Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Opportunistic Collaborative Planning with Large Vision Model Guided Control and Joint Query-Service Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · 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 an opportunistic planner that decides when to query a cloud large vision model and when to accept its service reduces navigation time by over 26 percent and keeps success rate near 100 percent in unknown-object…

desk verdict Useful integration of cloud LVM guidance with local MPC, but the timing policy's service decisions rest on an uncalibrated confidence distribution and the experiments need error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18057 v1 pith:I4CSIZ5J submitted 2025-04-25 cs.RO cs.AI

Jiayi Chen , Shuai Wang , Guoliang Li , Wei Xu , Guangxu Zhu , Derrick Wing Kwan Ng , Chengzhong Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords collaborativeplanninglargevisionmodelpredictivecontrolcloudroboticsunknownobjectdetectionconfidencethresholdingforwardsimulationautonomousnavigation
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 sets out to solve a coordination problem: autonomous vehicles need large vision models to recognize rare objects, but calling the cloud too often wastes resources and can even hurt. It claims that the right policy is to couple a local model predictive controller with cloud-based large vision model guidance, and to decide collaboration timing by optimizing a confidence threshold and simulating the expected trajectory gain before serving a query. If the claim holds, vehicles can handle unknown objects nearly as well as a fully cloud-driven system while querying the cloud only when it pays off. The evidence is presented in simulated urban driving, where the proposed scheme finishes trips over 26 percent faster than fixed-interval collaboration and maintains close to 100 percent success.

What carries the argument

The central object is the collaboration state $\beta_t \in \{0,1\}$, a binary switch that reconfigures the local MPC's collision-avoidance inflation distance, reference waypoints, and control style between local detections ($\beta=0$) and cloud detections ($\beta=1$). The timing machinery that sets $\beta_t$ is CTO: ODCT picks a confidence threshold $C_{\text{threshold}}$ by maximizing the sum of recall on unknown and known detections, and CFS runs multiple forward simulations of the MPC under sampled post-cloud confidence scores from a uniform distribution centered at the threshold, computing expected trajectory improvement while accounting for latency; the cloud serves the query only if that improvement is positive.

What would settle it

Collect a test set of images with unknown objects, run the cloud detector on objects the local model flags as low-confidence, and compare the resulting confidence distribution to the assumed uniform band around $C_{\text{threshold}}$; also compare CFS's accept/reject decisions against whether cloud guidance actually shortens the MPC trajectory in the simulator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an autonomous vehicle can navigate open scenes containing rare, previously unseen objects by pairing a small local model predictive controller with a large cloud vision model, and by deciding the collaboration timing explicitly. In LVM-MPC, the cloud re-perceives the scene with a zero-shot segmentation model, extracts lane and object relations, and generates behavior decisions, waypoints, and control-style reconfigurations that guide a local MPC; the MPC remains feasible under vehicle dynamics and collision-avoidance constraints. In CTO, the vehicle first sets a confidence threshold to decide when to query the cloud, and the cloud then runs forward simulations of the MPC under sampled post-redetection confidences to estimate expected trajectory improvement, accounting for communication and computation latency, and serves only when that improvement is positive. In simulated urban driving, the integrated scheme finishes trips over 26 percent faster than fixed-interval collaboration in a dynamic-obstacle scenario, keeps success rate close to 100 percent, and uses about half as many cloud services.

