arxiv: 2602.00992 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-01 · 💻 cs.RO

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Geometry-Aware Sampling-Based Motion Planning on Riemannian Manifolds

Phone Thiha Kyaw , Jonathan Kelly

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 09:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO

keywords motion planningRiemannian manifoldsgeodesic distancesampling-based planningconfiguration spaceRiemannian metricslocal plannerrobot arms

0 comments

The pith

A midpoint-based approximation of Riemannian geodesic distance achieves third-order accuracy for sampling-based robot motion planning.

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

Robot motion planning often involves configuration spaces with non-Euclidean geometry induced by constraints and objectives, yet many planners ignore this by using flat Euclidean distances. The paper develops a sampling-based framework that works directly on Riemannian manifolds to generate collision-free paths minimizing length under the natural metric. It introduces an efficient midpoint approximation to the geodesic distance and proves this matches the true Riemannian distance to third-order accuracy. The approximation underpins a local planner that follows the manifold via first-order retractions steered by Riemannian natural gradients. Experiments on planar arms, a 7-DoF manipulator under kinetic-energy metrics, and non-holonomic SE(2) planning show the resulting trajectories have lower cost than both Euclidean sampling planners and classical numerical geodesic solvers.

Core claim

The authors introduce a computationally efficient midpoint-based approximation of the Riemannian geodesic distance and prove that it matches the true Riemannian distance with third-order accuracy. Building on this approximation, they design a local planner that traces the manifold using first-order retractions guided by Riemannian natural gradients. This enables sampling-based planning that produces lower-cost collision-free trajectories on high-dimensional systems compared to Euclidean baselines and numerical solvers.

What carries the argument

Midpoint-based approximation to the Riemannian geodesic distance, which supplies third-order accuracy and enables local planning via first-order retractions on the manifold.

If this is right

Sampling-based planners can now respect configuration-dependent Riemannian metrics without relying on slow numerical geodesic computation.
The resulting trajectories exhibit measurably lower cost than Euclidean-distance planners on both planar arms and 7-DoF manipulators.
The same local planner handles non-holonomic constraints on SE(2) while still producing shorter paths than classical baselines.
The method scales to high-dimensional systems where full numerical integration of geodesics becomes prohibitive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Existing RRT-style algorithms could incorporate the midpoint step as a drop-in replacement for Euclidean distance checks to gain geometric fidelity at modest extra cost.
The approach might be extended by replacing first-order retractions with higher-order maps when the underlying manifold admits them, potentially raising accuracy further in very curved regions.
Real-time replanning loops on physical robots could adopt this planner once the per-sample overhead is profiled, especially for tasks where kinetic-energy or inertia metrics dominate.
Similar midpoint constructions could be tested on other Lie groups such as SO(3) for orientation planning without major reformulation.

Load-bearing premise

The third-order midpoint approximation together with first-order retractions stays sufficiently accurate in high-dimensional configuration spaces without accumulating unacceptable errors or demanding too many samples.

What would settle it

Execute the planner on the 7-DoF Franka arm, extract the returned path, and recompute its length with a high-precision numerical geodesic solver; if the approximated planner's paths are consistently longer or fail to find feasible low-cost solutions where the numerical method succeeds, the third-order claim is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00992 by Jonathan Kelly, Phone Thiha Kyaw.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Midpoint-based geodesic distance between configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Geodesics found by various motion planning methods for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of collision-free geodesics produced by the benchmarked methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

In many robot motion planning problems, task objectives and physical constraints induce non-Euclidean geometry on the configuration space, yet many planners operate using Euclidean distances that ignore this structure. We address the problem of planning collision-free motions that minimize length under configuration-dependent Riemannian metrics, corresponding to geodesics on the configuration manifold. Conventional numerical methods for computing such paths do not scale well to high-dimensional systems, while sampling-based planners trade scalability for geometric fidelity. To bridge this gap, we propose a sampling-based motion planning framework that operates directly on Riemannian manifolds. We introduce a computationally efficient midpoint-based approximation of the Riemannian geodesic distance and prove that it matches the true Riemannian distance with third-order accuracy. Building on this approximation, we design a local planner that traces the manifold using first-order retractions guided by Riemannian natural gradients. Experiments on a two-link planar arm and a 7-DoF Franka manipulator under a kinetic-energy metric, as well as on rigid-body planning in $\mathrm{SE}(2)$ with non-holonomic motion constraints, demonstrate that our approach consistently produces lower-cost trajectories than Euclidean-based planners and classical numerical geodesic-solver baselines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Midpoint geodesic distance approx with third-order proof is the fresh piece, but first-order retractions could let linear errors pile up across many segments.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper gives a midpoint-based approximation to Riemannian geodesic distance, proves third-order accuracy for it, and folds the result into a sampling-based planner that uses Riemannian natural gradients plus first-order retractions. That combination is not just a routine extension of the Euclidean or numerical methods cited in the abstract. The experiments on the two-link arm, the 7-DoF Franka with a kinetic-energy metric, and rigid-body planning in SE(2) show lower-cost paths than the Euclidean and classical geodesic baselines, which is concrete evidence that the geometric fidelity helps in practice. The derivation of the approximation itself comes from standard Taylor expansion of the metric around the midpoint, so it stays non-circular and parameter-free. The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test note flags: the local planner advances with first-order retractions, and sampling-based methods chain many such steps. Linear error per step can grow with path length or sample count, which may swamp the cubic distance accuracy once you move beyond short, low-dimensional cases. The abstract does not spell out how they bound or mitigate that accumulation, so the full manuscript needs to show the controls. This work is aimed at robotics researchers who already care about curved configuration spaces and want something that scales better than pure numerical geodesic solvers. The internal logic holds together on the reported results, and the experiments are at least directionally supportive, so it deserves a serious referee to check the proof details and the retraction error behavior.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce a sampling-based motion planning framework on Riemannian manifolds by proposing a midpoint-based approximation to the geodesic distance with a proof of third-order accuracy. It designs a local planner using first-order retractions and Riemannian natural gradients, and demonstrates through experiments on robotic systems that it produces lower-cost collision-free trajectories compared to Euclidean planners and numerical geodesic solvers.

Significance. If the third-order accuracy of the distance approximation holds and integrates effectively with the retraction-based planner without significant error accumulation, the work provides a scalable method for geometry-aware planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces. The combination of theoretical accuracy guarantee and empirical improvements over baselines represents a meaningful advance in bridging numerical and sampling-based approaches for non-Euclidean metrics.

major comments (1)

[Local planner description and accuracy proof] The manuscript proves third-order accuracy for the midpoint-based approximation of the Riemannian geodesic distance (via Taylor analysis around the midpoint). However, the local planner traces the manifold using first-order retractions. Since sampling-based planners compose many such segments to form global paths, the first-order retraction error per step can accumulate linearly with the number of segments (O(Nh) for fixed total length), potentially dominating the O(h^3) distance error in high-dimensional spaces with many samples. This interaction is not addressed by the local Taylor analysis alone and requires additional error bounds or analysis to support the central claims of the framework.

minor comments (1)

The abstract references specific experiments on a two-link arm, 7-DoF Franka, and SE(2), but the manuscript could benefit from more details on the number of samples, collision checking methods, and statistical significance of the cost improvements for full reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for recognizing the potential advance in bridging sampling-based and geometric planning methods. We address the single major comment below with a direct response and commit to revisions that strengthen the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The manuscript proves third-order accuracy for the midpoint-based approximation of the Riemannian geodesic distance (via Taylor analysis around the midpoint). However, the local planner traces the manifold using first-order retractions. Since sampling-based planners compose many such segments to form global paths, the first-order retraction error per step can accumulate linearly with the number of segments (O(Nh) for fixed total length), potentially dominating the O(h^3) distance error in high-dimensional spaces with many samples. This interaction is not addressed by the local Taylor analysis alone and requires additional error bounds or analysis to support the central claims of the framework.

Authors: We thank the referee for identifying this gap in the error analysis. The third-order accuracy result applies specifically to the midpoint distance approximation used for cost evaluation and neighbor selection within the sampling-based framework. The local planner employs first-order retractions for efficiency when generating candidate segments, as higher-order retractions would require additional derivative computations that scale poorly in high-dimensional configuration spaces. We agree that the manuscript does not explicitly bound the accumulated retraction error over composed segments. In practice, the sampling process and collision-checking mechanism keep individual segment lengths small and adaptive, and the reported experiments on 7-DoF systems show consistent cost reductions without visible accumulation effects. To address the concern rigorously, we will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript that derives a composite error bound under standard Lipschitz assumptions on the metric tensor, demonstrating that the O(h^3) term remains dominant for the step sizes employed. This addition will support the central claims without changing the algorithmic contributions or experimental results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained via standard Taylor analysis

full rationale

The paper derives the midpoint-based geodesic distance approximation from standard Taylor expansion of the Riemannian metric around the midpoint, proving third-order accuracy without reducing to any fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or self-citation chain. The local planner's use of first-order retractions is a separate design choice whose error behavior is evaluated against independent Euclidean and numerical baselines rather than being forced by the distance approximation itself. No load-bearing step collapses to an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Riemannian geometry (configuration space is a smooth manifold equipped with a positive-definite metric) and introduces no new free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond the domain assumption that the metric is known and computable.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The robot configuration space is a Riemannian manifold with a given positive-definite metric tensor.
Invoked throughout the abstract as the setting for geodesic planning.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1247 out tokens · 51735 ms · 2026-05-16T09:21:24.078616+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We introduce a computationally efficient midpoint-based approximation of the Riemannian geodesic distance and prove that it matches the true Riemannian distance with third-order accuracy.

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Expert Systems with Applications p

Bao, R., Wang, J., Wang, S.: Geodesic-based path planning for port transfer robots on Riemannian manifolds. Expert Systems with Applications p. 129706 (2025)

work page 2025
[2]

The International Journal of Robotics Research42(10), 729–754 (2023)

Beik-Mohammadi,H.,Hauberg,S.,Arvanitidis,G.,Neumann,G.,Rozo,L.:Reactive motion generation on learned Riemannian manifolds. The International Journal of Robotics Research42(10), 729–754 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Proceed- ings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science216(1), 47–60 (2002)

Belta, C., Kumar, V.: Euclidean metrics for motion generation on SE(3). Proceed- ings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science216(1), 47–60 (2002)

work page 2002
[4]

Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics83(3), 031927 (2011)

Biess, A., Flash, T., Liebermann, D.G.: Riemannian geometric approach to hu- man arm dynamics, movement optimization, and invariance. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics83(3), 031927 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

Journal of Neuroscience 27(48), 13045–13064 (2007)

Biess, A., Liebermann, D.G., Flash, T.: A computational model for redundant human three-dimensional pointing movements: integration of independent spatial and temporal motor plans simplifies movement dynamics. Journal of Neuroscience 27(48), 13045–13064 (2007)

work page 2007
[6]

Cambridge University Press (2023)

Boumal, N.: An Introduction to Optimization on Smooth Manifolds. Cambridge University Press (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Bullo, F., Lewis, A.D.: Geometric control of mechanical systems: modeling, analysis, and design for simple mechanical control systems, vol. 49. Springer (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

In: 2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII)

Carpentier, J., Saurel, G., Buondonno, G., Mirabel, J., Lamiraux, F., Stasse, O., Mansard, N.: The Pinocchio C++ library: A fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives. In: 2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII). pp. 614–619 (2019)

work page 2019
[9]

IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters7(2), 882–889 (2021)

Chamzas, C., Quintero-Pena, C., Kingston, Z., Orthey, A., Rakita, D., Gleicher, M., Toussaint, M., Kavraki, L.E.: MotionBenchMaker: A tool to generate and benchmark motion planning datasets. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters7(2), 882–889 (2021)

work page 2021
[10]

International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems13(5), 1729881416657742 (2016)

Chen, Y., Li, L., Tang, W.: An improved geodesic algorithm for trajectory planning of multi-joint robots. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems13(5), 1729881416657742 (2016)

work page 2016
[11]

IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering18(3), 968–987 (2021)

Cheng, C.A., Mukadam, M., Issac, J., Birchfield, S., Fox, D., Boots, B., Ratliff, N.: RMPflow: A geometric framework for generation of multitask motion policies. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering18(3), 968–987 (2021)

work page 2021
[12]

ACM Transactions on Graphics32(5), 1–11 (2013)

Crane, K., Weischedel, C., Wardetzky, M.: Geodesics in heat: A new approach to computing distance based on heat flow. ACM Transactions on Graphics32(5), 1–11 (2013)

work page 2013
[13]

Detlefsen, N.S., Pouplin, A., Feldager, C.W., