Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Socially Consistent Multi-Robot Navigation Using Decoupled Planning and Trajectory Coordination

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Encoding social conventions into global path planning reduces multi-robot collision avoidance to a small mixed-integer convex program whose cost grows with the number of encounter windows, not path resolution.

desk verdict A well-integrated systems framework that mostly delivers on its promise; the main caveats are a flawed A* optimality claim and an unquantified safety margin. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20772 v1 pith:3HUTVMAY submitted 2026-07-22 cs.RO

Matthew M. Sato , Kincho H. Law This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords socialnavigationmulti-robotcoordinationpathplanninggraphmixed-integerconvexprogrammingA*algorithmtrajectoryhuman-centricenvironments
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 argues that enforcing social conventions at the global path-planning stage — keeping right, avoiding weaving, leaving buffer room — turns the hard problem of coordinating a fleet of mobile robots into a small, fast optimization. The authors embed these norms into an A* cost function and have robots share their planned paths to build a 'social graph' of established routes, which makes future paths consistent and cheap to compute. Because socially consistent paths overlap only at predictable places — intersections, opposite-direction hallways, and same-direction lanes — the fleet's collision-avoidance constraints collapse to a set of 'encounter windows,' and a mixed-integer convex program assigns arrival times at these windows. The result is conflict-free trajectories whose solve time grows with the number of encounters, not path resolution, and the same formulation handles simultaneous, sequential, or partially fixed fleet planning. If the argument holds, social norms are not an extra burden on multi-robot navigation but a simplification that makes it scalable.

What carries the argument

The social graph: a directed subgraph built from directional heatmaps of previously planned paths, which biases future A* plans onto established lanes (via a small epsilon penalty for off-graph edges) and thereby concentrates potential conflicts at a few locations. On top of it, the mixed-integer convex program (MICP) defines event waypoints at the entry/exit of each 'encounter window' — the merged contiguous conflict segment between two robots — and uses Big-M disjunctive constraints with one binary variable per window to order robots through intersections and opposite-direction corridors, or to enforce leader-follower ordering in same-direction windows. The machinery works because the numb

What would settle it

Deliberately delay one robot by δ+0.5 seconds (or let its actual velocity deviate 20% from the interpolated constant between event waypoints) in simulation without replanning, and sample the minimum inter-robot distance; if it ever falls below the robot diameter, the constant-velocity-plus-δ assumption that underwrites the conflict-free guarantee is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that social conventions, far from complicating multi-robot navigation, reduce the space of possible robot-robot conflicts to a few discrete scenarios. With a keep-right cost function and a shared social graph of established lanes, overlapping paths concentrate at intersections, opposing-direction corridors, and same-direction routes. The paper encodes each overlap as an 'encounter window' with a single integer choice — who goes first, or who leads — and solves the resulting mixed-integer convex program over event-waypoint arrival times. The optimization is linear, uses one binary variable per encounter, and recovers full trajectories by constant-velocity interpolation be

