RVC-NMPC: Nonlinear Model Predictive Control with Reciprocal Velocity Constraints for Mutual Collision Avoidance in Agile UAV Flight

Martin Saska; Ondrej Prochazka; Parakh M. Gupta; Robert Penicka; Vit Kratky

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

RVC-NMPC: Nonlinear Model Predictive Control with Reciprocal Velocity Constraints for Mutual Collision Avoidance in Agile UAV Flight

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims a 100 Hz NMPC controller with time-dependent reciprocal velocity constraints keeps agile UAV swarms collision-free at speeds up to 25 m/s and cuts flight time by 31% versus trajectory-sharing planners.

desk verdict A solid empirical contribution with a real, modest novelty in time-dependent RVCs; the theoretical guarantee language in Section III overreaches, but the paper's own limitations section mostly owns that. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.08574 v2 pith:HWDB2LF6 submitted 2025-12-09 cs.RO

Vit Kratky , Robert Penicka , Parakh M. Gupta , Ondrej Prochazka , Martin Saska This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords reciprocalvelocityconstraintsnonlinearmodelpredictivecontrolmulti-robotcollisionavoidancequadrotorswarmagileUAVflightobstacledecentralizedORCA

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

Agile quadrotor swarms can avoid each other at speeds and accelerations that previously reactive planners could not handle, without sharing future trajectories. The paper puts collision avoidance directly inside a nonlinear model predictive controller as soft, time-dependent linear constraints on velocity, computed from the current position and velocity of each neighboring drone. A single set of reciprocal velocity constraints per neighbor, applied over the whole control horizon while it remains geometrically relevant, keeps the computation light enough to run at 100 Hz on a small onboard ARM processor. In a head-on antipodal crossing with ten UAVs, the method completes all flights without collision and finishes 31% faster than a planning-based state-of-the-art approach that assumes perfect tracking.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-dependent reciprocal velocity constraint (RVC): a linear inequality b_m ≤ A_m v, built from the optimal reciprocal collision avoidance (ORCA) velocity-obstacle construction for each neighboring robot, where the responsibility for the minimal relative-velocity change is split half between the two robots. Each constraint is paired with a computed time-of-validity t_{v,m} given by the projection of the relative position onto the relative velocity; when the horizon time exceeds t_{v,m}, the constraint is switched off. Inside the NMPC, these are soft constraints with slack variables, so the optimization never becomes infeasible. The key computational trick is using

What would settle it

Reproduce the reported antipodal-crossing experiment with 10 UAVs and a 100 ms communication delay: the paper's own robustness matrix predicts a sharp drop in success rate above 50 ms, so a collision in that setting would precisely mark the practical validity boundary. More directly, a two-robot simulation where both controllers are identical but one robot's predicted velocity profile is forcibly varied inside the allowed set, while the other holds a constant velocity, and the pair still collides within the horizon τ, would refute the convex-combination guarantee.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a set of reciprocal velocity constraints derived from two robots' current states, applied as time-dependent soft constraints inside an NMPC over a short horizon, provides practical mutual collision avoidance for agile quadrotor flight without any knowledge of other robots' future intentions. The paper argues that because the feasible collision-free velocity set is convex, a time-varying velocity drawn from that set over the horizon yields the same position as a constant velocity from the set, thereby carrying over the optimal reciprocal collision avoidance guarantee to the receding-horizon setting. The time-of-validity of each constraint is the moment the relative p

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single reciprocal velocity constraint computed from the current state, applied over the whole prediction horizon, keeps two robots safe even as their velocities vary continuously inside the allowed set, because the intermediate positions never cross into the collision region; the paper explicitly refrains from proving this and relies on the empirical record instead.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Communication-heavy sharing of planned trajectories can be replaced by low-bandwidth exchange of current states (or onboard sensing), enabling decentralized avoidance at speeds above 10 m/s.
The 31% flight-time reduction in the antipodal crossing scenario indicates that control-level reciprocal constraints can be less conservative than planning-level guarantees while still avoiding collisions.
The method tolerates position noise up to 1 m and velocity noise up to 2 m/s, and message delays up to about 50 ms at 10 Hz, covering realistic wireless and onboard-sensing conditions.
Because the NMPC horizon and the collision-avoidance horizon are decoupled, avoidance maneuvers can be initiated seconds ahead while the controller itself stays short-horizon and fast, making the approach usable on platforms with modest onboard compute.

