Continuous-Time Trajectory Optimization for Decentralized Multi-Robot Navigation

Govind Aadithya Rajagopalan; Madhavan Shanmugavel; Shravan Krishnan; Sivanathan Kandhasamy

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Continuous-Time Trajectory Optimization for Decentralized Multi-Robot Navigation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper presents a decentralized online replanning algorithm in which each robot predicts every other robot's trajectory and then optimizes its own collision-free continuous-time path.

desk verdict Workable skeleton, but the safety guarantee doesn't follow from the math and the evaluation is only qualitative; needs major revision before review. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02502 v1 pith:QWJTUVXE submitted 2019-09-05 cs.RO

Shravan Krishnan , Govind Aadithya Rajagopalan , Sivanathan Kandhasamy , Madhavan Shanmugavel This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords decentralizedmulti-robotnavigationcontinuous-timetrajectoryoptimizationminimum-jerkpredictioncollisionavoidancenonlinearprogrammingaerialrobotsrecedinghorizonreplanningdifferentialflatness

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 proposes a decentralized, online replanning algorithm for multi-robot navigation in which collaboration happens entirely through prediction: each robot reconstructs what every other robot will do next, given only its current state and desired end position, and then plans its own trajectory around those predictions. The authors derive a closed-form solution for the minimum-time, minimum-jerk trajectory that a teammate would plausibly follow, represent that predicted motion as a time-parameterized polynomial in each dimension, and feed it into a nonlinear program that minimizes a mix of smoothness cost, an exponential collision barrier, dynamic-limit penalties, and total time. Because the predicted paths are continuous-time polynomials, collision checking is performed along the whole trajectory rather than at discrete samples. The paper demonstrates the scheme in high-fidelity simulations with up to ten heterogeneous aerial robots and argues it extends to $N$ dimensions and any differentially flat robot.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the closed-form minimum-time minimum-jerk trajectory prediction: from Pontryagin's maximum principle, the optimal jerk input is a quadratic in time, giving a fifth-order polynomial per dimension whose coefficients (Eq. 9) depend only on initial state, end position, and duration $T$, with $T$ found as a root of the eighth-order polynomial in Eq. (11). This turns every teammate into a moving obstacle described by a continuous-time polynomial. The second is the collision-avoidance cost $C_c=Q_{\mathrm{obs}}c(x(t))$ with the exponential barrier in Eq. (17), which depends on the distance between the robot and the predicted obstacle path; because it is integrated analytically over time, it keeps the planned trajectory clear of the predicted path in continuous time. Differential flatness, the property that lets a robot's inputs be expressed as derivatives of its flat output positions, justifies planning in position space, and the soft dynamic-limit penalty $C_l$ (Eq. 18) allows slight violations of actuator limits to keep the nonlinear program feasible.

What would settle it

Re-run the eight-Firefly dense-swap experiment while logging the true minimum inter-robot distance for every pair at every simulation step; if any pair's distance falls below $\rho$, the paper's collision-free claim is falsified for that setting. Comparing the predicted obstacle trajectory used by each replan with the teammate's actually executed trajectory then quantifies how much of the safety margin is eaten by prediction error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a team of robots can maintain collision-free navigation without a central planner or explicit negotiation by combining two ingredients: a closed-form prediction of every other robot's future trajectory, obtained by solving a time-minimizing, jerk-minimizing optimal control problem for a third-order model with state $(p,v,a)$ and jerk input, and a per-robot nonlinear program whose decision variables are the coefficients of its own fifth-order trajectory polynomials plus the trajectory duration $T$. The collision term evaluates an exponential barrier against the predicted continuous-time trajectory $x_{\mathrm{obs}}(t)$, so the own trajectory is kept away from the moving obstacle at every instant, not just at sample points. The result, the authors state, is an algorithm capable of generating collision-free smooth trajectories for the robots to traverse the environment, supported by simulations with three different aerial robot models at speeds up to 2 m/s.