Load-bearing premise

Between the sparse event waypoints each robot is assumed to move at constant velocity, and the fixed one-second time margin is relied on to absorb every localization, actuation, and tracking error; no bound is given for how large a deviation can be before the computed 'conflict-free' trajectories stop being safe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Robots that keep to a shared set of lanes overlap almost only at intersections and shared-direction pipes, so collision checks concentrate where conflicts are actually possible.
  • The trajectory coordinator's solve time stays near one second in simulations with growing fleet size, while centralized baselines time out at 120 seconds.
  • One MICP formulation covers dispatching a new robot into an active fleet, dispatching a whole fleet at once, or planning a subset around already-committed robots — only which variables are free changes.
  • Distributed constraint generation makes the collision-checking phase scale roughly linearly with robot count instead of quadratically.
  • In hardware experiments, head-on hallway traffic needs no coordination at all once social paths are used, because keep-right already separates the robots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the social cost is pluggable, the same decoupled architecture should transfer to left-hand-traffic or other cultural norms by swapping the cost terms; the encounter-window taxonomy would still apply.
  • The paper leaves safety margin δ hand-set; a natural extension is to bound the deviation from constant velocity and certify a δ that guarantees separation, rather than relying on replanning when the margin is exceeded.
  • The event-waypoint idea could be extended to moving humans by treating them as short-horizon 'robots' with uncertain windows, turning the MICP into a stochastic or robust formulation.
  • Learning the social graph from human trajectories instead of engineered costs is the paper's suggested next step; a concrete test is whether graph convergence time and path consistency change materially when costs are learned.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decoupled multi-robot navigation framework. A modified A* planner embeds macroscopic social norms (right-wall adherence, path constancy, and a buffer from the left wall) into the edge cost. Planned paths are shared to build a social graph that biases future planning, improving path consistency and reducing planning time. The structured paths are then used to formulate a mixed-integer convex program (MICP) over sparse event waypoints and encounter windows, producing conflict-free arrival times for intersection, opposite-direction, and same-direction encounters. The approach is evaluated in three simulated environments and on physical differential-drive robots in a building hallway and intersection scenarios, with comparisons to CBS and prioritized planning for coordination and to A*/RRT* for path planning.

Significance. If the framework performs as claimed, the contribution is a practical decomposition of social multi-robot navigation: global social path planning reduces the conflict space, and sparse event-waypoint scheduling allows coordination of large fleets with modest solve times. Strengths include the release of code and videos, a hardware demonstration, a distributed constraint-generation protocol, and an explicit taxonomy of encounter types. However, the validation and safety guarantees are not yet at the level needed to support the central claims: the social-compliance metric is optimized by construction, the A* optimality argument is not valid for the stated cost, and the conflict-free guarantee is conditional on unquantified execution assumptions.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.2.1, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The claim that the Manhattan heuristic is 'consistent and admissible, guaranteeing that A* finds the lowest cost path' is unjustified because C_const = d_right(x)-d_right(x') can be negative. The edge cost c(x',x) can therefore be less than the Euclidean distance and can even be negative. With negative edge costs, the Manhattan distance is not a lower bound on the remaining cost, and A*'s optimality guarantee does not hold. The authors should either restrict the social cost weights/domain so that c(x',x) >= ||x-x'||_2, or derive a valid admissible heuristic for the modified cost and state the resulting optimality guarantee.
  2. [4.1, Table 2] The headline metric 'mean right distance' is exactly the term C_right minimized in Eq. (3). The improvement shown in Table 2 (e.g., 8.31 vs 2.64 in Environment 1) is therefore an expected consequence of optimizing the same quantity, not an independent measure of social compliance. This circularity does not validate that the paths are socially acceptable to humans. The authors should validate with independent metrics (e.g., human trajectory data, proxemics studies, or a held-out social cost) or explicitly reframe Table 2 as a sanity check of the optimizer rather than as evidence of social compliance.
  3. [3.3.1 and 5.4, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The conflict-free claim is nominal: it holds only under the constant-velocity interpolation between event waypoints and assumes that the hand-set margin delta=1s absorbs all localization, actuation, and tracking error. No bound is derived for how large a delay or lateral drift can be before constraints (6)-(7) are violated. Section 5.4 acknowledges the fallback to sequential/unified replanning, but this means 'conflict-free trajectories' is not guaranteed for executed motion. Please quantify the allowable deviations or explicitly scope the claim to the nominal schedule rather than the executed motion.
  4. [3.3.2, Eq. (8)] The dynamic Big-M constant M = 2 * sum_{r} sum_k l_k^r / Vmax^r is not obviously a valid upper bound on arrival-time differences in all feasible schedules. If M is too small, an inactive disjunctive constraint in (6)-(7) can become active and cut off the true optimum, compromising the MICP's correctness. A proof that M is a horizon bound under the SOC objective, or a more conservative choice of M, is required.
minor comments (6)
  1. [3.2.1, Eq. (3)] C_const = d_right(x) - d_right(x') is signed; the text says it 'penalizes changes' but a negative value would reward moving away from the right wall. Consider using an absolute value or explicitly explaining the intended asymmetry.
  2. [4.3.2] CBS and PP are run on a 4x-downsampled map while the proposed method uses the full-resolution map. This discrepancy should be discussed when comparing solve times and success rates, as it affects the fairness of the comparison.
  3. [Table 2] The social planner computation times (20-57 s) are large. Section 4.2 shows that the social graph reduces planning time, but it would be helpful to report end-to-end times that include graph construction and planning with the biased cost.
  4. [Figures 14, 15] The figures would be clearer with time-stamped trajectory overlays or explicit reference to the videos in the repository, so that the collision-free behavior can be verified.
  5. [References] Several references are dated 2025-2026 (e.g., [17], [18], [23]). Please verify all citations are to published or otherwise available works.
  6. [3.3.3] The acronym SOC is used for 'sum of completion' times; please spell it out at first use to avoid ambiguity with other common meanings.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Social-compliance evaluation is circular: the Table 2 'Mean Right Distance' metric is the same d_right term minimized in Eq. 3; MICP coordination and scalability results are not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2.1 (Eq. 3) and Section 4.1 (Table 2)]
    "C_right(x) enforces a keep-right behavior. The cost can be defined as the distance to the nearest obstacle on the right, d_right(x). For example, C_right(x) = d_right(x) penalizes any path far from the right wall. ... We measure three metrics: total path length (efficiency), average distance to the right-hand wall (social compliance), and computation time."

