Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Trajectory data yields Wasserstein ambiguity tubes that let sampling-based planners meet chance constraints under unknown disturbances.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 17:27 UTC pith:V3MSLD3T

load-bearing objection The paper combines Wasserstein ambiguity tubes with sampling-based planning and lower-dimensional projections for chance-constrained safety under unknown disturbances, but the guarantees rest on data assumptions that may not hold for closed-loop robotic trajectories. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2605.26625 v2 pith:V3MSLD3T submitted 2026-05-26 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Provably Safe Motion Planning Under Unknown Disturbances

Ibon Gracia , Qi Heng Ho , Luca Laurenti , Morteza Lahijanian This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY
keywords motion planningsampling-based planningchance constraintsWasserstein ambiguity setsunknown disturbancesprobabilistic safetydata-driven planningrobotic systems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a sampling-based motion planner that remains safe for robots whose dynamics are subject to random disturbances whose distribution is unknown. It learns a Wasserstein ambiguity tube directly from observed trajectories; the tube is a sequence of ambiguity sets guaranteed to contain the true state-distribution trajectory with high confidence. This tube is then used to grow a planning tree that respects state, control, and obstacle constraints while satisfying the required chance constraints. Replacing one high-dimensional tube with several lower-dimensional ones reduces conservatism, and a bandit-based validity checker speeds up tree expansion without losing probabilistic completeness. The result is an algorithm that finds valid plans in cluttered workspaces under strict safety thresholds where prior methods fail.

Core claim

Trajectory data from the system is used to construct a Wasserstein ambiguity tube, defined as a sequence of ambiguity sets that contains the trajectory of the system's state distribution with high confidence. This tube is incorporated into a probabilistically complete sampling-based planner that grows a tree respecting state and control constraints as well as arbitrary-shaped obstacles. Learning multiple lower-dimensional ambiguity tubes in place of a single high-dimensional tube reduces conservatism and improves scalability, while a bandit-based validity checker further increases empirical speed without affecting the completeness guarantee.

What carries the argument

Wasserstein ambiguity tube: a sequence of data-driven ambiguity sets that bounds the state-distribution trajectory with high confidence and is projected to lower dimensions to enforce chance constraints inside the sampling-based planner.

Load-bearing premise

The collected trajectory data is representative enough that the resulting Wasserstein ambiguity sets contain the true state-distribution trajectory with the claimed high confidence, and that lower-dimensional projections preserve the necessary probabilistic guarantees.

What would settle it

A concrete counter-example in which the true disturbance distribution lies outside the learned ambiguity tube yet the planner still declares a trajectory safe, or an instance where the lower-dimensional projection loses the original chance-constraint guarantee.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Robots can generate motion plans that satisfy chance constraints even when the disturbance distribution is completely unknown.
  • High-dimensional systems become tractable because multiple lower-dimensional tubes replace a single conservative high-dimensional tube.
  • Probabilistic completeness of the tree-growing algorithm is retained while empirical runtime improves via the bandit checker.
  • The same data-driven tube construction applies to both linear and linearizable dynamics subject to state, control, and workspace constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach suggests that similar ambiguity-tube constructions could be tested on physical hardware by collecting real trajectory data under controlled disturbances.
  • If the tube construction is combined with online data collection, the planner could adapt its safety margins during execution.
  • The lower-dimensional projection technique may generalize to other distributionally robust planning problems beyond sampling-based methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to present a provably safe sampling-based motion planning algorithm for linear or linearizable robotic systems under unknown disturbances. Safety is encoded as chance constraints. The method learns a Wasserstein ambiguity tube (sequence of ambiguity sets) from system trajectory data that contains the true state-distribution trajectory with high confidence; this tube is used to grow a probabilistically complete sampling-based planning tree. The authors further claim that replacing a single high-dimensional tube with several lower-dimensional ones reduces conservatism and improves scalability, and that a bandit-based validity checker boosts empirical performance without losing probabilistic completeness. Case studies are said to show outperformance over state-of-the-art methods in cluttered environments.

