Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Biconvex Optimization for Smooth Minimum-Time Trajectories around Convex Obstacles

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes BMTP, a biconvex minimum-time planner that guarantees convergence and is anytime while supporting arbitrary-order derivative and continuity constraints, with no upfront convex decomposition of the free space.

desk verdict Solid biconvex motion planner with a real gap between the proved convergence claim and the implemented algorithm; worth reviewing, needs a revised guarantee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02834 v1 pith:7DQ7A3WT submitted 2026-08-03 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Peter Werner , Tobia Marcucci , Daniela Rus This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords biconvexoptimizationminimum-timetrajectorymotionplanningconvexobstaclesseparatingplanesderivativeconstraintsBeziercurvesanytime
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

This paper introduces BMTP, a biconvex minimum-time motion planner for robots moving among convex obstacles — biconvex meaning that the problem is convex in the trajectory when the separating planes are fixed, and convex in the planes when the trajectory is fixed. It claims to guarantee convergence from any collision-free polygonal curve, to be anytime (an interrupted run returns the best feasible trajectory found so far), and to enforce derivative constraints of arbitrary order — velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap — plus continuity to arbitrary finite degree, without a costly upfront convex decomposition of the free space. The key move is a change of variables that convexifies the minimum-time objective and all derivative constraints, leaving collision avoidance as the only nonconvexity; that residual nonconvexity is handled by time-varying separating planes optimized alternately with the trajectory, adding planes only for obstacles the current iterate collides with. In experiments on quadrotor navigation through a 521-obstacle village and on dual-arm bin unloading in simulation and on hardware, BMTP matches the trajectory quality and computation time of a state-of-the-art decomposition-based planner while handling a larger class of problems and being less sensitive to poor initialization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-varying separating plane drawn from the polar $O_k^\circ = \{(a,b) : a^\top x + b \ge 0 \ \forall x \in O_k\}$ of each convex obstacle, together with the change of variables $T_I = T^I$. The polar is always convex, so fixing either the trajectory or the planes leaves a convex subproblem; the bilinear terms $a_k(s)^\top r(s)$ are the only remaining nonconvexity. The change of variables turns derivative constraints $r^{(i)}(s) \in T^i C_i$ into $r^{(i)}(s) \in T_I^{i/I} C_i$, which are convex because $T_I^{i/I}$ is concave in $T_I$ and each $C_i$ contains the origin. The plane update computes a maximum-margin separating plane by projecting the current trajectory point onto the obstacle, with a closed form in the ideal infinite-dimensional case and a conservative Bezier-surrogate version in the finite-dimensional implementation. The convex-hull property of Bezier curves lets derivative and plane constraints be enforced at control points, keeping the trajectory update convex, and tagging only the obstacle—segment pairs that currently collide gives the procedure a mechanism to jump around obstacles and escape local minima.

What would settle it

Run BMTP with the margins $\Delta_p$ and $\Delta_v$ set to zero on an instance where a trajectory segment runs tangent to a convex obstacle, so the maximum-margin separating plane has zero separation at the tangency point; if the inner loop then fails to terminate within $KM$ tags or the duration ever increases, the plane-update feasibility assumption is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the minimum-time trajectory problem of (1) can be reformulated as a biconvex program that is guaranteed to converge and is anytime. The reformulation normalizes time to $s \in [0,1]$, works with the variable $T_I = T^I$ so that derivative constraints become $r^{(i)}(s) \in T_I^{i/I} C_i$, which are convex by Lemma 1, and the objective becomes monotone in $T_I$. Collision avoidance is rewritten as a search for time-varying separating planes $(a_k(s), b_k(s)) \in O_k^\circ$ satisfying $a_k(s)^\top r(s) + b_k(s) < 0$ for all $s$, where $O_k^\circ$ is the polar of the obstacle. The resulting problem is convex in the trajectory given the planes, and convex in the planes given the trajectory. BMTP alternates between a plane update (projecting the current feasible trajectory onto each tagged obstacle to get maximum-margin supporting planes) and a trajectory update (convex optimization with planes fixed), adding planes only for obstacles the current iterate collides with; the paper proves the inner loop terminates after at most $KM$ tags and the duration never increases across outer iterations, so every feasible iterate is a valid anytime solution. Empirically, on a 521-obstacle village drone problem it computes a snap-constrained 11.83 s trajectory in 0.19 s, and on 300 randomized dual-arm bin unloading instances it matches the decomposition-based EI+SCS baseline in duration (2.82 s vs 2.77 s average) and computation time (188 ms vs 204 ms), with 100% success and collision-free plans on both, while also tolerating weaker initializations.