    Eqs. (2) and (3) put w_right * C_right = w_right * d_right(x) directly into the A* edge cost, so the planner is explicitly minimizing the mean distance to the right wall. Reporting that same d_right average as 'social compliance' in Table 2 is therefore an objective trace rather than an independent validation: lower values are guaranteed in the direction of the cost, with the magnitude controlled by the hand-chosen weight w_right. This does not invalidate the MICP coordination or scalability results, which rest on the collision-avoidance constraints (5)-(7).

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain for trajectory coordination is self-contained: the MICP constraints (5)-(7) directly encode speed limits and encounter-window ordering, and the recovered piecewise-constant velocity trajectories inherit the separation guarantees under the stated constant-velocity assumption. The hand-set margin delta=1s is an unquantified robustness assumption about tracking and localization error, but that is a correctness/robustness weakness, not circularity. The social graph is self-reinforcing by design because it aggregates paths produced by the same biased planner and Eq. (4) then rewards graph edges, but the paper presents this as a mechanism, not as an independent prediction, and the measured planning speedup is a computational effect. The only step that reduces to its own input is the social-compliance evaluation: the evaluation metric 'average distance to the right-hand wall' is exactly the C_right term minimized in Eq. (3), so the Table 2 compliance improvement is partly by construction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain in the paper; references are standard external works. Overall, the central coordination claim has independent content, but one headline validation metric is tautological, giving a partial circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on several environment and controller assumptions rather than deriving them: a static known map, homogeneous point robots, piecewise constant velocity with a hand-set safety margin, and standard A* optimality. The social cost weights and safety margins are hand-chosen, and two social-graph thresholds are left unspecified. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • w_right = 1.0
    Hand-chosen social cost weight for keep-right behavior; no tuning procedure or sensitivity analysis reported.
  • w_const = 2.0
    Hand-chosen weight for path smoothness; interacts with C_const, which can produce negative edge costs.
  • w_buf = 5.0
    Hand-chosen weight for buffer-keeping in open areas.
  • d_buf = 4.0 m
    Buffer threshold chosen by hand; larger than robot diameter per text.
  • epsilon = 0.01
    Small penalty for deviating from the learned social graph; text says it 'must be carefully selected'.
  • delta = 1 s
    Time safety margin chosen by hand; the collision-free guarantee depends on it absorbing tracking errors.
  • social graph heatmap threshold
    Threshold for adding an edge to the social graph; value is never reported.
  • social graph minimum component size
    Pruning parameter for discarding small weakly connected components; value is never reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The environment is a known, static 2D occupancy grid constructed a priori by SLAM.
    Section 3.1 assumes a static map; dynamic objects are only handled as temporary overlays, so global paths and social graph validity rest on this.
  • domain assumption Mobile robots can be treated as homogeneous point masses after C-space inflation by robot radius.
    Section 3.1; if robots have different sizes or non-circular shapes, the pair-wise distance-based encounter detection and collision constraints may need revision.
  • domain assumption Between event waypoints each robot travels at constant velocity, and the safety margin delta absorbs all tracking deviations.
    Sections 3.3.1 and 5.4; no formal bound on localization or actuation error is derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The Manhattan heuristic remains admissible and consistent for the modified A* edge costs.
    Section 3.2.1; standard A* optimality requires nonnegative edge costs, but Eq. 3 can be negative via C_const, so this assumption is not established.
  • domain assumption Communication latency is negligible compared to constraint-generation computation.
    Section 3.4.2; measured as <100 ms vs >200 ms per pair in Section 5.3, but the distributed protocol assumes this holds generally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Socially Consistent Multi-Robot Navigation Using Decoupled Planning and Trajectory Coordination." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HUTVMAY