Significance. If the central guarantees on the ambiguity tube and its lower-dimensional projections hold, the work would supply a data-driven route to formal safety certificates for sampling-based planners under distributionally uncertain disturbances. The combination of Wasserstein ambiguity sets with probabilistic completeness and the proposed dimensionality-reduction and bandit techniques would be a concrete advance for safe robotics in unstructured settings.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The central claim that finite trajectory samples yield Wasserstein balls whose union contains the true joint state-distribution trajectory with high probability rests on concentration results that require i.i.d. samples; closed-loop robotic trajectories collected under feedback control and obstacle-induced state-dependent disturbances are unlikely to satisfy this assumption, yet no correction or robustness argument is supplied for the data-generating process.
  2. [Abstract] The substitution of independent lower-dimensional ambiguity tubes for a joint high-dimensional tube is asserted to preserve the required probabilistic guarantees for the chance constraints used by the planner; however, marginal projections generally inflate the radius needed for joint coverage, and no explicit radius-adjustment rule or proof that the joint chance-constraint satisfaction is retained appears in the provided description.
  3. [Abstract] The bandit-based validity checker is claimed to increase empirical performance without sacrificing probabilistic completeness, but the interaction between the checker and the ambiguity-tube safety certificates is not shown to maintain the overall high-confidence containment property when invalid samples are rejected.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states that the algorithm 'outperforms state-of-the-art methods' but does not name the specific baselines or report quantitative metrics (success rate, computation time, conservatism) in the summary paragraph.
  2. Notation for the Wasserstein ambiguity tube (sequence of sets, radius, confidence level) is introduced without an accompanying equation or definition in the abstract, making it difficult to trace how the tube is constructed from data.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We respond to each major comment below and indicate planned revisions to address the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that finite trajectory samples yield Wasserstein balls whose union contains the true joint state-distribution trajectory with high probability rests on concentration results that require i.i.d. samples; closed-loop robotic trajectories collected under feedback control and obstacle-induced state-dependent disturbances are unlikely to satisfy this assumption, yet no correction or robustness argument is supplied for the data-generating process.

    Authors: The concentration results invoked in the paper are stated under the i.i.d. sampling assumption for the collected trajectories. The manuscript describes data collection via multiple independent rollouts. We agree that dependence induced by feedback and obstacles merits explicit treatment. In revision we will add a dedicated paragraph in the data-collection and theoretical sections discussing this assumption, citing mixing-time results that extend Wasserstein concentration to weakly dependent processes, and noting the practical regime in which the i.i.d. approximation remains valid. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The substitution of independent lower-dimensional ambiguity tubes for a joint high-dimensional tube is asserted to preserve the required probabilistic guarantees for the chance constraints used by the planner; however, marginal projections generally inflate the radius needed for joint coverage, and no explicit radius-adjustment rule or proof that the joint chance-constraint satisfaction is retained appears in the provided description.

    Authors: The dimensionality-reduction argument in the manuscript relies on a per-marginal coverage guarantee combined with a union-bound adjustment of the failure probability. We will insert an explicit radius-correction formula (derived from the union bound) together with a short proof that the resulting joint chance constraint remains satisfied at the target level. This material will be placed in the section on lower-dimensional tubes. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] The bandit-based validity checker is claimed to increase empirical performance without sacrificing probabilistic completeness, but the interaction between the checker and the ambiguity-tube safety certificates is not shown to maintain the overall high-confidence containment property when invalid samples are rejected.

    Authors: The checker only discards candidate nodes that already violate the tube-derived certificates; it does not alter the underlying high-probability containment of the true distribution inside the tube. We will augment the probabilistic-completeness theorem with an additional lemma that formalizes this separation, showing that rejection decisions preserve the original containment probability. The expanded argument will appear in the analysis of the validity checker. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivation relies on external Wasserstein bounds and standard sampling-based planning