Load-bearing premise

Collision safety depends on each robot's guess about where the others are going, and that guess ignores how the others will react to it; if the guess is wrong for long enough, the planned path may not keep the real robots apart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Each robot can replan online at a fixed frequency, so the team size need not be known in advance and robots that finish their goals or join the formation are incorporated automatically on the next replan.
Because obstacle trajectories are continuous-time polynomials, the collision barrier is evaluated along the entire path, removing the 'teleport through a sample gap' failure mode of discrete-time planners.
The same NLP structure works in any dimension $N$ and for any robot with third-order differential-flat dynamics, so the algorithm transfers directly from the tested aerial robots to ground vehicles and manipulators with the same jerk-minimizing form.
The soft dynamic-limit penalty lets the optimizer trade a small dynamic-limit violation for feasibility, which is useful in tightly coupled scenarios but also means dynamic limits are not hard guarantees.
Using the previously optimized trajectory to initialize the SQP makes the replanning fast enough for 8 Hz online operation, and the analytic integration of the cost terms avoids expensive numerical quadrature per replan.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors do not claim a formal safety guarantee: because the predicted trajectories ignore how teammates react to one another, the replanning frequency is the real safeguard, and a tighter test would measure how much of the collision margin is consumed by prediction error before the next replan.
A natural extension would be to make the barrier uncertainty-aware, growing the effective radius $\rho$ with prediction age or with the observed divergence between predicted and actual trajectories.
The closed-form prediction primitive is reusable beyond this paper as an initialization or warm-start for other trajectory optimizers that need a plausible end time and polynomial coefficients.
The cost geometry is portable to arbitrary convex robot shapes by replacing the sphere-distance in Eq. (17) with any smooth signed-distance proxy.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper describes a decentralized, continuous-time multi-robot replanning scheme built on third-order dynamics and polynomial trajectories. The skeleton is workable, but the derivation in Section 2 has typos and at least one dimensionally inconsistent equation, and the 'collision-free' claim is not actually supported by the math.

What's good: The system is honest about its limitations. The authors state in Section 1 that the prediction diverges over longer durations, and in Section 4 they acknowledge that soft constraints can be violated for dynamic limits. The Gazebo simulations cover up to ten robots, with heterogeneous models, and the video link is a nice addition. The paper clearly builds on Mueller et al. 2015, and the extension to third-order dynamics is an incremental but reasonable step.

The soft spots are real. Eq. (9) and (21) write a0T^2/a instead of a0T^2/2; likely a typesetting typo, but it is still wrong in print. Eq. (11), the polynomial for the end time, is dimensionally inconsistent—terms like a0^2 v0 T^5 do not have consistent units, and the expression appears garbled. That is load-bearing because the time T is used in the closed-form prediction.

More importantly, the collision cost in Eq. (16)-(17) is a soft penalty, not a constraint. The exponential barrier is bounded as the distance goes to zero, so there is no mathematical guarantee the optimizer won't violate the safety distance. The paper even says 'the utilization of soft constraints allows the robots to be able to violate the constraints if required'. So the abstract's claim of 'collision-free trajectories' is not a logical consequence; it's an empirical observation from simulations with hand-tuned weights.

There is no quantitative evaluation. No comparison to baselines, no minimum-distance plots, no success rates. The figures show trajectories but not metrics. For a claim about collision avoidance, that is insufficient.

I should note that the reader's report overstates one point: the costate boundary conditions do not force final velocity and acceleration to zero. They correctly set beta2 and beta3 relative to beta1; final velocity is generally nonzero. So the derivation is not as broken as that particular criticism suggests. But the Eq. (11) problem and the soft-barrier issue remain.

Who this is for: robotics students interested in decentralized continuous-time planning might read it as a starting point, but the paper is not reliable as-is.

Recommendation: This should be desk-rejected in its current form. With corrected math and a real evaluation (quantitative, with baselines), a revised version could be worth a proper review.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an online, decentralized replanning method for labeled multi-robot navigation. Each robot communicates its current state and goal; using a Pontryagin-based derivation, the receiving robot computes a closed-form, minimum-time, minimum-jerk polynomial prediction for every other robot's future trajectory (Section 2). It then plans its own trajectory as a degree-five polynomial in each dimension by solving an NLP that penalizes jerk, proximity to the predicted dynamic obstacles, violations of dynamic limits, and total time (Section 3). The claims are evaluated qualitatively in Gazebo with up to ten heterogeneous aerial robots (Section 4), and the paper asserts that the algorithm generates collision-free smooth trajectories.