Load-bearing premise

The service decision assumes, without calibration data, that after a cloud redetection the confidence score for a previously unknown object is uniformly spread around the query threshold; if actual large-model confidence is centered elsewhere, the accept/reject rule is not grounded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A vehicle can navigate unknown-object scenes with cloud assistance roughly as well as a continuously cloud-guided system while cutting the number of large-model services in half.
  • The optimized confidence threshold generalizes from validation to test sets even when the unknown classes are disjoint, so unseen-object detection is triggered without retraining.
  • CFS rejects queries when redetection would not change the planned trajectory, so cloud resources are spent only when they move the vehicle.
  • In dynamic scenes, a single well-timed cloud service can enable an overtake that fixed-interval collaboration misses, cutting finish time by more than 26 percent.
  • Success rate stays near 100 percent in the tested scenarios, whereas local-only and fixed-interval planners degrade as unknown objects increase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the uniform-confidence assumption in CFS could be replaced with a learned predictive model of post-redetection confidence, which might make accept/reject decisions robust without additional experiments.
  • The same query-service optimization could extend to multi-vehicle fleets sharing one cloud LVM, where the cloud must also schedule queries across vehicles.
  • The forward-simulation cost of CFS, which solves the MPC many times per query, could become a bottleneck at scale; an amortized or learned approximation of expected trajectory improvement is a natural next step.
  • The threshold optimization objective could be extended to include query cost and latency explicitly, rather than only detection recalls.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Opportunistic Collaborative Planning (OCP), a cloud-vehicle collaborative navigation system for open scenarios with unknown objects. OCP couples a local detector and model predictive controller with a cloud large vision model (LVM) pipeline: the cloud uses SAM-based perception to recalibrate detections, infer object-lane topology, and generate behavior decisions and waypoints that reconfigure the local MPC (LVM-MPC). A collaboration timing optimization (CTO) block decides when to query the cloud via object detection confidence thresholding (ODCT) and when the cloud should accept the query via cloud forward simulation (CFS), which estimates expected trajectory improvement after redetection. The system is implemented in CARLA/ROS and compared with local-only (LOS) and fixed-period collaboration (PCS) baselines in static and dynamic obstacle scenarios; the paper reports shorter finish times, higher success rates, and fewer cloud invocations for OCP.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper offers a practical mechanism for deciding when to offload perception and planning to a cloud LVM, which is a real bottleneck for resource-constrained autonomous systems. The main contribution is the CTO gating logic, since the reported gains over fixed-period PCS come from avoiding unnecessary cloud calls while still obtaining timely assistance. The CARLA implementation covers static multi-obstacle scenarios, open-set detection with strict train/validation/test class splits, and a dynamic obstacle scenario, which is a reasonable breadth for a robotics systems paper. The paper does not provide open-source code or machine-checked proofs, so its contribution is empirical and would be strengthened by releasing the implementation; nonetheless, the system-level integration and the ODCT validation protocol are explicit strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [V-B, Eq. (12)] The CFS service decision, which is the component that distinguishes OCP from fixed-period PCS, is computed under the assumed post-cloud confidence distribution P = U(Cthreshold - Delta_c, Cthreshold + Delta_c) with mean Cthreshold and fixed width Delta_c = 0.1. This distribution is not calibrated against any measured post-redetection LVM confidences, and no sensitivity analysis is reported. If actual LVM confidences on unknown objects are systematically above Cthreshold (successful redetection) or below it (failed redetection), the expected trajectory improvement E[Delta_J] in Eq. (12) is biased in a definite direction, and the accept/reject decisions that produce the reported reduction in cloud services are not grounded. The authors should either estimate P from data or demonstrate that the OCP timing advantage is robust across plausible alternative distributions.
  2. [VI-C, Fig. 9 and text below Table III] The success-rate reporting is internally contradictory: the text states 'Compared to the second-bast scheme, the proposed OCP reduces the success rate by over 6%,' while Fig. 9 and the preceding sentences describe OCP as having the highest success rate, close to 100%. Either the authors mean that the failure rate is reduced by over 6%, or the success-rate advantage claimed in the Abstract is misstated. As printed, the headline success-rate result is ambiguous and must be corrected.
  3. [VI-B through VI-D, Tables II-IV and Fig. 9] The quantitative performance claims are presented only as point estimates: 10 runs for Table II, 30 runs for Table III, and an unreported number of runs for Table IV, with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Since CARLA is stochastic and some baselines fail partially, the reported differences between OCP and PCS (e.g., 22.35 s vs. 24.09 s in Table II and 17.28 s vs. 23.40 s in Table IV) cannot be separated from run-to-run variability. Please report dispersion and significance, or explicitly qualify the results as illustrative single-scenario demonstrations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V-A, Eq. (10)] The statement that G(Cthreshold) is 'guaranteed to be unimodal' is not correct as stated: the sum of a monotonically increasing step function and a monotonically decreasing step function need not be unimodal. Please replace this claim with a description of the grid-search optimization actually used, or prove unimodality under additional conditions.
  2. [V-B, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The number N of Monte Carlo samples used in Eq. (12) is never specified, and the indexing in the second sum of Eq. (13) appears inconsistent (the second sum runs from i = L rather than i = t + L). Please clarify both points, as they affect the reproducibility of the CFS implementation.
  3. [VI-A] There are typos in this section: 'Cthrehold' should be 'Cthreshold,' and 'the second-bast scheme' in Section VI-C should be 'the second-best scheme.' Also, the phrase 'fine-tuned on the validation set to optimize Cthreshold' should be rephrased to make clear that only the threshold is selected on the validation set, not that the detector is trained on it.
  4. [VI-D] The text contains 'the the Carla Town03 map' and states that 'LOS always fails' without numeric support; please fix the typo and provide at least the success-rate count for LOS in the dynamic scenario.
  5. [II and VI] The Introduction indicates that OCP is compared with the collaborative planner [9], but the experiments only compare LOS, PCS, and OCP; the statement that [9] 'has a similar performance as LOS' is not backed by any experiment in the paper. Either add the comparison or remove the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's components are either standard model selection, empirical evaluation, or stated heuristics rather than derivations that reduce to their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is an integrated LVM-MPC and CTO framework evaluated in CARLA. Walking the derivation chain: (i) ODCT chooses Cthreshold by maximizing the sum of recalls on a validation set (Eq. 9-10); that is standard model selection, and the same threshold is then evaluated on a disjoint test set, so no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. (ii) LVM-MPC solves the constrained MPC problem (8) with cloud-provided waypoints and confidences; the cost function and constraints are given, not derived from the experimental outcome. (iii) CFS computes expected trajectory improvement by forward-simulating the same MPC problem (8) under an assumed distribution P for post-redetection confidences (Eq. 12). That distribution is uncalibrated and could bias service decisions, but it is a stated heuristic input, not a parameter fitted to the reported performance; the claimed advantage is then verified in simulation against LOS and PCS baselines, so the result does not reduce to the assumption. The self-citations to RDA [3] and a prior collaborative motion planner [9] are used as an MPC solver and as a baseline, respectively; they are building blocks rather than load-bearing justification for the novelty. No uniqueness theorem or first-principles claim is imported from those citations. Minor issues such as the incorrect unimodality statement after Eq. (10) and the unvalidated uniform distribution are correctness or validation concerns, not circularity. Overall, the main claims are empirically self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one fitted threshold, two hand-set tolerances, and an uncalibrated CFS distribution, plus several domain assumptions about perception reliability. No new physical entities are introduced. The CFS distribution is the most consequential invented modeling construct.