Reading between the lines

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

A rigorous proof of the safety claim would require bounding how far a time-varying velocity path can curve inside the horizon; the convexity argument only pins the endpoint, not the intermediate positions, so a Lipschitz or acceleration bound on predicted velocity is likely needed.
In mixed traffic where some agents do not run the same half-responsibility rule, the reciprocal split breaks down; inflating the collision radius to compensate would likely reduce the 31% flight-time gain, placing a practical bound on non-cooperative scenarios.
The same constraint machinery could be extended to asymmetric responsibility factors per robot, letting heterogeneous teams trade safety margin against speed; the velocity-obstacle geometry already supports this.
Adding static obstacles as additional velocity obstacles will make the feasible set an intersection of half-planes that can be empty; the slack-variable softening then determines graceful degradation, but its behavior in cluttered scenes remains untested.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a genuinely useful empirical paper, and the central mechanism—time-dependent reciprocal velocity constraints—is a real, if modest, modification of the ORCA-in-MPC line. The validation is the best part: a 3-hour, 10-robot, 50,000-goal reliability simulation, latency/noise sweeps, an ablation that isolates the time-dependency effect (11% flight-time gain), and nine real flights at speeds and accelerations well beyond what prior reactive planners demonstrated. The authors are also honest about scope: obstacle-free environments, no theoretical guarantees, and the need for frequent state updates.

The core novelty is Eq. (23): a geometric time-validity t_v that deactivates a velocity constraint once the relative position and velocity stop closing, plus the decoupling of the VO horizon (τ=8 s) from the NMPC horizon. Previous ORCA-in-MPC work applied static constraints at every horizon point; this is a simple and sensible change, and the ablation shows it matters.

The stress-test note is correct, and it hits the paper's weakest spot. Section III.B argues that because the collision-free velocity set is convex, applying a single constraint over the whole horizon preserves the ORCA guarantee. That argument conflates the time-averaged velocity with the actual trajectory. ORCA's guarantee relies on a constant relative velocity; a velocity that alternates between two safe values inside the set can still cause a mid-horizon approach. The paper even contradicts itself: III.B/III.C uses 'guarantees' language, while Section V concedes 'absence of theoretical guarantees.' The empirical results are strong enough that this doesn't sink the paper, but the guarantee language should be fixed.

Two lesser concerns: the 31% improvement is from a comparison the authors themselves call not entirely fair, and some baselines ran below 100% success. That doesn't undermine the result, but it means the headline number should be read as 'best case with favorable tuning.' And there is no code, data, or timing measurement to back up the 100 Hz claim—easy to add.

Who this is for: anyone working on decentralized swarm navigation or MPC-based avoidance. The paper deserves a serious referee; it should be sent out. The main revision request is to tone down the guarantee claim and, ideally, release the implementation and timing data.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RVC-NMPC, a decentralized NMPC scheme for mutual collision avoidance in agile multi-UAV flight. The controller integrates reciprocal velocity constraints (RVCs), computed from other robots' current positions and velocities, directly into the NMPC optimization. The constraints are time-dependent via a validity interval and are imposed as soft constraints with slack variables. The authors claim that this allows 100 Hz operation on an embedded ARM processor, requires no trajectory sharing, and achieves collision-free navigation in simulations with up to 10 UAVs at speeds up to 25 m/s and in real-world experiments with accelerations up to 30 m/s^2. They report a 31% reduction in flight time relative to the best comparison baseline in an antipodal-crossing scenario, plus robustness studies to communication delay, noise, and a 3-hour reliability test with 50,000 goals.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, this is a meaningful advance in decentralized, reactive multi-UAV collision avoidance: it demonstrates fast, communication-light operation at speeds and accelerations well beyond those of prior reactive planners, supported by an unusually extensive evaluation (100-trial statistical comparisons, delay/noise sweeps, ablation, 3-hour reliability test, and 9 real flights). The ablation cleanly isolates the contribution of the time-dependent constraint and the PMM reference generator. However, the paper's central safety claim rests on a convexity argument in Section III.B that is not valid as stated, and the paper itself concedes in Section V that theoretical guarantees are absent. This mismatch between the claimed guarantee and the actual justification is load-bearing and must be addressed before publication, even though the empirical body is strong enough to support a much weaker, heuristic claim.

major comments (2)

