Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

pc-dbCBS: Kinodynamic Motion Planning of Physically-Coupled Robot Teams

T0 review · 2 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 A new planner, pc-dbCBS, extends conflict-based search to physically-coupled robot teams and claims the same completeness and optimality guarantees as the uncoupled version.

desk verdict A genuinely new and well-tested algorithm for physically-coupled multi-robot planning, but the inherited completeness/optimality claim does not follow as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10355 v1 pith:3PCTV3E4 submitted 2025-05-15 cs.RO cs.MAcs.SYeess.SY

Khaled Wahba , Wolfgang Hönig This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.MAcs.SYeess.SY
keywords multi-robotmotionplanningkinodynamicconflict-basedsearchphysicalcouplingcable-suspendedpayloadrigidrodsanytimeasymptoticoptimality
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 claims that conflict-based search can be extended to robot teams physically coupled by rigid connections, such as cables or rods, without losing the guarantees of the underlying planner. The method, pc-dbCBS, adds a tri-level conflict resolution layer that detects inter-robot collisions, violations of the coupling constraints, and collisions between coupling elements and obstacles, and it alternates between a stacked state representation for discrete search and a minimal representation for trajectory optimization. If correct, this gives a kinodynamic planner for physically-coupled teams that is probabilistically complete and asymptotically optimal while using only single-robot motion primitives. The empirical work reports that it solves substantially more benchmark instances than the comparison baseline, with faster trajectories and an order-of-magnitude reduction in planning time.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a tri-level conflict detection and resolution loop mounted on db-CBS: first robot-robot collisions, then physical coupling violations of the form |l_c - l| > δ, then collisions between coupling elements and the environment, each checked over the full horizon. Coupling conflicts are resolved by adding a single random single-robot constraint rather than branching over all robots. The other key idea is state-representation alternation: discrete search runs in the stacked state space using precomputed single-robot motion primitives, while trajectory optimization runs in a minimal representation obtained from a local mapping of the constraint set; optimized trajectories are converted back into primitives for the next iteration. This alternation is what lets the claim of inherited asymptotic optimality rest on the unmodified outer-loop structure of db-CBS.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a small symmetric rigid-rod or cable-payload instance where at the only bottleneck exactly one robot can yield a feasible coupling, while the random constraint selection repeatedly constrains that robot; if the inner search then returns no solution for many outer-loop iterations even as δ shrinks and the library grows, the claim that no solution trajectory is pruned would be directly challenged. More sharply, track the discrete optimum c_n over iterations: for asymptotic optimality to hold, c_n must converge to c*; any instance where c_n stalls strictly above c* while the argument's premises hold would falsify the transfer of Theorem 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