@misc{pith2026260720772,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Socially Consistent Multi-Robot Navigation Using Decoupled Planning and Trajectory Coordination},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HUTVMAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20772}
}
read the original abstract

The successful integration of mobile robots in human-centric environments requires navigation that is not only safe and efficient, but also predictable and aligned with social conventions, key precursors for human comfort and acceptance. While significant research addresses short-term human-aware planning, these methods often lack mechanisms for ensuring consistent and predictable behaviors across long horizons. Without socially aware long-term planners, local planners are overburdened, resulting in inefficient and locally reactive movements that undermine predictability. This paper introduces a partially decentralized framework that generates predictable and socially consistent multi-robot motion by decoupling global path planning from trajectory coordination. First, we propose a modified A* planner that embeds macroscopic social norms into the planner cost function. Planned paths are shared across mobile robots to collaboratively build a social graph of established routes, which enforces path consistency and reduces future planning effort. Second, we leverage the emergent structure of the socially constrained paths to formulate the multi-robot trajectory coordination problem as a mixed-integer convex program. The convex program enables efficient computation of conflict- free trajectories, scaling effectively to large fleets and supporting dynamic task assignment. Our results demonstrate that enforcing social consistency at the path planning stage produces predictable, socially compliant mobile robot paths and simplifies the otherwise complex problem of multi-robot coordination.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Safety concerns emerging from robots navigating in crowded pedestrian areas,

    P. Salvini, D. Paez -Granados, and A. Billard, “Safety concerns emerging from robots navigating in crowded pedestrian areas,” Int J of Soc Robotics , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 441 –462, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12369-021-00796-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-021-00796-4 2022

  2. [2]

    Human-aware robot navigation: A survey,

    T. Kruse, A. K. Pandey, R. Alami, and A. Kirsch, “Human-aware robot navigation: A survey,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 1726 –1743, Dec. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.robot.2013.05.007

    doi:10.1016/j.robot.2013.05.007 2013

  3. [3]

    Conflict-based search for optimal multi- agent pathfinding,

    G. Sharon, R. Stern, A. Felner, and N. R. Sturtevant, “Conflict-based search for optimal multi- agent pathfinding,” Artificial Intelligence , vol. 219, pp. 40 –66, Feb. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2014.11.006

    doi:10.1016/j.artint.2014.11.006 2015

  4. [4]