full rationale

The paper constructs ambiguity tubes from trajectory data via Wasserstein sets and applies them within a sampling-based planner. This uses standard concentration results for the containment guarantee and established RRT-style tree growth for probabilistic completeness. No step equates a prediction to its own fitted input by construction, invokes a self-citation as the sole justification for a uniqueness claim, or renames an input as an output. The lower-dimensional projection step is presented as a practical reduction of conservatism, not a definitional equivalence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of data-driven Wasserstein ambiguity tubes that provide valid high-confidence bounds and on the ability to use them inside a sampling-based planner while preserving probabilistic completeness.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Wasserstein distance can be used to construct ambiguity sets containing the true distribution with high probability from finite trajectory samples
    Invoked when learning the ambiguity tube from system trajectories.
invented entities (1)
  • Wasserstein ambiguity tube no independent evidence
    purpose: Sequence of ambiguity sets that contains the trajectory of the system's state distribution with high confidence
    New construct learned from data and used as the safety constraint in the planner.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5706 in / 1328 out tokens · 39703 ms · 2026-06-29T17:27:55.005065+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a provably safe sampling-based motion planning algorithm for robotic systems affected by random disturbances of unknown distribution. We consider systems with linear or linearizable dynamics evolving in workspace with arbitrary-shaped obstacles subject to state and control constraints. Safety requirements are formulated as chance-constraints. Our approach leverages data from trajectories of the system to learn a Wasserstein ambiguity tube, i.e., a sequence of ambiguity sets, which contains the trajectory of the system's state distribution with high confidence. This ambiguity tube is then used in a probabilistically complete algorithm to grow a sampling-based motion planning tree that respects the constraints of the problem. We show that learning several lower-dimensional ambiguity tubes instead of a single high-dimensional one effectively reduces the conservatism and boosts scalability. Additionally, we design an efficient bandit-based validity checker that remarkably increases the empirical performance of our approach without sacrificing probabilistic completeness. Case studies show our algorithm finds valid plans in cluttered environments under strict safety thresholds, outperforming state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.26625 by Ibon Gracia, Luca Laurenti, Morteza Lahijanian, Qi Heng Ho.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visual interpretation of Theorem 1. It can be observed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Graphical explanation of Alg. 3. On the left, the the b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Planning with lazy validity checker. (a) Confidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exploiting lower-dimensional ambiguity tubes in Ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Benchmark environments for 4-D Linear System. Obstacles are shown in black and the goal region is shown in green. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of search trees after 60 seconds. The number of nodes are 361240, 579358, and 30063, for Moment-based, Confidence, and Bandit Checkers, respectively. The Bandit Checker finds a solution with nominal trajectory in red. suffices to learn a single ambiguity tube for the 2-D projection of the state distribution. We achieve this using the formulation in Section VI with L = 1. We also consider the same syst… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Environments for the 8-D drone system case study with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Conformal Constraint Tightening for Chance-Constrained Motion Planning with Unknown Dynamics

    cs.RO 2026-07 reject novelty 6.0

    A conformal-prediction bound on nominal-to-true trajectory deviation is used to tighten motion-planning constraints, yielding a probabilistic task-completion guarantee under model mismatch.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Rapidly-exploring random trees : a new tool for path planning,

    S. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees : a new tool for path planning,”The annual research report, 1998

    1998

  2. [2]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    Asymptotically optimal sampling- based kinodynamic planning,

    Y . Li, Z. Littlefield, and K. E. Bekris, “Asymptotically optimal sampling- based kinodynamic planning,” vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 528–564, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Cort ´es and T

    J. Cort ´es and T. Sim´eon,Sampling-Based Tree Planners (RRT, EST, and Variations), 2020, pp. 1–9

    2020

  5. [5]

    An optimizing sampling-based motion planner with guaranteed robustness to bounded uncertainty,

    B. D. Luders and J. P. How, “An optimizing sampling-based motion planner with guaranteed robustness to bounded uncertainty,” in2014 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2014, pp. 771–777

    2014

  6. [6]

    Robust-rrt: Probabilistically-complete motion planning for uncertain nonlinear sys- tems,

    A. Wu, T. Lew, K. Solovey, E. Schmerling, and M. Pavone, “Robust-rrt: Probabilistically-complete motion planning for uncertain nonlinear sys- tems,” inThe International Symposium of Robotics Research. Springer, 2022, pp. 538–554

    2022

  7. [7]

    Funnel libraries for real-time robust feed- back motion planning,

    A. Majumdar and R. Tedrake, “Funnel libraries for real-time robust feed- back motion planning,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 947–982, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Dynamic tube mpc for nonlinear systems,