Load-bearing premise

Convergence assumes that for every segment—obstacle pair that does not collide, the plane update returns planes that keep the current feasible trajectory strictly separated from the obstacle by a tiny prescribed margin ($10^{-6}$), whereas the appendix only proves the surrogate's optimal separation is nonpositive for a collision-free path.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BMTP can be used as an anytime planner: interruption at any outer iteration returns a collision-free trajectory whose duration never exceeds that of any earlier feasible iterate.
  • Because derivative and continuity constraints of arbitrary order are convexified, minimum-time trajectories can be planned directly with jerk and snap limits, without heuristic smoothing or retiming post-processing.
  • The method eliminates the need to precompute a convex decomposition of the free space; when the environment changes, only the separating planes need to be recomputed on the fly around the current trajectory.
  • The tagging mechanism lets the trajectory escape poor initialization, cutting diagonally through a cluttered village despite a naive perimeter route, which a planner restricted to a fixed safe corridor cannot do.
  • On bin unloading, BMTP matches a strong decomposition-based baseline in solution quality and runtime while maintaining 100% success and collision-freedom across 300 randomized instances.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit consequence the paper does not draw out: the shared segment-duration formulation is what makes continuity constraints linear; allowing per-segment durations, which decomposition-based planners typically use, would reintroduce nonlinear equality constraints, so the uniform-timing assumption is a structural limit rather than a practical convenience.
  • The independence of plane-update subproblems across segment—obstacle pairs suggests a straightforward GPU parallelization, which could push the reported 188 ms computation time down further and make the method attractive for high-rate replanning; the paper only parallelizes the collision checker.
  • The same convexification could be applied to polish teleoperated demonstration trajectories: feeding a waypoint path through BMTP would tighten wide berths while preserving a user's rough route, potentially improving imitation-learning datasets without changing the policy class.
  • A testable extension would replace the conservative control-point bound on $v_{m,k}$ with sum-of-squares certification, which the paper notes is exact but currently too expensive; if the cost drops, the strict-margin assumption could be certified rather than left to the $10^{-6}$ margins.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents BMTP, a biconvex optimization approach for minimum-time trajectory planning around convex obstacles with derivative constraints of arbitrary order. The authors jointly convexify the minimum-time objective and derivative constraints via a change of variables (credited to [42]), reformulate collision avoidance through time-varying separating planes drawn from the polar of each obstacle, and alternate between a maximum-margin plane update and a convex trajectory update. A finite-dimensional implementation uses composite Bézier curves for the trajectory and the separating planes, with conservative control-point enforcement of separation and collisions. The paper claims a convergence guarantee and an anytime property under a feasibility assumption, and demonstrates the method in simulation and on hardware for a quadrotor village navigation task and a dual-arm bin-unloading task, comparing against a decomposition-based planner (EI+SCS) and a nonlinear-programming baseline. An open-source implementation is provided.