    Prioritized motion planning for multiple robots,

    J. P. van den Berg and M. H. Overmars, “Prioritized motion planning for multiple robots,” in 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Aug. 2005, pp. 430–435. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2005.1545306

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Reciprocal n-body collision avoidance,

    J. van den Berg, S. J. Guy, M. Lin, and D. Manocha, “Reciprocal n-body collision avoidance,” in Robotics Research, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2011, pp. 3–19. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642- 19457-3_1

    doi:10.1007/978-3-642- 2011

  6. [6]

    How robots influence humans: a survey of nonverbal communication in social human–robot interaction,

    S. Saunderson and G. Nejat, “How robots influence humans: a survey of nonverbal communication in social human–robot interaction,” Int J of Soc Robotics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 575–608, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s12369-019-00523-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-019-00523-0 2019

  7. [7]

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

    P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100–107, Jul. 1968, doi: 10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136

    arXiv 1968

  8. [8]

    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, Jun. 2011, doi: 10.1177/0278364911406761

    doi:10.1177/0278364911406761 2011

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

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

    L. E. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J.-C. Latombe, and M. H. Overmars, “Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 566–580, Aug. 1996, doi: 10.1109/70.508439

    1996 doi

  2. [10]

    Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multiple non -holonomic robots,

    J. Alonso -Mora, A. Breitenmoser, M. Rufli, P. Beardsley, and R. Siegwart, “Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multiple non -holonomic robots,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems: The 10th International Symposium , Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, pp. 203–216...

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Proxemics,

    E. T. Hall et al., “Proxemics,” Current Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 2/3, pp. 83–108, Apr. 1968, doi: 10.1086/200975

    1968 doi

  4. [12]

    Social force model for pedestrian dynamics,

    D. Helbing and P. Molnár, “Social force model for pedestrian dynamics,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 4282–4286, May 1995, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.51.4282

    1995 doi

  5. [13]

    Mobile robot navigation for human-robot social interaction,

    P. Patompak, S. Jeong, N. Y . Chong, and I. Nilkhamhang, “Mobile robot navigation for human-robot social interaction,” in 2016 16th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS) , Oct. 2016, pp. 1298 –1303. doi: 10.1109/ICCAS.2016.7832481

    2016

  6. [14]

    Human -aware motion planning based on search and sampling approach,

    R. C. Luo and C. Huang, “Human -aware motion planning based on search and sampling approach,” in 2016 IEEE Workshop on Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO) , Jul. 2016, pp. 226–231. doi: 10.1109/ARSO.2016.7736286

    2016

  7. [15]

    COMPANION: a constraint -optimizing method for person-acceptable navigation,

    R. Kirby, R. Simmons, and J. Forlizzi, “COMPANION: a constraint -optimizing method for person-acceptable navigation,” in RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium 35 on Robot and Human Interactive Communication , Sep. 2009, pp. 607 –612. doi: 10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326271

    2009

  8. [16]

    Safe mobile robot navigation in human-centered environments using a heat map-based path planner,

    A. Ravankar, A. A. Ravankar, Y . Hoshino, M. Watanabe, and Y . Kobayashi, “Safe mobile robot navigation in human-centered environments using a heat map-based path planner,” Artif Life Robotics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 264–272, May 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10015-020-00591-w

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    PF-TEB: timed elastic band-based human- aware robot navigation framework in crowded environments,

    W. Yan, L. He, H. Wang, Z. Liu, Z. Li, and Y . Du, “PF-TEB: timed elastic band-based human- aware robot navigation framework in crowded environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 12157 –12164, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.1109/LRA.2025.3620621

    2025

  10. [18]

    Social elastic band with prediction and anticipation: enhancing real -time path trajectory optimization for socially aware robot navigation,

    G. Pérez, N. Zapata -Cornejo, P. Bustos, and P. Núñez, “Social elastic band with prediction and anticipation: enhancing real -time path trajectory optimization for socially aware robot navigation,” Int J of Soc Robotics , vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 2041 –2063, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.100...