[Section III.B, Eqs. (6)-(11), (19)-(24)] The convexity argument is invalid. The ORCA guarantee for VO_tau (Eq. 6) applies when the relative velocity is held constant over the whole interval [0,tau]. The paper argues that because the feasible velocity set is convex, a time-varying velocity drawn from this set yields the same position as a constant velocity from the set. This conflates the average velocity with the instantaneous path: the relative position is the integral of the relative velocity, and collision depends on the intermediate positions, not only on the mean. A relative velocity that alternates between two safe values can produce a curve that enters the other robot's disk even though its time average lies outside the velocity obstacle. Therefore the statement that applying a single set of reciprocal velocity constraints 'over the entire horizon maintain mutual collision avoidance guarantees (given tau >= T_h)' is unsu
[Sections III.B, III.C, and V] There is an internal inconsistency between the repeated claim that applying the RVC over the horizon 'maintains mutual collision avoidance guarantees (given tau >= T_h)' and Section V's admission of 'the absence of theoretical guarantees' and the description of rare close-call events caused by newly activated constraints during maximum acceleration. This is not just a wording issue: the safety argument in Section III is the only justification for the central claim, and it is contradicted by the authors' own limitation statement. The authors should reconcile these statements, for example by explicitly stating that the method is heuristic and that the empirical tests are the basis for its claimed reliability, and by moving the caveat from Section V to the introduction or methodology where the guarantees are invoked.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The paper uses 'UA Vs' with an inconsistent space; use 'UAVs' consistently. Also 'Minkovski' in Eq. (7) should be 'Minkowski'.
[Section III.A] The acronym PMM is used without expansion. Please define it when it first appears in Section III.A.
[Section III.C, Eq. (24)] The notation '[0]3x3' is informal; use a bold zero matrix or state that the constraint is omitted. Also clarify whether the slack variable s_m,k is present only when the constraint is active.
[Section IV.C] The phrase 'the proposed approach prevents 100 % of violations' is awkward: it prevents 100% of violations, meaning zero violations. Consider rewriting as 'no violations of the minimum mutual distance were observed'.
[Table I] The table header has 'max. vel.' and 'max. acc.' as row labels, which is easy to misread as column headers. Consider restructuring the table or using separate rows for configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: RVCs are a direct ORCA-based construction validated empirically; self-citations are infrastructural and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The RVC construction (Eqs. 20-24) is the standard ORCA/velocity-obstacle formulation (refs 2, 18, 19) applied to the current relative state; the NMPC objective and constraints (13)-(19) are standard, and no parameter is fitted to the headline 31% flight-time reduction or to the collision-free outcomes. The central concern is Section III.B's convexity sentence: 'applying an arbitrary combination of velocities from this set for time t_x, results in the same position as applying a constant velocity from this set for time t_x. Thus, applying single set of reciprocal velocity constraints computed at the current state over the entire horizon maintain mutual collision avoidance guarantees.' This is not a circular reduction: it is a validity gap in transferring ORCA's constant-velocity guarantee to time-varying trajectories, and the paper itself later concedes 'the absence of theoretical guarantees' (Section V). The time-dependent constraint (23)-(24) is a heuristic validated empirically, not a fitted-parameter-as-prediction. Self-citations [31] (Lol-NMPC, reference augmentation) and [33] (MRS UAV system, experimental platform) are non-load-bearing infrastructure, not the source of the method's claimed performance. No step equates an output to its input by construction, so circularity is minimal.

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

The central claim rests on no free parameters fitted to the collision-free outcome — the method's success is demonstrated empirically, not derived. The free quantities are tuning choices (weights Q,R,Z; collision radius r_ca, which the paper itself says must absorb latency/uncertainty; VO horizon τ=8 s; goal tolerance ε) and the comparison setup's baseline parametrization. The load-bearing axioms are: the convexity/mean-velocity argument that lets one constraint set span the whole horizon (Section III.B); the reciprocity assumption that all robots share the avoidance burden (Eqs. 11–12, 22); the first-order motion model for propagating stale states (Section III.C), which the robustness results show fails above ~100 ms delay or below 10 Hz updates; and the obstacle-free environment limitation stated in Section V. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