Significance. If the claims held, this would be a substantial advance: a decomposition-free, anytime planner with arbitrary-order derivative constraints, strong empirical robustness to initialization, open-source code, and hardware validation. The paper's derivations of the convexification (Lemma 1), the polar recipe (Appendix B), and the maximum-margin plane dual (Appendix D) are careful and largely correct, and the empirical evaluation is extensive (300 randomized instances plus hardware trials). The central theoretical guarantee, however, is not established for the implemented finite-dimensional algorithm, which is a load-bearing issue that affects the main claims in the abstract and Section I-C.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI-D, Sec. VII-D, App. D] The convergence proof in Sec. VI-D relies on the previous feasible trajectory remaining in the feasible set of the next trajectory update. The implemented trajectory update (Sec. VII-D, Eq. (13)) imposes v_{m,k}(s) <= -Delta_v with Delta_v = 1e-6, while App. D establishes only that, for a collision-free r, the surrogate (12) has optimal separation value 'nonpositive' (v <= 0), not v <= -Delta_v. If r passes within distance less than Delta_v of an obstacle, no unit-norm separating plane can satisfy (13), so the previous iterate leaves the feasible set and the monotone-duration argument collapses. The margin Delta_v is not a minor technicality: it is the entire slack between the proven statement and the required one.
  2. [Sec. VI-D, Sec. VII-C, Sec. IX(d)] The theorem in Sec. VI-D assumes the plane update is feasible for every non-colliding segment-obstacle pair, but the implemented plane update restricts the plane functions to fixed-degree Bézier curves (degree 1 in all experiments, Secs. VII-C and VIII). A collision-free curved segment need not be separable by a degree-1 plane function; for example, an arc around a disk requires the separating normal to rotate nonlinearly with s, so a restricted plane family can fail. App. D's assertion that the discrete program retains the feasibility property at v <= 0 is not proven and is false in general. The paper itself concedes in Sec. IX(d) that there is no principled way to select the plane degree. Hence the Sec. VI-D assumption is not established for the actual algorithm, and the unconditional 'guaranteed to converge' in the abstract overstates what is proved.
  3. [Sec. VI-D] The inner-loop termination bound ('at most KM attempts') assumes that once a pair (k,m) is tagged, the pair can never collide again. This property is a consequence of the same strict-separation guarantee that is missing in the finite-dimensional implementation; if a tagged pair re-collides, the bound no longer applies, and the anytime claim, which depends on monotone duration decrease, also fails. The proof should either be extended to the finite-dimensional setting or the statements in the abstract and Sec. I-C should be qualified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (5)] The notation T_I and the fractional exponent T_I^{i/I} is difficult to parse in the typeset text; please define T_I explicitly as the I-th power of T and use a clearer format.
  2. [Sec. VII-C] The sentence 'we split the plane update O_k into independent subproblems' should read 'we split the plane-update problem for obstacle O_k into independent subproblems.'
  3. [Sec. VIII-A, Table I] The reported FPP computation times should state explicitly whether the 1.64 s preprocessing cost is included; Table I currently lists times that appear to exclude it.
  4. [Sec. IX(d)] The limitation list does not mention the gap between the idealized convergence proof and the finite-dimensional plane update; adding a sentence acknowledging that the guarantee holds only under the Sec. VI-D feasibility assumption would improve accuracy.
  5. [App. D, after Eq. (16)] The sentence 'the constraint (16d) is redundant since there are no continuity constraints on (a,b)' is misleading for the finite-dimensional problem, where the restricted plane family couples the variables across s; please justify the redundancy by the pointwise optimality argument or remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the BMTP derivation is self-contained, and the convergence-to-implementation gap is a soundness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The convexification of the minimum-time objective and derivative constraints (Sec. IV) proceeds by the change of variables T_I = T^I, with Lemma 1 proved inside the paper and the technique explicitly credited to the external reference [42]; the polar reformulation (Sec. V) and the biconvex alternating procedure (Alg. 1) are derived from the problem statement rather than assumed. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: the plane updates and trajectory updates are optimization subproblems, and the reported durations are outputs of the algorithm, not calibrated quantities. The convergence guarantee (Sec. VI-D) is an internal theorem with an explicitly stated feasibility assumption on the plane update, and it is proved by monotone nonincrease of T and finite termination of obstacle-segment tagging; it does not assume the theorem's conclusion. The finite-dimensional implementation (Sec. VII-C, VII-D) introduces a genuine gap between the theorem's idealized plane update and the fixed-degree Bezier planes with Delta_v = 1e-6 margins, and Sec. IX openly concedes that there is no principled way to choose the plane degree; this is a correctness or assumption violation, not a circular argument. Self-citations to [3], [28], [29], and [37] are used as baselines, prior-art comparisons, or standard technical references, and none is load-bearing in the derivation: the polar-cone recipe is re-derived in App. B, and the convexification rests on external [42]. The experimental section reports results that flatter and undercut the method, including the FPP original schedule stalling at 25.78 s, so the evaluation is not circularly constructed to confirm the thesis.