Significance. Assuming the derivations and implementation were correct, the paper would offer a useful continuous-time primitive for decentralized replanning, with the practical merit of allowing each robot to plan against smooth predicted trajectories rather than discrete samples. The paper does not use fitted constants or self-citations to manufacture the central result, and the Gazebo experiments cover rest-to-rest and non-rest maneuvers with heterogeneous platforms. However, the main claims are not currently established: the collision-free guarantee is contradicted by the soft-constraint formulation and by the paper's own caveat about soft constraints, and the closed-form prediction section contains internal mathematical inconsistencies. The contribution is therefore promising in direction but not rigorous as written.

major comments (4)

[§3.2, Eqs. (16)–(17); §4] The claim that the algorithm "is capable of generating collision-free smooth trajectories" (Abstract, §1 contribution (2), and §4) is not supported by the formulation. The collision-avoidance term Cc = Qobs c(x(t)) is a soft penalty in the NLP objective; there is no inequality constraint enforcing d(x(t),xobs(t)) >= rho for all t, and the exponential in Eq. (17) remains finite as d approaches zero, so a local minimizer of the weighted objective can violate the safety distance if that reduces time or smoothness cost. The paper itself states in §4 that "the utilization of soft constraints allows the robots to be able to violate the constraints if required," and the following sentence notes that this is not a benefit for collision avoidance. Thus the collision-free assertion is at best an empirical observation, not a logical consequence of the proposed algorithm.
[§2, Eqs. (9)–(11); Appendix Eq. (20)] The closed-form prediction derivation, which underpins the dynamic-obstacle model, contains internal inconsistencies. Eq. (20) in the Appendix has the first row [T^5, T^4, T^3] multiplying [β1, β2, β3], but consistency with p(T) = pend requires [T^5/120, T^4/24, T^3/6]; solving the displayed system yields β1 = 2(pend − p0 − v0T − a0T^2/2)/T^5, not the value 20(...)/T^5 in Eq. (9). Eq. (9) itself contains a typographical error in the boundary term (a0T^2/a instead of a0T^2/2), and Eq. (10) has λ1a where the Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) requires λ2a. Eq. (11), presented as the result of substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (10), is not a well-formed equation: it has no right-hand side, and the printed terms are not dimensionally consistent with the substitution. Because the predicted trajectories are used for all other robots in the collision-avoidance cost, these errors are load-bearing for the claimed algorithm.
[§1; §3.2] The collision-avoidance cost is evaluated against predicted trajectories of other robots, but the paper states in §1 that "the trajectory prediction does not account for robot-robot interaction and therefore the predicted trajectory diverges from the planned trajectories of other robots considerably during longer durations." Because the replanning interval (8 Hz) is not analyzed and no error bound or fallback is provided, the predicted trajectories can be poor models of actual future robot states exactly when collision avoidance matters. No simulation metric (e.g., minimum inter-robot distance over time) is reported to show that the controller maintains separation despite this divergence. This gap further undermines the collision-free claim.
[Eq. (17)] As printed, Eq. (17) is not a well-defined cost function: c(x(t)) is written as x(t) − xobs(t)(v(t) − vobs(t)) divided by an exponential and multiplied by d(...), which mixes vector and scalar quantities without an inner product or norm. The paper says the cost is "analytically integrated" to obtain a closed form, but without a precise definition of c(x(t)) this integration cannot be checked. Since this is the only mechanism for collision avoidance, the implementation described in §3.2 is underspecified.

minor comments (6)