pc-dbCBS claims to preserve the probabilistic completeness and asymptotic optimality of db-CBS when robots are rigidly coupled: because the outer anytime loop, which shrinks the discontinuity bound δ and grows the motion primitive library, is unchanged, the same proof as in [6, Theorem 1] is argued to transfer despite intentional violations of CBS assumptions inside the inner loop. The inner loop resolves three conflict types hierarchically, first robot-robot collisions, then physical coupling violations, then coupling-element-obstacle collisions, and for a coupling violation it adds only a single randomly chosen robot constraint to the open list rather than branching over all robots. The system maps the stacked discrete solution to a minimal-coordinate representation, refines it with trajectory optimization, then converts optimized trajectories back into single-robot primitives for the next iteration. The paper reports that on 25 simulated and six real-world problems, this yields higher success rates, 50-60% faster trajectories, and lower energy use than the state-of-the-art baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the modified inner loop, which checks conflict types over the whole horizon and adds only one random single-robot constraint per coupling violation, never permanently removes a trajectory that could lead to a solution, so the unmodified db-CBS optimality proof still applies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the outer loop is the same as in db-CBS, the asymptotic-optimality argument transfers, so given enough iterations the plan cost converges to the optimal cost of the original problem.
  • Only single-robot motion primitives are needed, so the planner avoids building a primitive library for the high-dimensional coupled system.
  • The anytime structure returns a usable solution early and refines it as δ shrinks, which is what lets the planner report fast first solutions.
  • Any rigidly coupled team whose constraint set admits a local minimal-coordinate map falls in scope, not just the two tested embodiments.
  • Using the same trajectory optimization step as the baseline, the comparison shows pc-dbCBS trajectories are faster and use less energy, implying that the discrete-level coupling reasoning leads to more agile plans.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the random single-robot constraint per coupling conflict turns the inner search into a randomized procedure; if a particular constraint choice prunes the only feasible branch, the outer loop's restarts should eventually recover, but convergence may be slow on asymmetric problems.
  • Inference: the same conflict-style treatment of coupling suggests a direct extension to soft or elastic couplings, where the constraint is an inequality tolerance rather than a fixed length.
  • Inference: one testable extension is to compare random constraint selection against selecting the robot with the largest coupling violation; the paper's theoretical argument does not predict which heuristic is better.
  • Inference: because coupling-element collisions are only checked after coupling constraints are resolved and are not reciprocally considered as constraints on the payload estimate, instances with very tight cable-obstacle gaps may need the outer loop to compensate.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes pc-dbCBS, a kinodynamic motion planner for rigidly coupled multi-robot teams. It extends db-CBS with a tri-level conflict detection and resolution framework: inter-robot collisions, physical-coupling violations, and collisions of coupling elements with the environment. The algorithm alternates between a stacked state space for discrete search over single-robot motion primitives and a minimal representation for trajectory optimization. The paper claims probabilistic completeness, asymptotic optimality, and anytime operation, and validates the approach on two platforms (unicycles with rigid rods and multirotors with cable-suspended payloads) in simulation and real experiments, reporting higher success rates and lower trajectory cost and planning time than a baseline from the authors' prior work.