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

The central claim depends on no fitted constants; the hand-chosen values are discretization and margin hyperparameters. The listed free parameters do not encode the target result, and the experimental claims are measurements, not predictions. The main load-bearing premises are the convexity of the scaled-derivative constraints (Lemma 1), the conic polar characterization, and the plane-update feasibility assumption that underlies the convergence proof; the last is the only premise close to ad hoc, and the paper argues it holds for collision-free inputs with a small formal gap at the Δ_v margin. No new physical entities are postulated; the separating planes and tagged-obstacle sets are decision variables and bookkeeping within the optimization, not entities requiring independent evidence.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of trajectory segments M = Village: 80 in Tab. I, from an 8-segment polygonal initialization; bin-unloading value not stated
    Discretization choice; the 8-to-80 relationship is explained only implicitly in Sec. VI-A, which affects reproducibility of the village timing.
  • Bézier degree D = 8 (village), 6 (bin unloading)
    Controls achievable derivative order and curvature; chosen by the authors per experiment.
  • Separating-plane degree = 1
    The paper states (Sec. IX(d)) there is no principled way to choose it; degree 1 worked across experiments.
  • Separation margins Δ_p and Δ_v = 1e-6 each
    Hand-chosen small margins; the convergence argument relies on strict separation being preserved across alternations.
  • Outer-loop convergence threshold = 1% relative cost change
    Stops the anytime loop; directly affects reported computation times and final durations.
  • Collision-checker tolerance ε = User-specified (Alg. 2)
    Controls conservativeness; can cause false-positive collision tags for near-miss trajectories.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Obstacles are convex, or exactly decomposed into convex pieces, with polars computable in conic form (Sec. II, App. B).
    The separating-plane and polar machinery requires convex O_k; the paper notes nonconvex obstacles must be decomposed or approximated as unions of convex sets.
  • ad hoc to paper A collision-free polygonal initialization is available (Sec. VI-A, Sec. IX(d)).
    The method refines an initial feasible path but does not find one; the paper concedes this in Sec. IX(d).
  • ad hoc to paper Plane update is feasible for every tagged segment-obstacle pair and preserves strict feasibility of the last feasible trajectory at margin Δ_v (Sec. VI-D, App. D).
    This is the load-bearing premise of the convergence proof; App. D argues it but proves only nonpositive separation, leaving a small formal gap.
  • standard math Lemma 1: perspective-scaled convex sets under concave scalings are convex (Sec. III).
    Proven in the paper using [43, Sec. 2.3.3]; verified correct.
  • standard math Polar of a conic-standard-form set is characterized by the dual cone conditions (App. B).
    Standard conic duality; derived in the appendix and cross-checked on the Euclidean ball example.
  • standard math Bézier curve convex-hull, derivative, summation, and multiplication properties (Sec. VII).
    Standard facts from [48], used to enforce constraints on whole spline segments via control points.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Biconvex Optimization for Smooth Minimum-Time Trajectories around Convex Obstacles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DQ7A3WT

@misc{pith2026260802834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Biconvex Optimization for Smooth Minimum-Time Trajectories around Convex Obstacles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DQ7A3WT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02834}
}
read the original abstract

We present a biconvex approach for minimum-time motion planning around convex obstacles that is guaranteed to converge, is anytime, and supports derivative constraints to arbitrary order. We jointly convexify the minimum-time objective and all derivative constraints through a change of variables, and handle collision avoidance via time-varying separating planes, reducing the problem to a biconvex program. This program is solved by alternating between computing maximum-margin separating planes and optimizing the trajectory. By only adding planes for obstacles that the current iterate collides with, the trajectory can jump around obstacles and escape local minima. The method is guaranteed to converge starting from a simple collision-free polygonal curve. In our experiments on drone navigation and dual-arm bin unloading, we find that the proposed method reliably produces high-quality trajectories with computation times comparable to state-of-the-art decomposition-based motion planners, while handling a larger class of problems and being substantially more robust to bad initialization. Project page:https://wernerpe.github.io/bmtp-website/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02834 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our biconvex minimum-time planner computes smooth trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A single alternation between the plane update (left) and the trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our BMTP applied to a 2D environment with four obstacles. The last feasible trajectory is shown in gray, infeasible intermediate iterates are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quadrotor trajectory through the village environment from [28]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Dual-arm bin unloading in task space. From left to right: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Timing breakdown of our BMTP approach and the EI+SCS baseline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Unloading task used to validate BMTP. Two Franka Research 3 manipulators are employed to unload four bricks from a common bin. The planner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hardware execution of the bin unloading problem with our BMTP approach. The two robot manipulators transfer all four bricks from the central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mean computation time breakdown for the hardware experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Time-optimal control of a multidimensional integrator chain with applications,