[§2.2] Section 2.2: "Pontygarin's maximum principle" should be "Pontryagin's maximum principle."
[§2, Eqs. (9), (21)] The boundary term a0T^2/a in Eqs. (9) and (21) should be a0T^2/2.
[Eq. (10)] Eq. (10) has λ1a where the Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) requires λ2a.
[Eq. (14)] Eq. (14) contains a stray semicolon in the decision-variable vector; it should read D = [α0, α1, ..., α_{6N−1}, T]^T.
[§3.2, Eq. (17)] Eq. (17) writes expKp(...) without a multiplication sign; it should read exp(Kp(d(x(t),xobs(t))−ρ)).
[§4] The evaluation is qualitative only; no minimum separation distances, success rates, or computational timings are reported, making it difficult to assess the claimed collision-free performance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the collision-free claim rests on empirical simulation with soft penalties, which is a correctness limitation, not circularity.

full rationale

I examined Section 2's closed-form minimum-jerk/minimum-time trajectory prediction and Section 3's trajectory optimization NLP. Section 2 derives the prediction from the stated third-order dynamics (Eq. 1), the objective (Eq. 2), and Pontryagin's maximum principle; the coefficients in Eq. (9) are explicit functions of initial state, desired end position, and end time, with end time obtained from the roots of Eq. (11). No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no author self-citations are used as load-bearing support, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. Section 3 uses the predicted polynomials as x_obs(t) inside the soft collision cost of Eq. (16)-(17), while the planner's own trajectory minimizes smoothness, collision, dynamic-limit, and time costs. Although the predicted trajectories and the planner's trajectory share a jerk-and-time objective family, this is a modeling choice rather than a circular reduction: the predictions are computed from other robots' communicated states and goals, not from the planner's own decision variables, and the planner's decision variables are not defined in terms of the predictions in a way that makes the collision-free result true by construction. The paper's own admission in Section 4 that 'the utilization of soft constraints allows the robots to be able to violate the constraints if required... but is not so for collision avoidance' is a genuine limitation of the claimed 'collision-free' guarantee: the NLP contains no hard safety constraint, so the central claim is supported only by the specific simulations, not by the mathematics. That is a correctness/support risk, however, not a circularity. The derivation chain is self-contained and the paper does not reduce any output to its inputs by definition or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm depends on several hand-tuned weights and on assumptions about robot communication, model order, and prediction accuracy. No formal safety guarantees are provided, and the mathematical derivation of the prediction contains errors, so the ledger documents the assumptions that the central claim rests on.

free parameters (6)

Qdynm
Weight for dynamic smoothness cost in Eq. (15). Value is not reported; the paper says weights are hand-tuned.
Qobs
Collision avoidance weight in Eq. (16). Value is not reported; hand-tuned.
Qlim
Dynamic limit penalty weight in Eq. (18). Value is not reported; hand-tuned.
Kp
Exponent in the exponential collision barrier, Eq. (17). Value is not reported; hand-tuned.
rho
Threshold distance for collision avoidance, stated as sum of robot radii. Values are scenario-dependent and not fully specified.
Kt
Time penalty weight in the objective, Eq. (12a). Value is not reported; hand-tuned.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Robots are differentially flat, allowing trajectories to be planned over flat variables and their derivatives.
Invoked in Section 1 via Mellinger and Kumar (2011) and Ryu and Agrawal (2011).
domain assumption Reliable communication of current states and goals among all robots.
Required for the decentralized prediction of other robots' trajectories; stated in the abstract and Section 1.
domain assumption Aerial robots are modeled as third-order systems (position, velocity, acceleration) even though the cited simulators use fourth-order models.
Section 2.1 sets the model as x=[p,v,a], with a note in Section 4 that this matches Mueller et al. 2015.
domain assumption The predicted trajectories of other robots are treated as deterministic, with no uncertainty or interaction effects.
Section 1 acknowledges this diverges over longer durations, but the planner still uses these predictions in Eq. (17).
ad hoc to paper The costate boundary conditions in Section 2 correctly yield the polynomial coefficients for the prediction.
The derivation in the Appendix is internally inconsistent, appearing to force zero final velocity and acceleration independent of initial conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous-Time Trajectory Optimization for Decentralized Multi-Robot Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWJTUVXE

@misc{pith2026190902502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous-Time Trajectory Optimization for Decentralized Multi-Robot Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWJTUVXE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02502}
}

read the original abstract

Multi-robot systems have begun to permeate into a variety of different fields, but collision-free navigation in a decentralized manner is still an arduous task. Typically, the navigation of high speed multi-robot systems demands replanning of trajectories to avoid collisions with one another. This paper presents an online replanning algorithm for trajectory optimization in labeled multi-robot scenarios. With reliable communication of states among robots, each robot predicts a smooth continuous-time trajectory for every other remaining robots. Based on the knowledge of these predicted trajectories, each robot then plans a collision-free trajectory for itself. The collision-free trajectory optimization problem is cast as a non linear program (NLP) by exploiting polynomial based trajectory generation. The algorithm was tested in simulations on Gazebo with aerial robots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02502 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A sequence of images showing robots during different transitions. The red curves are the planned trajectories. A video of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** A schematic explaining the overall system. The white curve indicates the planned trajectory by robot 1 from it’s current state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The trajectories for six Neos robots during a rest-to-rest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Five Fireflys and Five Neos’s trajectories during a rest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The velocity profile for the eight robot multiple transi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The trajectories for Eight aerial robots(Three Neos and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

Able, B. (1956). Nucleic acid content of microscope. Nature, 135, 7--9

1956
[2]

Able, B., Tagg, R., and Rush, M. (1954). Enzyme-catalyzed cellular transanimations. In A. Round (ed.), Advances in Enzymology, volume 2, 125--247. Academic Press, New York, 3rd edition

1954
[3]

Keohane, R. (1958). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transitions. Little, Brown & Co., Boston

1958
[4]

Powers, T. (1985). Is there a way out? Harpers, 35--47

1985
[5]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sent...
[6]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[7]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := ...
[8]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize ":" * " " *...

Show all 38 references

[9]

Alonso-Mora, J., Beardsley, P., and Siegwart, R. (2018). Cooperative collision avoidance for nonholonomic robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 34(2), 404--420

2018
[10]

Alonso-Mora, J., Naegeli, T., Siegwart, R., and Beardsley, P. (2015). Collision avoidance for aerial vehicles in multi-agent scenarios. Autonomous Robots, 39(1), 101--121

2015
[11]

Altch \'e , F., Polack, P., and de La Fortelle, A. (2017). High-speed trajectory planning for autonomous vehicles using a simple dynamic model. In Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on, 1--7. IEEE

2017
[12]

Augugliaro, F., Schoellig, A.P., and D'Andrea, R. (2012). Generation of collision-free trajectories for a quadrocopter fleet: A sequential convex programming approach. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 1917--1922. IEEE

2012
[13]

and van den Berg, J

Bareiss, D. and van den Berg, J. (2015). Generalized reciprocal collision avoidance. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 34(12), 1501--1514

2015
[14]

Bekris, K.E., Grady, D.K., Moll, M., and Kavraki, L.E. (2012). Safe distributed motion coordination for second-order systems with different planning cycles. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31(2), 129--150

2012
[15]

Bertsekas, D.P. (2005). Dynamic programming and optimal control, volume 1. Athena scientific Belmont, MA

2005
[16]

Chen, Y., Cutler, M., and How, J.P. (2015). Decoupled multiagent path planning via incremental sequential convex programming. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, 5954--5961. IEEE

2015
[17]

Cheng, H., Zhu, Q., Liu, Z., Xu, T., and Lin, L. (2017). Decentralized navigation of multiple agents based on orca and model predictive control. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 3446--3451. IEEE

2017
[18]

Furrer, F., Burri, M., Achtelik, M., and Siegwart, R. (2016). Rotors—a modular gazebo mav simulator framework. In Robot Operating System (ROS), 595--625. Springer

2016
[19]

H \"o nig, W., Preiss, J.A., Kumar, T.S., Sukhatme, G.S., and Ayanian, N. (2018). Trajectory planning for quadrotor swarms. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 34(4), 856--869

2018
[20]

