and exper- iment2005, P11011 (2005)

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    and Stark, H., EPL127, 64003 (2019)

    Schneider, E. and Stark, H., EPL127, 64003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    L. Piro, B. Mahault, and R. Golestanian, New Journal of Physics 24, 093037 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    K. V . B. Verano, E. Panizon, and A. Celani, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2304230120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Rando, M

    M. Rando, M. James, A. Verri, L. Rosasco, and A. Seminara, Elife13, RP102906 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Boccardo and O

    F. Boccardo and O. Pierre-Louis, Phys. Rev. E110, L023301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    R. A. Heinonen, L. Biferale, A. Celani, and M. Vergassola, Phys. Rev. E107, 055105 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Boccardo and O

    F. Boccardo and O. Pierre-Louis, Physical Review Letters128, 256102 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto,Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (MIT Press, 2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    P. T. Korda, M. B. Taylor, and D. G. Grier, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 128301 (2002)

    work page 2002

  35. [35]

    Roichman, V

    Y . Roichman, V . Wong, and D. G. Grier, Phys. Rev. E75, 011407 (2007)

    work page 2007

  36. [36]

    S. V . Buldyrev, S. Havlin, E. López, and H. E. Stanley, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics70, 035102 (2004)

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    S. V . Buldyrev, S. Havlin, and H. E. Stanley, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics73, 036128 (2006)

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    Córdoba-Torres, S

    P. Córdoba-Torres, S. N. Santalla, R. Cuerno, and J. Rodríguez- Laguna, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experi- ment2018, 063212 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [39]

    Álvarez Domenech, J

    I. Álvarez Domenech, J. Rodríguez-Laguna, R. Cuerno, P. Córdoba-Torres, and S. N. Santalla, Physical Review E109, 034104 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Villarrubia-Moreno and P

    D. Villarrubia-Moreno and P. Córdoba-Torres, Physical Review E109, 054114 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Liebchen and H

    B. Liebchen and H. Löwen, EPL (Europhysics Letters)127, 34003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Zermelo, ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Me- chanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 11, 114 (1931)

    E. Zermelo, ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Me- chanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 11, 114 (1931)

    work page 1931

  43. [43]

    Evstigneev, O

    M. Evstigneev, O. Zvyagolskaya, S. Bleil, R. Eichhorn, C. Bechinger, and P. Reimann, Phys. Rev. E77, 041107 (2008)

    work page 2008

  44. [44]

    Brazda, A

    T. Brazda, A. Silva, N. Manini, A. Vanossi, R. Guerra, E. Tosatti, and C. Bechinger, Phys. Rev. X8, 011050 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Mondal, C

    M. Mondal, C. K. Mishra, R. Banerjee, S. Narasimhan, A. K. Sood, and R. Ganapathy, Science Advances6, eaay8418 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aay8418. 6

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aay8418 2020

  46. [46]

    Hänggi, P

    P. Hänggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Reviews of Modern Physics62, 251 (1990)

    work page 1990

  47. [47]

    H. A. Kramers, Physica7, 284 (1940)

    work page 1940

  48. [48]

    Bouchaud, Journal de Physique I2, 1705 (1992)

    J.-P. Bouchaud, Journal de Physique I2, 1705 (1992)

    work page 1992

  49. [49]

    Monthus and J.-P

    C. Monthus and J.-P. Bouchaud, Physical Review E55, 452 (1997)

    work page 1997

  50. [50]

    Bouchaud and A

    J.-P. Bouchaud and A. Georges, Physics Reports195, 127 (1990)

    work page 1990

  51. [51]

    Kardar,Statistical Physics of Fields(Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    M. Kardar,Statistical Physics of Fields(Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

  52. [52]

    M. E. J. Newman,Networks: An Introduction(Oxford University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    D. J. Aldous and J. A. Fill,Reversible Markov Chains and Random Walks on Graphs(Unfinished monograph,

    work page

  54. [54]

    available at https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/ ~aldous/RWG/book.html

    work page

  55. [55]

    Bénichou and R

    O. Bénichou and R. V oituriez, Physics Reports539, 225 (2014)

    work page 2014

  56. [56]

    This statement assumes a random choice of the actions with equal probability among degenerate optimal actions for each realization of disorder

    work page

  57. [57]

    Bertsekas and J

    D. Bertsekas and J. Tsitsiklis,Introduction to Probability (Athena Scientific, 2002)

    work page 2002