    M. Leomanni, G. Costante, and F. Ferrante, “Time-optimal control of a multidimensional integrator chain with applications,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 2371–2376, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Analysis and observations from the first Amazon picking challenge,

    N. Correll, K. E. Bekris, D. Berenson, O. Brock, A. Causo, K. Hauser, K. Okada, A. Rodriguez, J. M. Romano, and P. R. Wurman, “Analysis and observations from the first Amazon picking challenge,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 172–188, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Team delft’s robot winner of the amazon picking challenge 2016,

    C. Hernandez, M. Bharatheesha, W. Ko, H. Gaiser, J. Tan, K. van Deurzen, M. de Vries, B. Van Mil, J. van Egmond, R. Burgeret al., “Team delft’s robot winner of the amazon picking challenge 2016,” in Robot World Cup. Springer, 2016, pp. 613–624

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    A biconvex method for minimum-time motion planning through sequences of convex sets,

    T. Marcucci, M. Halm, W. Yang, D. Lee, and A. D. Marchese, “A biconvex method for minimum-time motion planning through sequences of convex sets,” inRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, S. Feng, E. Cousineau, Y . Du, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 10-11, pp. 1684–1704, 2025

    2025

  6. [5]

    π ∗ 0.6: a VLA that learns from experience,

    Physical Intelligence, A. Amin, R. Aniceto, A. Balakrishna, K. Black, K. Conley, G. Connors, J. Darpinian, K. Dhabalia, J. DiCarlo et al., “π ∗ 0.6: a VLA that learns from experience,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.14759, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    A careful exami- nation of large behavior models for multitask dexterous manipulation,

    J. Barreiros, A. Beaulieu, A. Bhat, R. Cory, E. Cousineau, H. Dai, C.-H. Fang, K. Hashimoto, M. Z. Irshad, M. Itkinaet al., “A careful exami- nation of large behavior models for multitask dexterous manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05331, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    RRT-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning,

    J. J. Kuffner and S. M. LaValle, “RRT-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning,” inProceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium conference. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Symposia proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065), vol. 2. IEEE, 2000, pp. 995–1001

    work page 2000

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

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

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

    1996

  2. [9]

    S. M. LaValle,Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2006

    2006

  3. [10]

    GPU-based parallel collision detection for fast motion planning,

    J. Pan and D. Manocha, “GPU-based parallel collision detection for fast motion planning,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 187–200, 2012

    2012

  4. [11]

    Motions in microsec- onds via vectorized sampling-based planning,

    W. Thomason, Z. Kingston, and L. E. Kavraki, “Motions in microsec- onds via vectorized sampling-based planning,” in2024 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 8749–8756

    2024

  5. [12]

    PRRTC: GPU- parallel RRT-connect for fast, consistent, and low-cost motion planning,

    C. H. Huang, P. Jadhav, B. Plancher, and Z. Kingston, “PRRTC: GPU- parallel RRT-connect for fast, consistent, and low-cost motion planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06757, 2025

    2025

  6. [13]

    Kinodynamic rrt*: Asymptotically optimal motion planning for robots with linear dynamics,

    D. J. Webb and J. Van Den Berg, “Kinodynamic rrt*: Asymptotically optimal motion planning for robots with linear dynamics,” in2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2013, pp. 5054–5061

    2013

  7. [14]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,”The international journal of robotics research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011. 13

    2011

  8. [15]

    Aorrtc: Almost-surely asymptotically optimal planning with rrt-connect,

    T. S. Wilson, W. Thomason, Z. Kingston, and J. D. Gammell, “Aorrtc: Almost-surely asymptotically optimal planning with rrt-connect,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  9. [16]

    Creating high-quality paths for motion planning,

    R. Geraerts and M. H. Overmars, “Creating high-quality paths for motion planning,”The international journal of robotics research, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 845–863, 2007

    2007

  10. [17]

    Fast smoothing of manipulator trajectories using optimal bounded-acceleration shortcuts,

    K. Hauser and V . Ng-Thow-Hing, “Fast smoothing of manipulator trajectories using optimal bounded-acceleration shortcuts,” in2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2010, pp. 2493–2498

    2010

  11. [18]

    Collision-free and smooth trajectory computation in cluttered environments,

    J. Pan, L. Zhang, and D. Manocha, “Collision-free and smooth trajectory computation in cluttered environments,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 1155–1175, 2012