Significance. If the theoretical guarantees were substantiated, this would be a significant contribution: it would be the first kinodynamic planner for physically coupled robot teams to retain CBS-style completeness and asymptotic optimality while relying only on single-robot motion primitives. The empirical work is a genuine strength: 25 simulated instances with 10 trials each, six real-robot scenarios, and planned code release. However, the central theoretical claim is not established, and the paper's own admissions in Section IV-D undermine the guarantee transfer that the title and abstract emphasize. The practical planner may still be useful, but the formal contribution needs either a complete proof for the modified algorithm or a weakened statement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV-D] The claim that pc-dbCBS 'inherits the probabilistic completeness and asymptotic optimality of db-CBS [6, Theorem 1]' is not supported. The proof of [6, Theorem 1] requires that, at each outer iteration, the discrete search returns the optimal δ-discrete solution if one exists, which in CBS requires expanding all disjunctive branches of a conflict and resolving conflicts in chronological order. The authors explicitly concede that their inner loop violates both assumptions: ResolvePhysicalConstraint adds only a randomly chosen single constraint, and the hierarchical checks in Lines 9-11 resolve conflicts by type over the whole horizon rather than by time. The statement in Section IV-D that 'the discrete search does not deterministically prune potential solution trajectories' is precisely the missing lemma; no proof or formal argument is given. Consequently, Eq. (26) does not follow from the cited theorem, and the paper's central theoretical claim remains unproven.
  2. [Algorithm 1, Lines 13-18 (ResolvePhysicalConstraint)] The single-random-constraint rule can prune the only feasible branch. If the random choice lands on a robot that cannot be part of any feasible resolution (e.g., in the unicycle-with-rods case, constraining a robot that is already at its actuation limit while the other robot must compensate), the inner search returns infeasible even though a feasible trajectory exists for the given δ. The paper acknowledges 'some theoretical drawbacks' (Section IV-A.2) but does not prove that repeated outer-loop randomizations recover the optimal solution with probability one at the required rate. This is not a cosmetic issue: the proof of asymptotic optimality relies on each inner iteration producing the optimal discrete solution, and a single random branch does not ensure that.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-A.3] The use of 'anytime' is nonstandard: an anytime algorithm should be interruptible and return a valid solution at any point, but pc-dbCBS returns a solution only after a full outer-loop iteration. The paper acknowledges the exception but then claims the formal anytime properties are maintained; this should be clarified or the terminology changed.
  2. [Abstract, Section V-B, conclusion] The reported improvements are inconsistent: the abstract says '50-60% faster' trajectories and 'an order of magnitude' planning-time reduction; Section V-B says '60% lower cost' and '50% faster'; the conclusion says '50-60% lower cost' and 'energy consumption reduced to 10-40%'; physical experiments report '50% less energy'. These numbers should be reconciled and reported consistently.
  3. [Table I] The table formatting is garbled, with multiple numbers appearing in single cells (e.g., '350.7 0.1 5.2 1.4 364.8 2.6'). This makes the results difficult to read and should be reformatted into clearly separated subcolumns per environment and method.
  4. [Section IV-D] The sentence 'These changes might result producing near-optimal results' contains a grammatical error; it should be 'might result in'.
  5. [Section I, introduction] The claim 'this is the first work to offer this combination of simplicity, strong theoretical guarantees, and superior performance in the physically-coupled systems domain' is strong and not substantiated by the subsequent analysis; it should be softened or supported with a more comprehensive comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the claimed db-CBS guarantee inheritance is an unsupported proof transfer, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claim is stated in Section IV-D: "pc-dbCBS inherits the probabilistic completeness and asymptotic optimality of db-CBS [6, Theorem 1]" and "the same argument of the proof as in [6, Theorem 1] still holds with the highlighted changes in Algorithm 1, because the outer-loop (Lines 1 to 5) is unchanged." This is a self-citation that is load-bearing, but it is not circular: [6, Theorem 1] is a prior theorem about db-CBS, not about pc-dbCBS, and the paper does not define pc-dbCBS's guarantee to be the theorem's conclusion. The transfer is instead asserted rather than derived. The paper itself flags the gap: "the inner loop Lines 6 to 12 of our proposed algorithm violates some key assumptions of CBS: i) for completeness, all possible alternatives need to be considered in the open list (which we violate in ResolvePhysicalConstraints by only including a randomly-picked single new entry); and ii) for optimality, we need to resolve conflicts in the order of their occurrence in time (which we violate using our hierarchical approach)." The only bridge is the unproved assertion "the discrete search does not deterministically prune potential solution trajectories." To make Eq. (26) follow, one would need a new proof that every feasible discrete solution remains reachable despite the single-random-constraint rule; that is a soundness gap, not an equivalence-by-construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed: the projection onto minimal coordinates is inspired by an external reference [23], and the motion primitives are precomputed single-robot primitives. The empirical evaluation runs the planner against a baseline, so the performance claims do not reduce to the cited theorems. Overall, no circular step is exhibited; the score reflects the load-bearing self-citation and the missing proof, not circular reasoning.

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

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about rigid coupling and smooth dynamics, and most heavily on the unproved transfer of db-CBS's theorem to a modified inner loop. The empirical comparison depends on hand-picked cost weights and tolerances that are not fully specified.

free parameters (4)
  • delta tolerance (discontinuity bound)
    Decreased over outer-loop iterations; solution quality, conflict tolerance, and the claimed completeness arguments depend on it.
  • beta1 and beta2 cost weights
    Weights in the trajectory optimization cost (Eq. 10) balancing control effort and smoothness; no values are provided.
  • mu and lambda estimation weights
    Weights in the payload position estimation cost (Eq. 23); no values are provided.
  • motion primitive growth and sampling rate
    The anytime loop adds primitives at a 'predefined rate' that is never specified, and this rate affects solution quality and runtime.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The coupling constraint set {x | g(x) = 0} admits a local mapping Phi: X_m -> X with minimal coordinates.
    Section III states this to justify optimization in minimal coordinates; the mapping is assumed, not constructed.
  • domain assumption The Jacobian of f with respect to x and u is available.
    Section III: 'we assume that the Jacobian of f with respect to x and u is available.'
  • domain assumption Cables are modeled as rigid rods of fixed length.
    Section III-B uses the constraint ||p0 - pi|| - li = 0, ignoring cable elasticity, sag, and variable tension.
  • standard math The projection in Eq. (17) requires A to have full row rank and B to be invertible.
    Eq. (17) uses A^+ = A^T(A A^T)^-1, which requires A A^T to be invertible; the paper does not discuss the rank condition.
  • ad hoc to paper db-CBS Theorem 1 remains valid for the modified algorithm despite admitted violations of CBS assumptions.
    Section IV-D asserts that the proof still holds after listing two violations: not all alternatives are added to the open list, and conflicts are not resolved in time order.
  • ad hoc to paper Randomly picking one robot to constrain in ResolvePhysicalConstraint does not prune feasible trajectories.
    Algorithm 1 Line 17 and Section IV-D; this premise is required for the completeness and optimality claim and is asserted rather than proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of pc-dbCBS: Kinodynamic Motion Planning of Physically-Coupled Robot Teams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PCTV3E4

