Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

FMT$^{x}$: An Efficient and Asymptotically Optimal Extension of the Fast Marching Tree for Dynamic Replanning

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 claims that a modified Fast Marching Tree, FMTx, can repair its tree after obstacle changes and still match FMT*'s asymptotic optimality.

desk verdict FMTX is a plausible, well-tested dynamic replanner, but the asymptotic optimality proof is not rigorous; the stress-test counterexample misfires, yet the proof gap remains real. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08521 v1 pith:CLORXR3N submitted 2025-09-10 cs.RO cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

Soheil Espahbodini Nia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords dynamicreplanningFastMarchingTreeFMT*asymptoticoptimalitysampling-basedmotionplanningRRTXkinodynamiclazycollisionchecking
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

FMTx is presented as a dynamic replanner built by a single change to the Fast Marching Tree procedure: replace the one-pass unvisited check with a cost-based re-evaluation condition, so nodes whose cost can improve are revisited and rewired. The paper argues this preserves FMT*'s sampling efficiency and lazy collision checking while allowing local repair of only the branches invalidated by moving obstacles. Its main theoretical claim is that during any static interval between obstacle changes, FMTx produces a path no more costly than a from-scratch FMT* run, and therefore inherits FMT*'s asymptotic optimality in probability. The reported experiments compare median replanning times against RRTX and find FMTx faster in most tested geometric and kinodynamic scenarios, with the advantage growing as graphs get denser and dynamics get more complex. This matters because robots operating near people must revise plans quickly without giving up optimality guarantees.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cost-ordered min-heap open set together with the modified expansion condition $c(x)>c(z)+\mathrm{Cost}(z,x)$ for a neighbor $x$ reached from an expanding node $z$. The condition acts as a certificate: when it is true, $x$'s current cost is provably not the best available, so it is worth the more expensive search for the optimal parent $y_{\min}$ among $x$'s open neighbors. The dynamic-update subroutines (AddObstacles, RemoveObstacles, QueueNeighbors) feed this queue by pruning, resetting, and requeueing only the affected portions of the tree. In the proof, an equivalence lemma shows that the cost condition coincides with unvisited-ness in obstacle-free runs, and a superset lemma bounds FMTx's path cost by FMT*'s path cost in each static phase.

What would settle it

Run FMTx and a from-scratch FMT* on the same fixed set of $n$ samples in a static environment immediately after each obstacle insertion and removal, using identical connection radii; if across many trials FMTx's converged path cost ever exceeds FMT*'s, Lemma 2's superset claim is false. A cleaner version is to construct a small graph where a disappearing obstacle restores a shortcut whose endpoint was pruned and never requeued, then compare final path costs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that FMT*'s single-pass limitation is not essential to its wavefront structure. In obstacle-free space, the modified rule $c(x)>c(z)+\mathrm{Cost}(z,x)$ selects exactly the same neighbor set as the original unvisited-set rule, so FMTx behaves like FMT* when nothing changes. When an obstacle appears or disappears, FMTx prunes the descendant subtree of any blocked edge, resets those costs to infinity, requeues affected neighbors, and lets the cost-ordered expansion rewire them. The paper argues that this update set is a superset of FMT*'s operations, so the converged path cost on a static phase is no larger than FMT*'s, and then transfers FMT*'s asymptotic optimality in probability to FMTx. The paper also reports simulations in which FMTx beats RRTX on median replanning time, especially as obstacle count, sample count, and neighborhood radius grow.

Load-bearing premise

Lemma 2 rests on the claim that FMTx's update operations form a superset of standard FMT*'s, so starting from an inherited, pruned tree with revisited nodes cannot yield a worse path than a fresh FMT* run.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On any static interval, FMTx converges in probability to an optimal path as the sample count grows, so a robot can reuse its tree across obstacle changes without sacrificing FMT*'s optimality guarantee.
  • Only the portions of the tree invalidated by an obstacle change are pruned and requeued; unaffected branches keep their costs and parents.
  • Because FMTx retains FMT*'s lazy collision checking, expensive edge validation is deferred until a promising parent is chosen, which pays off in kinodynamic planning.
  • The reported comparison predicts that FMTx's speed advantage over RRTX grows with sample count, obstacle density, and neighborhood radius, and is largest for high-dimensional dynamic models.
  • FMTx remains a persistent-sample, batch planner rather than an anytime planner; the paper identifies adding new samples continuously as future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence not stated in the paper is that the same cost-based re-evaluation could probably handle goal changes by treating the goal entering or leaving the tree as a cost perturbation, with no change to the algorithm's structure.
  • Because Lemma 2 compares converged path costs rather than repair time, a testable prediction is that FMTx's advantage over RRTX depends on the size of the invalidated region and may shrink when an obstacle change disrupts a large part of the tree.
  • The superset argument suggests a stronger, also unproven property: repeated repairs should make node costs monotonically non-increasing across consecutive environmental updates, which could be checked empirically on a fixed sample set.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FMTX, an extension of the Fast Marching Tree (FMT*) algorithm for dynamic replanning. The main algorithmic changes are a cost-based re-evaluation condition in the expansion step and incremental repair routines (AddObstacles, RemoveObstacles, QueueNeighbors) that update the tree when obstacles appear or disappear. The central theoretical claim is that, during any static interval between environmental changes, FMTX recovers a path whose cost is no larger than a from-scratch FMT* run on the same graph, and hence inherits FMT*'s asymptotic optimality (Lemma 2, Corollary 3). The paper reports simulations in 2D geometric and kinodynamic settings, comparing median replanning times against RRTX and reporting lower times in most configurations.

Significance. If the main claim were established, FMTX would be a valuable contribution: an asymptotically optimal dynamic replanner that retains FMT*'s lazy, batch-oriented expansion while repairing only locally invalidated parts of the tree. The experimental study is a strength: it covers multiple sample sizes, obstacle counts, neighborhood radius multipliers, and three kinodynamic models, with 30 trials per condition and publicly available source code. However, the asymptotic-optimality proof is load-bearing for the paper's stated contribution, and the proof of Lemma 2 is not valid; the algorithm as specified can fail to improve an inherited path even when a strictly better path becomes available after an obstacle removal. The experimental results may still be useful as evidence that the heuristic repair strategy is fast, but the paper's central theoretical claim is not supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Lemma 2] The superset argument in the proof of Lemma 2 is invalid because FMTX does not start from the same state as a from-scratch FMT* run after an environmental change. In the algorithm as specified, Algorithm 4 (RemoveObstacles) considers only edges in the current tree edge set E, and Algorithm 5 (QueueNeighbors) inserts only finite-cost neighbors y of an endpoint u with y not already in V_open; it never reinserts the endpoint u itself. Consequently, a closed endpoint of a newly unblocked edge is never expanded again, and a non-tree edge that becomes collision-free is not even considered. A concrete Euclidean counterexample is: G=(0,0), R=(10,0), A=(5,0), B=(5,4), with an obstacle configuration that initially forces the tree G-B-R and leaves A unvisited. After the obstacle is removed, the optimal path G-A-R has cost 10 while the inherited path G-B-R has cost about 12.8. RemoveObstacles does not place G-A in E+ because that edge is not in the current tree, and there is no open node from which A can be rediscovered. Thus FMTX returns a path of cost 12.8, violating the inequality c_FMTx,n(G_n^k) <= c_FMT*,n(G_n^k) and invalidating Corollary 3.
  2. [Section 5.2] The manuscript states that the probability of a rewiring event near obstacles is 'expected to be negligible' without providing a formal bound. This is not a proof, and the subsequent appeal to Theorem 4.1 of FMT* does not fill the gap: asymptotic optimality of the final path cost in the from-scratch algorithm does not by itself bound the probability of persistent suboptimal connections in a repaired tree that starts from an inherited, pruned state. Because Lemma 2 relies on the claim that FMTX performs every update that FMT* would perform, this missing bound is load-bearing. The paper needs either a rigorous probabilistic argument that such rewiring events are negligible, or a different proof strategy for the static-segment path-quality claim.
  3. [Section 5.1, Lemma 1] The proof of Lemma 1 invokes 'Invariant 1' and 'Invariant 2' of FMT* without stating them, and the case analysis assumes that open nodes' costs always satisfy a Bellman optimality condition. In the modified FMT*Expand, the cost-based condition can also trigger on open nodes with finite cost, causing priority updates and rewiring, so the equivalence claimed in Lemma 1 is not obviously maintained once such updates occur. The lemma is stated only for obstacle-free environments, but the proof should make the scope explicit, and the paper should explain how the invariants are re-established after UpdateObstacles before they are used in the dynamic-setting argument.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.2] Replace the phrase 'expected to be negligible' either with a formal probability bound or with an explicit statement that this is an unproven heuristic assumption.
  2. [Table 1] Several table entries lack whitespace between numbers, e.g., '103.32 1.60204.86 3.68'; the formatting should be corrected for readability.
  3. [Throughout] The notation is inconsistent: the title and abstract use FMT$^{x}$, while the body mostly uses FMTX; unify the notation.
  4. [Algorithm 7] The while loop condition 'c(V_open.top()) < c(v_robot) or v_robot in V_open' is not explained; clarify what happens when v_robot is not in V_open and has infinite cost, and why the expansion terminates.
  5. [Section 6.1] The claim that a minimal localized update costs O((log n)^2) depends on the assumption that each Near query returns O(log n) neighbors in expectation; this should be stated explicitly as an expected-case bound.
  6. [Section 7.1.3] The kinodynamic description introduces Near+ and Near- as distinct neighbor queries, but the pseudocode in Algorithms 5 and 7 only refers to Near; align the pseudocode with the kinodynamic definitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper imports FMT* as an external baseline and its derivations do not reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that FMTX inherits FMT*'s asymptotic optimality during static intervals. That claim rests on two lemmas. Lemma 1 is a genuine equivalence proof between the cost-based neighbor-selection criterion and FMT*'s unvisited-set criterion; it invokes FMT* invariants from Janson et al. (2015), which is an external, independently established result, and the equivalence is not assumed as the conclusion. Lemma 2 attempts to show that FMTX's update operations form a superset of FMT*'s, so its path cost cannot be worse; this is a claimed property of the algorithm's execution, not a redefinition of the target quantity, and it is argued from the algorithm's stated rules rather than from the conclusion being proved. The known weakness of Lemma 2 is that the superset assertion appears false after obstacle removals because closed endpoints of newly unblocked edges are never reinserted into V_open; that is a soundness gap in the proof, not a circularity. Section 5.2's statement that rewiring events are 'expected to be negligible' is an unformalized heuristic, but it is not presented as a theorem that defines the result into existence. The experimental section compares FMTX against RRTX using externally defined metrics and does not fit parameters to produce the claimed optimality guarantee. There are no self-citations, no fitted quantity renamed as a prediction, and no imported uniqueness theorem used to force a choice. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proof imports FMT*'s asymptotic optimality theorem, sampling assumptions, and invariants as external results. The algorithm introduces no new physical entities. The only experimental free parameter is the radius multiplier C. The weakest part of the ledger is the assumption that FMT*'s invariants transfer to the modified expansion, which is exactly where the proof in Section 5.3 becomes hand-wavy.

free parameters (1)
  • Neighborhood radius multiplier C = C in {1.0, 1.5, 2.0} (experimental choices)
    Scales the theoretical radius constant gamma* from FMT*/RRT* theory. It is chosen for experiments, not fitted to data, and the asymptotic optimality claim treats any sufficiently large gamma as valid.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FMT* is asymptotically optimal (Theorem 4.1 in Janson et al. 2015)
    Used directly in Corollary 3 and used to argue that rare suboptimal connections disappear in the limit. The paper does not rederive this theorem.
  • domain assumption FMT* Invariants 1 and 2 hold in the modified FMTX expansion
    Lemma 1's equivalence proof relies on these invariants from FMT*. The modified algorithm allows priority updates and node revisits, so the invariants require re-verification rather than simple import.
  • domain assumption Sampling and connection-radius assumptions for asymptotic optimality
    Imported from FMT*/RRT* theory, including uniform i.i.d. samples and a connection radius r_n = gamma * (log n / n)^(1/d). These assumptions are needed for convergence in probability in Corollary 3.
  • standard math Cost obeys the triangle inequality on the r_n-disk graph
    Used in Lemma 1, Case B, and in the cost-comparison argument in Lemma 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FMT$^{x}$: An Efficient and Asymptotically Optimal Extension of the Fast Marching Tree for Dynamic Replanning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CLORXR3N

@misc{pith2026250908521,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FMT$^x$: An Efficient and Asymptotically Optimal Extension of the Fast Marching Tree for Dynamic Replanning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CLORXR3N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08521}
}
abstract