Horn, R.A. (1985). Cr johnson matrix analysis

1985
[21]

Johnson, S.G. (2014). The nlopt nonlinear-optimization package

2014
[22]

Kamel, M., Alonso-Mora, J., Siegwart, R., and Nieto, J. (2017). Robust collision avoidance for multiple micro aerial vehicles using nonlinear model predictive control. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 236--243. IEEE

2017
[23]

Kraft, D. (1988). A software package for sequential quadratic programming. Forschungsbericht- Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fur Luft- und Raumfahrt

1988
[24]

Lee, T., Leoky, M., and McClamroch, N.H. (2010). Geometric tracking control of a quadrotor uav on se (3). In Decision and Control (CDC), 2010 49th IEEE Conference on, 5420--5425. IEEE

2010
[25]

and Narayanan, A

Liu, F. and Narayanan, A. (2011). Real time replanning based on a* for collision avoidance in multi-robot systems. In Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI), 2011 8th International Conference on, 473--479. IEEE

2011
[26]

and Kumar, V

Mellinger, D. and Kumar, V. (2011). Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, 2520--2525. IEEE

2011
[27]

Morgan, D., Chung, S.J., and Hadaegh, F.Y. (2014). Model predictive control of swarms of spacecraft using sequential convex programming. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 37(6), 1725--1740

2014
[28]

Mueller, M.W., Hehn, M., and D'Andrea, R. (2015). A computationally efficient motion primitive for quadrocopter trajectory generation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 31(6), 1294--1310

2015
[29]

Rufli, M., Alonso-Mora, J., and Siegwart, R. (2013). Reciprocal collision avoidance with motion continuity constraints. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 29(4), 899--912

2013
[30]

and Agrawal, S.K

Ryu, J.C. and Agrawal, S.K. (2011). Differential flatness-based robust control of mobile robots in the presence of slip. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(4), 463--475

2011
[31]

Snape, J., Van Den Berg, J., Guy, S.J., and Manocha, D. (2010). Smooth and collision-free navigation for multiple robots under differential-drive constraints. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 4584--4589. IEEE

2010
[32]

Solovey, K., Salzman, O., and Halperin, D. (2016). 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, 35(5), 501--513

2016
[33]

Tang, S., Thomas, J., and Kumar, V. (2018). Hold or take optimal plan (hoop): A quadratic programming approach to multi-robot trajectory generation. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 0278364917741532

2018
[34]

Usenko, V., von Stumberg, L., Pangercic, A., and Cremers, D. (2017). Real-time trajectory replanning for mavs using uniform b-splines and a 3d circular buffer. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 215--222. IEEE

2017
[35]

Van Den Berg, J., Guy, S.J., Lin, M., and Manocha, D. (2011). Reciprocal n-body collision avoidance. In Robotics research, 3--19. Springer

2011
[36]

Van den Berg, J., Lin, M., and Manocha, D. (2008). Reciprocal velocity obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation. In Robotics and Automation, 2008. ICRA 2008. IEEE International Conference on, 1928--1935. IEEE

2008
[37]

Wang, L., Ames, A.D., and Egerstedt, M. (2017). Safe certificate-based maneuvers for teams of quadrotors using differential flatness. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, 3293--3298. IEEE

2017
[38]

Zhou, D., Wang, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., and Schwager, M. (2017). Fast, on-line collision avoidance for dynamic vehicles using buffered voronoi cells. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(2), 1047--1054

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Able, B. (1956). Nucleic acid content of microscope. Nature, 135, 7--9

1956

[2] [2]

Able, B., Tagg, R., and Rush, M. (1954). Enzyme-catalyzed cellular transanimations. In A. Round (ed.), Advances in Enzymology, volume 2, 125--247. Academic Press, New York, 3rd edition

1954

[3] [3]

Keohane, R. (1958). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transitions. Little, Brown & Co., Boston

1958

[4] [4]

Powers, T. (1985). Is there a way out? Harpers, 35--47

1985

[5] [5]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sent...

[6] [6]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[7] [7]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := ...

[8] [8]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize ":" * " " *...