free parameters (3)
  • Cthreshold = 0.8 on validation, 0.75 on test
    Optimized via Eq. (9)-(10) on validation data; directly controls ODCT query decisions and is the center of the CFS confidence distribution.
  • Delta_c = 0.1
    Hand-selected width of the uniform distribution for post-cloud confidences in CFS (Sec. V-B); no calibration and it determines E[Delta_J].
  • delta_pixel = 0.01% of image width
    Hand-set tolerance in Eq. (4) for filtering SAM masks near the road; affects which masks count as traffic-relevant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The RDA method solves the cloud-guided MPC problem P in real time with cost Eq. (7).
    Sec. IV-B cites [3] for RDA and asserts real-time solving, but provides no timing or optimality analysis for the LVM-guided setting.
  • domain assumption SAM zero-shot masks can be filtered into road, lane-marking, and object masks using geometric heuristics (Eqs. (4)-(5)).
    Sec. IV-A depends on this for object-lane topology and behavior decisions; only three qualitative examples are shown.
  • domain assumption Local unsniffer detector produces low confidence on unknown objects, so a threshold separates known from unknown.
    The ODCT trigger relies on this; validation/test unknown recalls (0.71/0.61) partially support it but do not cover all scenarios.
  • ad hoc to paper Post-cloud confidences follow U(Cthreshold - Delta_c, Cthreshold + Delta_c).
    Introduced in Sec. V-B, Eq. (12) without empirical support; all CFS accept/reject decisions depend on this distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Opportunistic Collaborative Planning with Large Vision Model Guided Control and Joint Query-Service Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I4CSIZ5J