    doi

  11. [19]

    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,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , Sep. 2021, pp. 5817 –5824. doi: 10.1109/IROS51168.2021.9636613

    2021

  12. [20]

    Socially adaptive path planning in human environments using inverse reinforcement learning,

    B. Kim and J. Pineau, “Socially adaptive path planning in human environments using inverse reinforcement learning,” Int J of Soc Robotics , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 51 –66, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s12369-015-0310-2

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Socially aware motion planning with deep reinforcement learning,

    Y . F. Chen, M. Everett, M. Liu, and J. P. How, “Socially aware motion planning with deep reinforcement learning,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Sep. 2017, pp. 1343–1350. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2017.8202312

    2017

  14. [22]

    Crowd -robot interaction: crowd -aware robot navigation with attention -based deep reinforcement learning,

    C. Chen, Y . Liu, S. Kreiss, and A. Alahi, “Crowd -robot interaction: crowd -aware robot navigation with attention -based deep reinforcement learning,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2019, pp. 6015 –6022. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2019.8794134

    2019

  15. [23]

    Socially aware navigation for mobile robots: a survey on deep reinforcement learning approaches,

    I. K. Kabir and M. F. Mysorewala, “Socially aware navigation for mobile robots: a survey on deep reinforcement learning approaches,” Appl Intell, vol. 56, no. 1, p. 38, Jan. 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10489-025-06982-5

    2026 doi

  16. [24]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I,

    H. Durrant -Whyte and T. Bailey, “Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 99 –110, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1109/MRA.2006.1638022

    2006 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Spatial planning: a configuration space approach,

    Lozano-Perez, “Spatial planning: a configuration space approach,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C–32, no. 2, pp. 108–120, Feb. 1983, doi: 10.1109/TC.1983.1676196

    1983

  18. [26]

    Boyd and L

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

    2004

  19. [27]

    G. L. Nemhauser and L. A. Wolsey, Integer and combinatorial optimization . New York ; Chichester : Wiley, 1999. doi: 10.1002/9781118627372

    1999 doi

  20. [28]

    OMG Data -Distribution Service: architectural overview,

    G. Pardo -Castellote, “OMG Data -Distribution Service: architectural overview,” in 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2003 , May 2003, pp. 200–206. doi: 10.1109/ICDCSW.2003.1203555

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System,

    M. Quigley et al., “ROS: an open-source Robot Operating System,” in Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Kobe, Japan, May 2009

    2009

  22. [30]

    Improved techniques for grid mapping with rao- blackwellized particle filters,

    G. Grisetti, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Improved techniques for grid mapping with rao- blackwellized particle filters,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 34–46, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2006.889486. 36

    2007

  23. [31]

    Thrun 1967 -, W

    S. Thrun 1967 -, W. Burgard, and D. Fox, Probabilistic robotics . Massachusetts, United States: Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 2005

    1967

  24. [32]

    ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems,

    A. Domahidi, E. Chu, and S. Boyd, “ECOS: An SOCP solver for embedded systems,” in 2013 European Control Conference (ECC) , Jul. 2013, pp. 3071 –3076. doi: 10.23919/ECC.2013.6669541. 37 FIGURES Figure 1: Many path planners optimize for the shortest route. In this paper, we aim ...

    2013

  25. [33]

    initialize priority queue open_set and empty set closed_set

  26. [34]

    add x_init to open_set, initialize g[x_init] := 0

  27. [35]

    while open_set is not empty:

  28. [36]

    x_current := x with smallest priority, p, from open_set

  29. [37]

    if x_current = x_goal → return

  30. [38]

    move x_current from open_set to closed_set

  31. [39]

    for each x_neigh in neighborhood of x_current:

  32. [40]

    if x_neigh in closed_set → continue

  33. [41]

    new_g := g[x_current] + c[x_current, x_neigh]

  34. [42]

    add x_neigh to open_set with priority new_g + h[x_neigh]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.