Path planning in dynamic environments remains a core challenge in robotics, especially as autonomous systems are deployed in unpredictable spaces such as warehouses and public roads. While algorithms like Fast Marching Tree (FMT$^{*}$) offer asymptotically optimal solutions in static settings, their single-pass design prevents path revisions which are essential for real-time adaptation. On the other hand, full replanning is often too computationally expensive. This paper introduces FMT$^{x}$, an extension of the Fast Marching Tree algorithm that enables efficient and consistent replanning in dynamic environments. We revisit the neighbor selection rule of FMT$^{*}$ and demonstrate that a minimal change overcomes its single-pass limitation, enabling the algorithm to update cost-to-come values upon discovering better connections without sacrificing asymptotic optimality or computational efficiency. By maintaining a cost-ordered priority queue and applying a selective update condition that uses an expanding neighbor to identify and trigger the re-evaluation of any node with a potentially suboptimal path, FMT$^{x}$ ensures that suboptimal routes are efficiently repaired as the environment evolves. This targeted strategy preserves the inherent efficiency of FMT$^{*}$ while enabling robust adaptation to changes in obstacle configuration. FMT$^{x}$ is proven to recover an asymptotically optimal solution after environmental changes. Experimental results demonstrate that FMT$^{x}$ outperforms the influential replanner RRT$^{x}$, reacting more swiftly to dynamic events with lower computational overhead and thus offering a more effective solution for real-time robotic navigation in unpredictable worlds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08521 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulation of the FMTX algorithm navigating a dynamic envi￾ronment with appearing and disappearing obstacles. The trial used 10,000 samples, and the theoretical lower bound for the neighborhood radius con￾stant, γ ∗ , was scaled by a multiplier of C = 1.5. All obstacles were inflated with a 2-meter safety margin. (1996) and Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree (RRT) LaValle (1998) are foun￾dational sampling-based motion pl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of dynamic environments with increasing obstacle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of the sampling-based planner as the dynamic obstacle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the 100m × 100m test environment (x, y ∈ [−50, 50]) used for kinodynamic replanning. Obstacles move back and forth at constant velocities selected from the range [20, 30] m/s. The scenarios depict setups with (a) 10 and (b) 20 obstacles. velocity, time…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A sequential visualization of the FMTX replanning process for the second-order thruster model as the robot and obstacles move through the environment. This trial used 1,500 samples and a neighborhood radius multiplier of C = 2.5. performance consistency from the inhere…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Box-plot comparison of replanning times for FMT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Heatmap comparison of the performance ratio between FMT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Median replanning times per trial for the Holonomic, Dubins, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation : 2421--2428 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14282741

    Arslan O and Tsiotras P (2013) Use of relaxation methods in sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation : 2421--2428 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14282741

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 4819--4826 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12488088

    Arslan O and Tsiotras P (2015) Dynamic programming guided exploration for sampling-based motion planning algorithms. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 4819--4826 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12488088

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Proceedings 2000 ICRA

    Bohlin R and Kavraki LE (2000) Path planning using lazy prm. Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065) 1: 521--528 vol.1. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:206541645

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Numerische Mathematik 1(1): 269--271

    Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Mathematik 1(1): 269--271. doi:10.1007/BF01386390

    doi:10.1007/bf01386390 1959

  5. [5]

    Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006

    Ferguson D, Kalra N and Stentz A (2006) Replanning with rrts. Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. : 1243--1248 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12375387

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 39: 543 -- 567

    Gammell JD, Barfoot TD and Srinivasa SS (2017 a ) Batch informed trees (bit*): Informed asymptotically optimal anytime search. The International Journal of Robotics Research 39: 543 -- 567. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:700325

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34: 966--984

    Gammell JD, Barfoot TD and Srinivasa SS (2017 b ) Informed sampling for asymptotically optimal path planning. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34: 966--984. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3241650

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 3067--3074 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15776115

    Gammell JD, Srinivasa SS and Barfoot TD (2014 a ) Batch informed trees (bit*): Sampling-based optimal planning via the heuristically guided search of implicit random geometric graphs. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 3067--3074 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15776115

    work page 2014

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems : 2997--3004 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12233239

    Gammell JD, Srinivasa SS and Barfoot TD (2014 b ) Informed rrt*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic. 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems : 2997--3004 ://api.semanticschola...

    2014

  2. [10]

    Gammell JD and Strub MP (2020) Asymptotically optimal sampling-based motion planning methods. Annu. Rev. Control. Robotics Auton. Syst. 4: 295--318. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:231592912

    2020

  3. [11]

    IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 4(2): 100--107

    Hart PE, Nilsson NJ and Raphael B (1968) A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 4(2): 100--107

    1968

  4. [12]

    2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 2951--2957 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14989369

    Hauser KK (2015) Lazy collision checking in asymptotically-optimal motion planning. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 2951--2957 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14989369

    2015

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Robotics Research (ISRR)

    Janson L and Pavone M (2013) Fast marching trees: A fast marching sampling-based method for optimal motion planning in many dimensions. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Robotics Research (ISRR)

    2013

  6. [14]

    The International journal of robotics research 34(7): 883--921

    Janson L, Schmerling E, Clark A and Pavone M (2015) Fast marching tree: A fast marching sampling-based method for optimal motion planning in many dimensions. The International journal of robotics research 34(7): 883--921

    2015

  7. [15]

    49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) : 7681--7687 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1555207

    Karaman S and Frazzoli E (2010) Optimal kinodynamic motion planning using incremental sampling-based methods. 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) : 7681--7687 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1555207