    B. T. Lopez, J.-J. E. Slotine, and J. P. How, “Dynamic tube mpc for nonlinear systems,” in2019 American Control Conference (ACC), 2019, pp. 1655–1662

    2019

  9. [9]

    Chance constrained RRT for probabilistic robustness to environmental uncertainty,

    B. Luders, M. Kothari, and J. How, “Chance constrained RRT for probabilistic robustness to environmental uncertainty,”AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, 2010

    2010

  10. [10]

    Gaussian belief trees for chance constrained asymptotically optimal motion planning,

    Q. H. Ho, Z. N. Sunberg, and M. Lahijanian, “Gaussian belief trees for chance constrained asymptotically optimal motion planning,” 2022, pp. 11 029–11 035

    2022

  11. [11]

    Robust motion planning in the presence of estimation uncertainty,

    L. Lindemann, M. Cleaveland, Y . Kantaros, and G. J. Pappas, “Robust motion planning in the presence of estimation uncertainty,” in2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2021, pp. 5205–5212

    2021

  12. [12]

    Perception-based temporal logic planning in uncertain semantic maps,

    Y . Kantaros, S. Kalluraya, Q. Jin, and G. J. Pappas, “Perception-based temporal logic planning in uncertain semantic maps,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2536–2556, 2022

    2022

  13. [13]

    The belief roadmap: Efficient planning in belief space by factoring the covariance,

    S. Prentice and N. Roy, “The belief roadmap: Efficient planning in belief space by factoring the covariance,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 28, no. 11-12, pp. 1448–1465, 2009

    2009

  14. [14]

    Rapidly-exploring random belief trees for motion planning under uncertainty,

    A. Bry and N. Roy, “Rapidly-exploring random belief trees for motion planning under uncertainty,” inIEEE Int’l Conf. on Robotics and Automation, May 2011, pp. 723–730

    2011

  15. [15]

    Distributionally robust sampling-based motion planning under uncertainty,

    T. Summers, “Distributionally robust sampling-based motion planning under uncertainty,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 6518–6523

    2018

  16. [16]

    Distributionally robust rrt with risk allocation,

    K. Ekenberg, V . Renganathan, and B. Olofsson, “Distributionally robust rrt with risk allocation,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 12 693–12 699

    2023

  17. [17]

    Distributionally robust stochastic optimiza- tion with wasserstein distance,

    R. Gao and A. Kleywegt, “Distributionally robust stochastic optimiza- tion with wasserstein distance,”Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 603–655, 2023

    2023

  18. [18]

    Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations,

    P. Mohajerin Esfahani and D. Kuhn, “Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations,”Mathematical Programming, vol. 171, no. 1, pp. 115–166, 2018

    2018

  19. [19]

    Quantifying distributional model risk via optimal transport,

    J. Blanchet and K. Murthy, “Quantifying distributional model risk via optimal transport,”Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 565–600, 2019

    2019

  20. [20]

    High-confidence data-driven ambiguity sets for time-varying linear systems,

    D. Boskos, J. Cort ´es, and S. Mart ´ınez, “High-confidence data-driven ambiguity sets for time-varying linear systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2023

    2023

  21. [21]

    Uncertainty propa- gation via optimal transport ambiguity sets,

    L. Aolaritei, N. Lanzetti, H. Chen, and F. D ¨orfler, “Uncertainty propa- gation via optimal transport ambiguity sets,”arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv– 2205, 2022

    2022

  22. [22]

    Capture, propagate, and control distributional uncertainty,

    L. Aolaritei, N. Lanzetti, and F. D ¨orfler, “Capture, propagate, and control distributional uncertainty,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 3081–3086

    2023

  23. [23]

    Efficient uncertainty propagation with guarantees in wasserstein distance,

    E. Figueiredo, S. Adams, P. M. Esfahani, and L. Laurenti, “Efficient uncertainty propagation with guarantees in wasserstein distance,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08689, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Distributionally safe path planning: wasserstein safe rrt,

    P. Lathrop, B. Boardman, and S. Mart ´ınez, “Distributionally safe path planning: wasserstein safe rrt,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 430–437, 2021