NMPC weighting matrices Q, R, Z (state, input, slack penalties) = not reported
Hand-tuned weighting of tracking vs. control effort vs. constraint slack in Eq. (13); directly sets avoidance aggressiveness; values never stated.
Collision radius r_ca for constraint generation = 0.6 m (APCX sim), 1.0 m (reliability), 1.5 m (real world), 2.0 m (default)
Chosen per scenario; Sections IV.A/IV.C/IV.E; the paper explicitly states latency and state-estimation uncertainty must be absorbed into this radius (Section V), so it is a tuned safety margin, not a measured quantity.
Velocity-obstacle look-ahead horizon τ = 8 s (default, Section IV)
Chosen constant; the paper argues τ ≥ T_h is needed for the horizon-wide 'guarantee' (Section III.C); longer τ widens the constraint set and slows avoidance.
Goal-reaching tolerance ε = 0.1 m
Defines arrival time in Eq. (25); affects reported flight times for all methods equally.
Baseline parametrization of compared methods = tuned per method for minimal flight time
Section IV.A: 'individual approaches have been parametrized with a focus on minimization of flight time'; baselines run in their own environments; the 31% headline depends on these choices.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption A single set of RVCs computed at the current state, applied over the whole horizon, preserves collision avoidance for time-varying velocities (convexity/mean-velocity argument).
Section III.B: 'the feasible collision-free velocity set is either empty or convex... applying an arbitrary combination of velocities from this set for time t_x results in the same position as applying a constant velocity from this set.' Unproven transfer of the constant-velocity VO guarantee (Eq. 6) to receding-horizon trajectories.
domain assumption All robots cooperate and split the avoidance responsibility equally (reciprocity).
ORCA construction (Eqs. 11–12) and RVC (Eq. 22) assume the other robot also takes half of u; a non-cooperative agent invalidates the half-plane.
domain assumption Stale states of other robots are propagated with a first-order linear motion model.
Section III.C; Fig. 5 shows the approach fails (collisions) for delays ≥100 ms or update frequencies ≤10 Hz at the tested kinematics.
domain assumption Environment is obstacle-free; only mutual robot avoidance is needed.
Stated in Section V as a limitation; velocity-obstacle integration of static obstacles is 'future work'.
standard math Quadrotor model (Eqs. 1–5) matches the physical platform within the prediction horizon.
Standard rigid-body quadrotor equations with linear drag; used as the NMPC equality constraint (15); drag variant ('Proposed with drag') is also evaluated in Table I.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RVC-NMPC: Nonlinear Model Predictive Control with Reciprocal Velocity Constraints for Mutual Collision Avoidance in Agile UAV Flight." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HWDB2LF6

@misc{pith2026251208574,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RVC-NMPC: Nonlinear Model Predictive Control with Reciprocal Velocity Constraints for Mutual Collision Avoidance in Agile UAV Flight},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HWDB2LF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.08574}
}

abstract

This paper presents an approach to mutual collision avoidance based on Nonlinear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) with time-dependent Reciprocal Velocity Constraints (RVCs). Unlike most existing methods, the proposed approach relies solely on observable information about other robots, eliminating the need for excessive communication. The computationally efficient algorithm for computing RVCs, together with the direct integration of these constraints into the NMPC problem formulation at the controller level, allows the whole pipeline to run at 100 Hz. This high processing rate, combined with modeled nonlinear dynamics of the controlled Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), is a key feature that facilitates the use of the proposed approach for agile UAV flight. The proposed approach was evaluated through extensive simulations emulating real-world conditions in scenarios involving up to 10 UAVs and velocities of up to 25 m/s, and in real-world experiments with accelerations up to 30 m/s$^2$. Comparison with the state of the art shows 31% improvement in terms of flight time reduction in challenging scenarios, while maintaining a collision-free navigation in all trials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08574 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Block diagram representing a single robot control and navigation pipeline for robot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The illustration of the introduced time validity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of trajectories generated by individual approaches in scenario involving 10 UAVs navigating to antipodal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The success rate (shown in colors of the matrix) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of minimum mutual distances among UAVs ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Minimum distance between individual pairs of UAVs in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[1]

Decentralized navigation of multiple agents based on ORCA and model predictive control,

H. Chenget al., “Decentralized navigation of multiple agents based on ORCA and model predictive control,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2017, pp. 3446–3451

2017
[2]

Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multi-agent navigation,

J. Van Den Berget al., “Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multi-agent navigation,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2010

2010
[3]

The Extended Velocity Obstacle and applying ORCA in the real world,

A. Levyet al., “The Extended Velocity Obstacle and applying ORCA in the real world,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2015, pp. 16–22

2015
[4]