    2010

  8. [16]

    The international journal of robotics research 30(7): 846--894

    Karaman S and Frazzoli E (2011) Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. The international journal of robotics research 30(7): 846--894

    2011

  9. [17]

    IEEE transactions on Robotics and Automation 12(4): 566--580

    Kavraki LE, Svestka P, Latombe JC and Overmars MH (1996) Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces. IEEE transactions on Robotics and Automation 12(4): 566--580

    1996

  10. [18]

    a nder J, Hermann A, R \

    Klemm S, Oberl \"a nder J, Hermann A, R \"o nnau A, Schamm T, Z \"o llner JM and Dillmann R (2015) Rrt*-connect: Faster, asymptotically optimal motion planning. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) : 1670--1677 ://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu...

    2015

  11. [19]

    In: AAAI/IAAI

    Koenig S and Likhachev M (2002) D*lite. In: AAAI/IAAI. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208940224

    2002

  12. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 21: 354--363

    Koenig S and Likhachev M (2005) Fast replanning for navigation in unknown terrain. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 21: 354--363. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15664344

    2005

  13. [21]

    Koenig S, Likhachev M and Furcy D (2004) Lifelong planning a. Artif. Intell. 155: 93--146. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7828197

    2004

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

    Koenig, Sven and Likhachev, Maxim (2006) Real-time adaptive a. In: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp. 281--288

    2006

  15. [23]

    Proceedings 2000 ICRA

    Kuffner JJ and LaValle SM (2000) Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning. Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065) 2: 995--1001 vol.2. ://api.semant...

    2000

  16. [24]

    The annual research report ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14744621

    LaValle SM (1998) Rapidly-exploring random trees : a new tool for path planning. The annual research report ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14744621

    1998

  17. [25]

    The international journal of robotics research 20(5): 378--400

    LaValle SM and Kuffner Jr JJ (2001) Randomized kinodynamic planning. The international journal of robotics research 20(5): 378--400

    2001

  18. [26]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 35(5): 528--564

    Li Y, Littlefield Z and Bekris KE (2016) Asymptotically optimal sampling-based kinodynamic planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research 35(5): 528--564

    2016

  19. [27]

    a ki J and H \

    Naderi K, Rajam \"a ki J and H \"a m \"a l \"a inen P (2015) Rt-rrt*: a real-time path planning algorithm based on rrt*. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion in Games ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6223542

    2015

  20. [28]

    ArXiv abs/2309.13119

    Orthey A, Chamzas C and Kavraki LE (2023) Sampling-based motion planning: A comparative review. ArXiv abs/2309.13119. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:262459959

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 35(7): 797--822

    Otte M and Frazzoli E (2016) Rrtx: Asymptotically optimal single-query sampling-based motion planning with quick replanning. The International Journal of Robotics Research 35(7): 797--822

    2016

  22. [30]

    2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) : 2574--2581 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2267285

    Schmerling E, Janson L and Pavone M (2014) Optimal sampling-based motion planning under differential constraints: The drift case with linear affine dynamics. 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) : 2574--2581 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2267285

    2014

  23. [31]

    2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 7837--7843 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259339259

    Silveira J, Cabral KM, Givigi SN and Marshall JA (2023) Real-time fast marching tree for mobile robot motion planning in dynamic environments. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 7837--7843 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259339259

    2023

  24. [32]

    2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) : 2072--2078 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5808032

    Starek JA, G \'o mez JV, Schmerling E, Janson L, Moreno LE and Pavone M (2015) An asymptotically-optimal sampling-based algorithm for bi-directional motion planning. 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) : 2072--2078 ://api.semanticsch...

    2015

  25. [33]

    ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14389316

    Stentz A (1994) The d* algorithm for real-time planning of optimal traverses. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14389316

    1994

  26. [34]

    2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 3191--3198 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:211133126

    Strub MP and Gammell JD (2020 a ) Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 3191--3198 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:211133126

    2020

  27. [35]

    2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 130--136 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:211132476

    Strub MP and Gammell JD (2020 b ) Advanced bit* (abit*): Sampling-based planning with advanced graph-search techniques. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) : 130--136 ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:211132476

    2020

  28. [36]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 41: 390 -- 417

    Strub MP and Gammell JD (2021) Adaptively informed trees (ait*) and effort informed trees (eit*): Asymmetric bidirectional sampling-based path planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research 41: 390 -- 417. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:250221473

    2021

  29. [37]

    ArXiv abs/1205.5088

    Webb DJ and van den Berg JP (2012) Kinodynamic rrt*: Optimal motion planning for systems with linear differential constraints. ArXiv abs/1205.5088. ://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3170122

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

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