    2021

  25. [25]

    Distributionally robust risk map for learning- based motion planning and control: A semidefinite programming ap- proach,

    A. Hakobyan and I. Yang, “Distributionally robust risk map for learning- based motion planning and control: A semidefinite programming ap- proach,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 718–737, 2022

    2022

  26. [26]

    Wasserstein distributionally robust motion planning and control with safety constraints using conditional value-at-risk,

    ——, “Wasserstein distributionally robust motion planning and control with safety constraints using conditional value-at-risk,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 490–496

    2020

  27. [27]

    Wasserstein tube mpc with exact uncertainty propagation,

    L. Aolaritei, M. Fochesato, J. Lygeros, and F. D ¨orfler, “Wasserstein tube mpc with exact uncertainty propagation,” in2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2036–2041

    2023

  28. [28]

    Coherent measures of risk,

    P. Artzner, F. Delbaen, J.-M. Eber, and D. Heath, “Coherent measures of risk,”Mathematical finance, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 203–228, 1999

    1999

  29. [29]

    Structured ambi- guity sets for distributionally robust optimization,

    L. M. Chaouach, T. Oomen, and D. Boskos, “Structured ambi- guity sets for distributionally robust optimization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20657, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Chance constrained rrt for prob- abilistic robustness to environmental uncertainty,

    B. Luders, M. Kothari, and J. How, “Chance constrained rrt for prob- abilistic robustness to environmental uncertainty,” inAIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, 2010, p. 8160

    2010

  31. [31]

    On the rate of convergence in wasserstein distance of the empirical measure,

    N. Fournier and A. Guillin, “On the rate of convergence in wasserstein distance of the empirical measure,”Probability theory and related fields, vol. 162, no. 3, pp. 707–738, 2015

    2015

  32. [32]

    Convergence of the empirical measure in expected wasser- stein distance: non asymptotic explicit bounds inR d,

    N. Fournier, “Convergence of the empirical measure in expected wasser- stein distance: non asymptotic explicit bounds inR d,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00923, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Data-driven strategy synthesis for stochastic systems with unknown nonlinear dis- turbances,

    I. Gracia, D. Boskos, L. Laurenti, and M. Lahijanian, “Data-driven strategy synthesis for stochastic systems with unknown nonlinear dis- turbances,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09704, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    An introduction to cora 2015,

    M. Althoff, “An introduction to cora 2015,” inProc. of the workshop on applied verification for continuous and hybrid systems, 2015, pp. 120–151

    2015

  35. [35]

    Sce- nario reduction revisited: Fundamental limits and guarantees,

    N. Rujeerapaiboon, K. Schindler, D. Kuhn, and W. Wiesemann, “Sce- nario reduction revisited: Fundamental limits and guarantees,”Mathe- matical Programming, vol. 191, no. 1, pp. 207–242, 2022

    2022

  36. [36]

    Least squares quantization in pcm,

    S. Lloyd, “Least squares quantization in pcm,”IEEE transactions on information theory, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 129–137, 1982

    1982

  37. [37]

    The Open Motion Planning Library,

    I. A. S ¸ucan, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki, “The Open Motion Planning Library,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 72–82, December 2012, https://ompl.kavrakilab.org

    2012

  38. [38]

    Probabilistic completeness of rrt for geometric and kinodynamic plan- ning with forward propagation,

    M. Kleinbort, K. Solovey, Z. Littlefield, K. E. Bekris, and D. Halperin, “Probabilistic completeness of rrt for geometric and kinodynamic plan- ning with forward propagation,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. i–vii, 2019

    2019

  39. [39]

    Villani,Topics in optimal transportation

    C. Villani,Topics in optimal transportation. American Mathematical Soc., 2021, vol. 58

    2021

  40. [40]

    Probabilistic completeness of rrt for geometric and kinodynamic plan- ning with forward propagation,

    M. Kleinbort, K. Solovey, Z. Littlefield, K. E. Bekris, and D. Halperin, “Probabilistic completeness of rrt for geometric and kinodynamic plan- ning with forward propagation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.07051, 2018

    work page arXiv 2018