@misc{pith2026250510355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: pc-dbCBS: Kinodynamic Motion Planning of Physically-Coupled Robot Teams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PCTV3E4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10355}
}
read the original abstract

Motion planning problems for physically-coupled multi-robot systems in cluttered environments are challenging due to their high dimensionality. Existing methods combining sampling-based planners with trajectory optimization produce suboptimal results and lack theoretical guarantees. We propose Physically-coupled discontinuity-bounded Conflict-Based Search (pc-dbCBS), an anytime kinodynamic motion planner, that extends discontinuity-bounded CBS to rigidly-coupled systems. Our approach proposes a tri-level conflict detection and resolution framework that includes the physical coupling between the robots. Moreover, pc-dbCBS alternates iteratively between state space representations, thereby preserving probabilistic completeness and asymptotic optimality while relying only on single-robot motion primitives. Across 25 simulated and six real-world problems involving multirotors carrying a cable-suspended payload and differential-drive robots linked by rigid rods, pc-dbCBS solves up to 92% more instances than a state-of-the-art baseline and plans trajectories that are 50-60% faster while reducing planning time by an order of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10355 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Real experiments validation scenarios. Left: Three multirotors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation environments from left to right: window (5 multirotors), forest (4 multirotors), wall (3 unicycles), window (4 unicycles). Note that the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Anytime planning of pc-dbCBS for three different example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. CrazyMARL: Decentralized Direct Motor Control Policies for Cooperative Aerial Transport of Cable-Suspended Payloads

    cs.RO 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A decentralized reinforcement learning controller with direct motor commands lets teams of drones carry cable-suspended payloads, recover from harsh disturbances, and transfer from simulation to real Crazyflie hardware.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dynamics, control and planning for cooperative manipulation of payloads suspended by cables from multiple quadrotor robots,

    K. Sreenath and V . Kumar, “Dynamics, control and planning for cooperative manipulation of payloads suspended by cables from multiple quadrotor robots,” in Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Motion planning for multi-mobile- manipulator payload transport systems,

    R. Tallamraju, D. H. Salunkhe, S. Rajappa, A. Ahmad, K. Kar- lapalem, and S. V . Shah, “Motion planning for multi-mobile- manipulator payload transport systems,” in Int. Conf. on Aut. Sc. and Eng. (CASE) , 2019, pp. 1469–1474

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Nonlinear MPC for full-pose manipulation of a cable-suspended load using multiple UA Vs,

    S. Sun and A. Franchi, “Nonlinear MPC for full-pose manipulation of a cable-suspended load using multiple UA Vs,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Unmanned Aircraft Systems , 2023, pp. 969–975

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Nonlinear model predictive control for cooperative transportation and manipulation of cable suspended payloads with multiple quadrotors,

    G. Li and G. Loianno, “Nonlinear model predictive control for cooperative transportation and manipulation of cable suspended payloads with multiple quadrotors,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2023, pp. 5034–5041

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Kinodynamic motion planning for a team of multirotors transporting a cable- suspended payload in cluttered environments,