@misc{pith2026250418057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Opportunistic Collaborative Planning with Large Vision Model Guided Control and Joint Query-Service Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I4CSIZ5J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18057}
}
read the original abstract

Navigating autonomous vehicles in open scenarios is a challenge due to the difficulties in handling unseen objects. Existing solutions either rely on small models that struggle with generalization or large models that are resource-intensive. While collaboration between the two offers a promising solution, the key challenge is deciding when and how to engage the large model. To address this issue, this paper proposes opportunistic collaborative planning (OCP), which seamlessly integrates efficient local models with powerful cloud models through two key innovations. First, we propose large vision model guided model predictive control (LVM-MPC), which leverages the cloud for LVM perception and decision making. The cloud output serves as a global guidance for a local MPC, thereby forming a closed-loop perception-to-control system. Second, to determine the best timing for large model query and service, we propose collaboration timing optimization (CTO), including object detection confidence thresholding (ODCT) and cloud forward simulation (CFS), to decide when to seek cloud assistance and when to offer cloud service. Extensive experiments show that the proposed OCP outperforms existing methods in terms of both navigation time and success rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System architecture of the proposed OCP, which consists of LVM-MPC and CTO blocks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LVM cloud perception based on SAM. including objects, lanes, background regions, and edge con￾tours. The mask representation is formally defined as: vi(p) = ( 1, if pixel pbelongs to a segmented region 0, otherwise . Second, we localize the road surface by identifying vroad— the mask with maximal pixel continuity along the image’s bottom edge, leveraging the prior that roads typically extend toward the camera viewpo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The case of αt = 1 but βt = 0 for CFS. is H = 18, with time step of ∆t = 0.3 s. All experiments are conducted on a Ubuntu workstation with two NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPUs. For comparison, we implement the following schemes: 1) Local-only strategy (LOS), which adopts local perception and a state-of-the-art MPC (i.e., RDA) [3]; 2) Pe￾riodical collaboration strategy (PCS): which is a baseline collaboration scheme with fixed i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scenario configuration for experiment 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental results of ODCT. RAW LOCAL CLOUD SEG MERGE Case_1 Case_2 Case_3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of local and cloud perception models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detections, trajectories, control profiles, and collaboration states of different schemes in Experiment 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of success rate & finish time in Exp. 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Trajectory and control profiles of Experiment 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles,

    S. Feng, H. Sun, X. Yan, H. Zhu, Z. Zou, S. Shen, and H. X. Liu, “Dense reinforcement learning for safety validation of autonomous vehicles,” Nature, vol. 615, no. 7953, pp. 620–627, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Neupan: Direct point robot navigation with end-to-end model-based learning,

    R. Han, S. Wang, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, J. Chen, S. Lin, C. Li, C. Xu, Y . C. Eldar, Q. Haoet al., “Neupan: Direct point robot navigation with end-to-end model-based learning,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Rda: An accelerated collision free motion planner for autonomous navigation in cluttered environments,

    R. Han, S. Wang, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Q. Zhang, Y . C. Eldar, Q. Hao, and J. Pan, “Rda: An accelerated collision free motion planner for autonomous navigation in cluttered environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1715–1722, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    An efficient spatial-temporal trajectory planner for autonomous vehicles in unstructured environments,

    Z. Han and et al., “An efficient spatial-temporal trajectory planner for autonomous vehicles in unstructured environments,” IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1797– 1814, Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Safe motion planning for autonomous vehicles by quantifying uncertainties of deep learning-enabled environment perception,