VR-ORCA: Variable Responsibility Optimal Recip- rocal Collision Avoidance,

K. Guoet al., “VR-ORCA: Variable Responsibility Optimal Recip- rocal Collision Avoidance,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4520–4527, 2021

2021
[5]

High-speed motion planning for aerial swarms in unknown and cluttered environments,

C. Toumiehet al., “High-speed motion planning for aerial swarms in unknown and cluttered environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 3642–3656, 2024

2024
[6]

MADER: Trajectory Planner in Multiagent and Dynamic Environments,

J. Tordesillaset al., “MADER: Trajectory Planner in Multiagent and Dynamic Environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 463–476, 2022

2022
[7]

Dlsc: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning in maze-like dynamic environments using linear safe corridor,

J. Parket al., “Dlsc: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning in maze-like dynamic environments using linear safe corridor,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3739–3758, 2023

2023
[8]

Onboard dynamic-object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,

Z. Xuet al., “Onboard dynamic-object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 651–658, 2024

2024

Show all 33 references

[9]

On onboard lidar-based flying object detection,

M. Vrbaet al., “On onboard lidar-based flying object detection,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, pp. 1–19, 2024

2024
[10]

Generation of collision-free trajectories for a quadrocopter fleet: A sequential convex programming approach,

F. Augugliaroet al., “Generation of collision-free trajectories for a quadrocopter fleet: A sequential convex programming approach,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2012, pp. 1917–1922

2012
[11]

Trajectory planning for quadrotor swarms,

W. H ¨oniget al., “Trajectory planning for quadrotor swarms,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 856–869, 2018

2018
[12]

Finding a needle in an exponential haystack: Discrete rrt for exploration of implicit roadmaps in multi-robot motion planning,

K. Soloveyet al., “Finding a needle in an exponential haystack: Discrete rrt for exploration of implicit roadmaps in multi-robot motion planning,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 501–513, 2016

2016
[13]

Ego-swarm: A fully autonomous and decentralized quadrotor swarm system in cluttered environments,

X. Zhouet al., “Ego-swarm: A fully autonomous and decentralized quadrotor swarm system in cluttered environments,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2021, pp. 4101–4107

2021
[14]

Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,

——, “Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,”Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm5954, 2022

2022
[15]

Enhanced decentralized autonomous aerial robot teams with group planning,

J. Houet al., “Enhanced decentralized autonomous aerial robot teams with group planning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 9240–9247, 2022

2022
[16]

Robust MADER: Decentralized Multiagent Tra- jectory Planner Robust to Communication Delay in Dynamic Envi- ronments,

K. Kondoet al., “Robust MADER: Decentralized Multiagent Tra- jectory Planner Robust to Communication Delay in Dynamic Envi- ronments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1476–1483, 2024

2024
[17]

PUMA: Fully Decentralized Uncertainty-aware Multiagent Trajectory Planner with Real-time Image Segmentation-based Frame Alignment,

——, “PUMA: Fully Decentralized Uncertainty-aware Multiagent Trajectory Planner with Real-time Image Segmentation-based Frame Alignment,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2024, pp. 13 961–13 967

2024
[18]

Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles,

P. Fioriniet al., “Motion planning in dynamic environments using velocity obstacles,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 760–772, 1998

1998
[19]

Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation,

J. van den Berget al., “Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation,” in2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2008, pp. 1928–1935

2008
[20]

V-rvo: Decentralized multi-agent collision avoidance using voronoi diagrams and reciprocal velocity obstacles,

S. H. Arulet al., “V-rvo: Decentralized multi-agent collision avoidance using voronoi diagrams and reciprocal velocity obstacles,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2021, pp. 8097–8104

2021
[21]

Reciprocal collision avoidance with acceleration-velocity obstacles,

J. van den Berget al., “Reciprocal collision avoidance with acceleration-velocity obstacles,” in2011 IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation, 2011, pp. 3475–3482

2011
[22]

Reciprocal collision avoidance for multiple car-like robots,

J. Alonso-Moraet al., “Reciprocal collision avoidance for multiple car-like robots,” in2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2012, pp. 360–366

2012
[23]

Reciprocal collision avoidance for robots with linear dynamics using lqr-obstacles,

D. Bareisset al., “Reciprocal collision avoidance for robots with linear dynamics using lqr-obstacles,” in2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2013, pp. 3847–3853

2013
[24]

Lqg-obstacles: Feedback control with collision avoidance for mobile robots with motion and sensing uncertainty,