    K. Wahba, J. Ortiz-Haro, M. Toussaint, and W. H ¨onig, “Kinodynamic motion planning for a team of multirotors transporting a cable- suspended payload in cluttered environments,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2024, pp. 12 750–12 757

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    db- CBS: Discontinuity-bounded conflict-based search for multi-robot kinodynamic motion planning,

    A. Moldagalieva, J. Ortiz-Haro, M. Toussaint, and W. H ¨onig, “db- CBS: Discontinuity-bounded conflict-based search for multi-robot kinodynamic motion planning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., 2024, pp. 14 569–14 575

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Shared control of robot-robot collaborative lifting with agent postural and force ergonomic optimization,

    L. Rapetti, Y . Tirupachuri, A. Ranavolo, T. Kawakami, T. Yoshiike, and D. Pucci, “Shared control of robot-robot collaborative lifting with agent postural and force ergonomic optimization,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2021, pp. 9840–9847

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Toward physical human- robot interaction control with aerial manipulators: Compliance, re- dundancy resolution, and input limits,

    A. Afifi, M. van Holland, and A. Franchi, “Toward physical human- robot interaction control with aerial manipulators: Compliance, re- dundancy resolution, and input limits,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., 2022, pp. 4855–4861

    work page 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Geranos: A novel tilted-rotors aerial robot for the transportation of poles,

    N. Gorlo, S. Bamert, R. Cathomen, G. K ¨appeli, M. S. M ¨uller, T. Reinhart, H. Stadler, H. Shen, E. Cuniato, M. Tognon, et al. , “Geranos: A novel tilted-rotors aerial robot for the transportation of poles,” IEEE Robot. & Autom. Mag. , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A truly- redundant aerial manipulator system with application to push-and- slide inspection in industrial plants,

    M. Tognon, H. A. T. Ch ´avez, E. Gasparin, Q. Sabl ´e, D. Bicego, A. Mallet, M. Lany, G. Santi, B. Revaz, J. Cort ´es, et al., “A truly- redundant aerial manipulator system with application to push-and- slide inspection in industrial plants,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. Lett., v...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Efficient motion planning of highly articulated chains using physics-based sampling,

    R. Gayle, S. Redon, A. Sud, M. C. Lin, and D. Manocha, “Efficient motion planning of highly articulated chains using physics-based sampling,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2007, pp. 3319– 3326

    2007

  4. [12]

    The reconfigurable aerial robotic chain: Shape and motion planning,

    M. Kulkarni, H. Nguyen, and K. Alexis, “The reconfigurable aerial robotic chain: Shape and motion planning,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 9295–9302, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Search-based path planning for a high dimen- sional manipulator in cluttered environments using optimization- based primitives,

    M. S. Saleem, R. Sood, S. Onodera, R. Arora, H. Kanazawa, and M. Likhachev, “Search-based path planning for a high dimen- sional manipulator in cluttered environments using optimization- based primitives,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2021, pp. 8301–8308

    2021

  6. [14]

    Asymptotically optimal planning by feasible kinodynamic planning in a state-cost space,

    K. Hauser and Y . Zhou, “Asymptotically optimal planning by feasible kinodynamic planning in a state-cost space,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1431–1443, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Convex optimization for trajectory gen- eration: A tutorial on generating dynamically feasible trajectories reliably and efficiently,

    D. Malyuta, T. P. Reynolds, M. Szmuk, T. Lew, R. Bonalli, M. Pavone, and B. Ac ¸ıkmes ¸e, “Convex optimization for trajectory gen- eration: A tutorial on generating dynamically feasible trajectories reliably and efficiently,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 42, no. 5, pp....