    D. Li, B. Liu, Z. Huang, Q. Hao, D. Zhao, and B. Tian, “Safe motion planning for autonomous vehicles by quantifying uncertainties of deep learning-enabled environment perception,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 2318–2332, Jan. 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Enhancing large vision model in street scene semantic understanding through leveraging posterior optimization trajectory,

    W.-B. Kou, Q. Lin, M. Tang, S. Wang, R. Ye, G. Zhu, and Y .-C. Wu, “Enhancing large vision model in street scene semantic understanding through leveraging posterior optimization trajectory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01710, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Agentscodriver: Large language model empowered collaborative driving with lifelong learning,

    S. Hu, Z. Fang, Z. Fang, X. Chen, and Y . Fang, “Agentscodriver: Large language model empowered collaborative driving with lifelong learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06345 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model,

    Z. Xu, Y . Zhang, E. Xie, Z. Zhao, Y . Guo, K. K. Wong, Z. Li, and H. Zhao, “Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01412 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    Edge accelerated robot navigation with collaborative motion planning,

    G. Li, R. Han, S. Wang, F. Gao, Y . C. Eldar, and C. Xu, “Edge accelerated robot navigation with collaborative motion planning,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Multi-uncertainty aware autonomous cooperative planning,

    S. Zhang, H. Li, S. Zhang, S. Wang, D. W. K. Ng, and C. Xu, “Multi-uncertainty aware autonomous cooperative planning,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1018–1025

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bevgpt: Generative pre-trained large model for autonomous driving prediction, decision-making, and planning,

    P. Wang, M. Zhu, H. Lu, H. Zhong, X. Chen, S. Shen, X. Wang, and Y . Wang, “Bevgpt: Generative pre-trained large model for autonomous driving prediction, decision-making, and planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10357, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Rilaas: Robot inference and learning as a service,

    A. K. Tanwani, R. Anand, J. E. Gonzalez, and K. Goldberg, “Rilaas: Robot inference and learning as a service,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4423–4430, Jul. 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Languagempc: Large language models as decision makers for autonomous driving,

    H. Sha, Y . Mu, Y . Jiang, L. Chen, C. Xu, P. Luo, S. E. Li, M. Tomizuka, W. Zhan, and M. Ding, “Languagempc: Large language models as decision makers for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03026, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    NeBula: TEAM CoSTAR’s robotic autonomy solution that won phase II of DARPA subterranean challenge,

    B. Morrell, R. Thakker, À. Santamaria Navarro, A. Bouman, X. Lei, J. Edlund, T. Pailevanian, T. S. Vaquero, Y . L. Chang, T. Touma et al., “NeBula: TEAM CoSTAR’s robotic autonomy solution that won phase II of DARPA subterranean challenge,” Field Robotics, vol. 2, pp. 1432–1506, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    FogROS2: An adaptive platform for cloud and fog robotics using ROS 2,

    J. Ichnowski and et al., “FogROS2: An adaptive platform for cloud and fog robotics using ROS 2,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 5493–5500

    2023

  8. [16]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “Carla: An open urban driving simulator,” in Conference on robot learning . PMLR, 2017, pp. 1–16

    2017

  9. [17]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Dollar, and R. Girshick, “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , October 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  10. [18]

    Unknown sniffer for object detection: Don’t turn a blind eye to unknown objects,

    W. Liang, F. Xue, Y . Liu, G. Zhong, and A. Ming, “Unknown sniffer for object detection: Don’t turn a blind eye to unknown objects,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 3230–3239

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sam 2: Segment Anything in Images and Videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. Rädle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson et al., “Sam 2: Segment Anything in Images and Videos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    EPSILON: An efficient planning system for automated vehicles in highly interactive environ- ments,

    W. Ding, L. Zhang, J. Chen, and S. Shen, “EPSILON: An efficient planning system for automated vehicles in highly interactive environ- ments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1118–1138, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Planning for robotic exploration based on forward simulation,

    M. Lauri and R. Ritala, “Planning for robotic exploration based on forward simulation,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 83, pp. 15–31, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.