    2012

  12. [19]

    A new approach to time-optimal path parameterization based on reachability analysis,

    H. Pham and Q.-C. Pham, “A new approach to time-optimal path parameterization based on reachability analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 645–659, 2018

    2018

  13. [20]

    Motion planning with sequential convex optimization and convex collision checking,

    J. Schulman, Y . Duan, J. Ho, A. Lee, I. Awwal, H. Bradlow, J. Pan, S. Patil, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Motion planning with sequential convex optimization and convex collision checking,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1251–1270, 2014

    2014

  14. [21]

    CHOMP: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning,

    N. Ratliff, M. Zucker, J. A. Bagnell, and S. Srinivasa, “CHOMP: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning,” in2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2009, pp. 489–494

    2009

  15. [22]

    Optimization-based collision avoidance,

    X. Zhang, A. Liniger, and F. Borrelli, “Optimization-based collision avoidance,”IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 972–983, 2020

    2020

  16. [23]

    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

  17. [24]

    CuRobo: Parallelized collision-free robot motion generation,

    B. Sundaralingam, S. K. S. Hari, A. Fishman, C. Garrett, K. Van Wyk, V . Blukis, A. Millane, H. Oleynikova, A. Handa, F. Ramoset al., “CuRobo: Parallelized collision-free robot motion generation,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 20...

    2023

  18. [25]

    Efficient mixed-integer planning for UA Vs in cluttered environments,

    R. Deits and R. Tedrake, “Efficient mixed-integer planning for UA Vs in cluttered environments,” in2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 42–49

    2015

  19. [26]

    Shortest paths in graphs of convex sets,

    T. Marcucci, J. Umenberger, P. Parrilo, and R. Tedrake, “Shortest paths in graphs of convex sets,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 507–532, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,

    T. Marcucci, M. Petersen, D. von Wrangel, and R. Tedrake, “Motion planning around obstacles with convex optimization,”Science robotics, vol. 8, no. 84, p. 7843, 2023

    2023

  21. [28]

    Fast path planning through large collections of safe boxes,

    T. Marcucci, P. Nobel, R. Tedrake, and S. Boyd, “Fast path planning through large collections of safe boxes,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 3795–3811, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    Superfast configuration-space convex set computation on gpus for online motion planning,

    P. Werner, R. Cheng, T. Stewart, R. Tedrake, and D. Rus, “Superfast configuration-space convex set computation on gpus for online motion planning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10783, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Online generation of collision-free trajectories for quadrotor flight in unknown cluttered environments,

    J. Chen, T. Liu, and S. Shen, “Online generation of collision-free trajectories for quadrotor flight in unknown cluttered environments,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1476–1483

    2016

  24. [31]

    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

  25. [32]

    Optimal convex cover as collision-free space approximation for trajectory generation,

    Y . Wu, I. Spasojevic, P. Chaudhari, and V . Kumar, “Optimal convex cover as collision-free space approximation for trajectory generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09631, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Implicit graph search for planning on graphs of convex sets,

    R. Natarajan, C. Liu, H. Choset, and M. Likhachev, “Implicit graph search for planning on graphs of convex sets,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08909, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    GCS*: Forward heuristic search on implicit graphs of convex sets,

    S. Y . C. Chia, R. H. Jiang, B. P. Graesdal, L. P. Kaelbling, and R. Tedrake, “GCS*: Forward heuristic search on implicit graphs of convex sets,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08848, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Mixed discrete and continuous planning using shortest walks in graphs of convex sets,

    S. Morozov, T. Marcucci, B. P. Graesdal, A. Amice, P. A. Parrilo, and R. Tedrake, “Mixed discrete and continuous planning using shortest walks in graphs of convex sets,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10878, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [36]

    A new semidefinite relaxation for linear and piecewise-affine optimal control with time scaling,

    L. Yang, T. Marcucci, P. A. Parrilo, and R. Tedrake, “A new semidefinite relaxation for linear and piecewise-affine optimal control with time scaling,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2025, pp. 9228–9235

    2025

  30. [37]

    Graphs of convex sets with applications to optimal control and motion planning,

    T. Marcucci, “Graphs of convex sets with applications to optimal control and motion planning,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2024

    2024

  31. [38]

    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

  32. [39]