    2022

  8. [16]

    ALTRO: A fast solver for constrained trajectory optimization,

    T. A. Howell, B. E. Jackson, and Z. Manchester, “ALTRO: A fast solver for constrained trajectory optimization,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2019, pp. 7674–7679

    2019

  9. [17]

    Conflict-based search for multi-robot motion planning with kinodynamic constraints,

    J. Kottinger, S. Almagor, and M. Lahijanian, “Conflict-based search for multi-robot motion planning with kinodynamic constraints,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2022, pp. 13 494– 13 499

    2022

  10. [18]

    Scalable and safe multi-agent motion planning with nonlinear dynamics and bounded disturbances,

    J. Chen, J. Li, C. Fan, and B. C. Williams, “Scalable and safe multi-agent motion planning with nonlinear dynamics and bounded disturbances,” in AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, 2021, pp. 11 237–11 245

    2021

  11. [19]

    Motion planning for 6-d manipulation with aerial towed-cable systems,

    M. Manubens, D. Devaurs, L. Ros, and J. Cort ´es, “Motion planning for 6-d manipulation with aerial towed-cable systems,” in Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Flexible collaborative transportation by a team of rotorcraft,

    H. G. De Marina and E. Smeur, “Flexible collaborative transportation by a team of rotorcraft,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2019, pp. 1074–1080

    2019

  13. [21]

    Differential flatness and manipulation of elasto-flexible cables carried by aerial robots in a possibly viscous environment,

    C. Gabellieri and A. Franchi, “Differential flatness and manipulation of elasto-flexible cables carried by aerial robots in a possibly viscous environment,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Unmanned Aircraft Systems , 2023, pp. 963–968

    2023

  14. [22]

    If-based trajectory planning and cooperative control for transportation system of cable suspended payload with multi UA Vs,

    Y . Zhang, J. Xu, C. Zhao, and J. Dong, “If-based trajectory planning and cooperative control for transportation system of cable suspended payload with multi UA Vs,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2023, pp. 635–642

    2023

  15. [23]

    Feedback control of a nonholonomic car-like robot,

    A. De Luca, G. Oriolo, and C. Samson, “Feedback control of a nonholonomic car-like robot,” in Robot Motion Planning and Control, J. .-. Laumond, Ed., Springer, 1998, pp. 171–253, ISBN : 978-3-540-40917-5

    1998

  16. [24]

    idb-A*: Iterative search and optimization for optimal kinodynamic motion planning,

    J. Ortiz-Haro, W. H ¨onig, V . N. Hartmann, and M. Toussaint, “idb-A*: Iterative search and optimization for optimal kinodynamic motion planning,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    The open motion planning library,

    I. A. S ¸ucan, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki, “The open motion planning library,” IEEE Robot. & Autom. Mag., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 72–82, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Crocoddyl: An efficient and versatile framework for multi-contact optimal control,

    C. Mastalli, R. Budhiraja, W. Merkt, G. Saurel, B. Hammoud, M. Naveau, J. Carpentier, L. Righetti, S. Vijayakumar, and N. Mansard, “Crocoddyl: An efficient and versatile framework for multi-contact optimal control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2020, pp. 2536–2542

    2020

  19. [27]

    FCL: A general purpose library for collision and proximity queries,

    J. Pan, S. Chitta, and D. Manocha, “FCL: A general purpose library for collision and proximity queries,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., 2012, pp. 3859–3866

    2012

  20. [28]

    Efficient optimization-based cable force allocation for geometric control of a multirotor team transporting a payload,

    K. Wahba and W. H ¨onig, “Efficient optimization-based cable force allocation for geometric control of a multirotor team transporting a payload,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3688– 3695, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    A stable tracking control method for an autonomous mobile robot,

    Y . Kanayama, Y . Kimura, F. Miyazaki, and T. Noguchi, “A stable tracking control method for an autonomous mobile robot,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 1990, pp. 384–389

    1990

  22. [30]

    Using anytime algorithms in intelligent systems,

    S. Zilberstein, “Using anytime algorithms in intelligent systems,” AI magazine, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 73–73, 1996

    1996

  23. [31]

    Crazyswarm: A large nano-quadcopter swarm,

    J. A. Preiss, W. H ¨onig, G. S. Sukhatme, and N. Ayanian, “Crazyswarm: A large nano-quadcopter swarm,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2017, pp. 3299–3304

    2017

  24. [32]

    Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,

    S. Macenski, T. Foote, B. Gerkey, C. Lalancette, and W. Woodall, “Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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