J. van den Berget al., “Lqg-obstacles: Feedback control with collision avoidance for mobile robots with motion and sensing uncertainty,” in2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2012, pp. 346–353

2012
[25]

SRL-ORCA: A Socially Aware Multi-Agent Mapless Navigation Algorithm in Complex Dynamic Scenes,

J. Qinet al., “SRL-ORCA: A Socially Aware Multi-Agent Mapless Navigation Algorithm in Complex Dynamic Scenes,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 143–150, 2024

2024
[26]

MAPPO-Based Optimal Reciprocal Collision Avoidance for Autonomous Mobile Robots in Crowds,

Z. Liuet al., “MAPPO-Based Optimal Reciprocal Collision Avoidance for Autonomous Mobile Robots in Crowds,” in2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2023, pp. 3907– 3912

2023
[27]

DCAD: Decentralized Collision Avoidance With Dynamics Constraints for Agile Quadrotor Swarms,

S. H. Arulet al., “DCAD: Decentralized Collision Avoidance With Dynamics Constraints for Agile Quadrotor Swarms,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1191–1198, 2020

2020
[28]

Chance-Constrained Collision Avoidance for MA Vs in Dynamic Environments,

H. Zhuet al., “Chance-Constrained Collision Avoidance for MA Vs in Dynamic Environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 776–783, 2019

2019
[29]

Decentralized Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Safe Collision Avoidance in Quadrotor Teams with Limited De- tection Range,

M. Goarinet al., “Decentralized Nonlinear Model Predictive Control for Safe Collision Avoidance in Quadrotor Teams with Limited De- tection Range,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2025, pp. 5387–5393

2025
[30]

Real-time planning of minimum-time trajectories for agile uav flight,

K. Teissinget al., “Real-time planning of minimum-time trajectories for agile uav flight,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 10 351–10 358, 2024

2024
[31]

Lol-nmpc: Low-level dynamics integration in nonlinear model predictive control for unmanned aerial vehicles,

P. M. Guptaet al., “Lol-nmpc: Low-level dynamics integration in nonlinear model predictive control for unmanned aerial vehicles,” 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02169

2025
[32]

Rule-based lloyd algorithm for multi-robot motion planning and control with safety and convergence guarantees,

M. Boldreret al., “Rule-based lloyd algorithm for multi-robot motion planning and control with safety and convergence guarantees,” 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19511

2024 arXiv
[33]

The MRS UA V System: Pushing the Frontiers of Reproducible Research, Real-world Deployment, and Education with Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,

T. Bacaet al., “The MRS UA V System: Pushing the Frontiers of Reproducible Research, Real-world Deployment, and Education with Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 102, no. 26, pp. 1–28, 2021

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Decentralized navigation of multiple agents based on ORCA and model predictive control,

H. Chenget al., “Decentralized navigation of multiple agents based on ORCA and model predictive control,” in2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2017, pp. 3446–3451

2017

[2] [2]

Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multi-agent navigation,

J. Van Den Berget al., “Optimal reciprocal collision avoidance for multi-agent navigation,” inIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2010

2010

[3] [3]

The Extended Velocity Obstacle and applying ORCA in the real world,

A. Levyet al., “The Extended Velocity Obstacle and applying ORCA in the real world,” in2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2015, pp. 16–22

2015

[4] [4]

VR-ORCA: Variable Responsibility Optimal Recip- rocal Collision Avoidance,

K. Guoet al., “VR-ORCA: Variable Responsibility Optimal Recip- rocal Collision Avoidance,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 4520–4527, 2021

2021

[5] [5]

High-speed motion planning for aerial swarms in unknown and cluttered environments,

C. Toumiehet al., “High-speed motion planning for aerial swarms in unknown and cluttered environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 3642–3656, 2024

2024

[6] [6]

MADER: Trajectory Planner in Multiagent and Dynamic Environments,

J. Tordesillaset al., “MADER: Trajectory Planner in Multiagent and Dynamic Environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 463–476, 2022

2022

[7] [7]

Dlsc: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning in maze-like dynamic environments using linear safe corridor,

J. Parket al., “Dlsc: Distributed multi-agent trajectory planning in maze-like dynamic environments using linear safe corridor,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3739–3758, 2023

2023

[8] [8]

Onboard dynamic-object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,

Z. Xuet al., “Onboard dynamic-object detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation with rgb-d camera,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 651–658, 2024

2024