    Approx- imating robot configuration spaces with few convex sets using clique covers of visibility graphs,

    P. Werner, A. Amice, T. Marcucci, D. Rus, and R. Tedrake, “Approx- imating robot configuration spaces with few convex sets using clique covers of visibility graphs,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 10 359–10 365

    2024

  33. [40]

    Faster algorithms for growing collision-free convex polytopes in robot configuration space,

    P. Werner, T. Cohn, R. H. Jiang, T. Seyde, M. Simchowitz, R. Tedrake, and D. Rus, “Faster algorithms for growing collision-free convex polytopes in robot configuration space,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, p. 02783649261436917, 2026

    2026

  34. [41]

    Certified polyhedral decompositions of collision-free configuration space,

    H. Dai, A. Amice, P. Werner, A. Zhang, and R. Tedrake, “Certified polyhedral decompositions of collision-free configuration space,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1322– 1341, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    Biconvex sets and optimiza- tion with biconvex functions: a survey and extensions,

    J. Gorski, F. Pfeuffer, and K. Klamroth, “Biconvex sets and optimiza- tion with biconvex functions: a survey and extensions,”Mathematical methods of operations research, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 373–407, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    Disciplined multi-convex programming,

    X. Shen, S. Diamond, M. Udell, Y . Gu, and S. Boyd, “Disciplined multi-convex programming,” in2017 29th Chinese control and decision conference (CCDC). IEEE, 2017, pp. 895–900

    2017

  38. [46]

    Variations and extension of the convex–concave procedure,

    T. Lipp and S. Boyd, “Variations and extension of the convex–concave procedure,”Optimization and Engineering, vol. 17, pp. 263–287, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    M. E. Flores,Real-time trajectory generation for constrained nonlinear dynamical systems using non-uniform rational b-spline basis functions. California Institute of Technology, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    Algorithms for polynomials in Bernstein form,

    R. T. Farouki and V . Rajan, “Algorithms for polynomials in Bernstein form,”Computer Aided Geometric Design, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–26, 1988

    1988

  41. [49]

    Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems,

    P. A. Parrilo, “Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems,”Mathematical programming, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 293–320, 2003

    2003

  42. [50]

    Discrete transforms, semidefinite pro- gramming, and sum-of-squares representations of nonnegative polyno- mials,

    T. Roh and L. Vandenberghe, “Discrete transforms, semidefinite pro- gramming, and sum-of-squares representations of nonnegative polyno- mials,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 939–964, 2006

    2006

  43. [51]

    Certifying bimanual RRT motion plans in a second,

    A. Amice, P. Werner, and R. Tedrake, “Certifying bimanual RRT motion plans in a second,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 9293–9299

    2024

  44. [52]

    Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,

    D. Mellinger and V . Kumar, “Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,” in2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 2011, pp. 2520–2525

    2011

  45. [53]

    Clarabel: An interior-point solver for conic programs with quadratic objectives,

    P. J. Goulart and Y . Chen, “Clarabel: An interior-point solver for conic programs with quadratic objectives,”Mathematical Programming Computation, pp. 1–83, 2026

    2026

  46. [54]

    SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization,

    P. E. Gill, W. Murray, and M. A. Saunders, “SNOPT: An SQP algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization,”SIAM review, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 99–131, 2005

    2005

  47. [55]

    Drake franka driver: Driver software for the franka robots,

    P. Werner, “Drake franka driver: Driver software for the franka robots,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/wernerpe/ drake-franka-driver/tree/feature/newbuildsystem

    2026

  48. [56]

    Drake: Model-based design and verification for robotics,

    R. Tedrake and the Drake Development Team, “Drake: Model-based design and verification for robotics,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://drake.mit.edu

    2019

  49. [57]

    Drake blender tools: Importing drake simulations into blender,

    N. Pfaff and P. Werner, “Drake blender tools: Importing drake simulations into blender,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ nepfaff/drake-blender-tools

    2025

  50. [58]

    Analytical inverse kinematics for Franka Emika Panda – a geometrical solver for 7-DOF manipulators with unconventional design,

    Y . He and S. Liu, “Analytical inverse kinematics for Franka Emika Panda – a geometrical solver for 7-DOF manipulators with unconventional design,” in2021 9th International Conference on Control, Mechatronics and Automation (ICCMA). IEEE, 2021. APPENDIX A. Nonconvexities in DB...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.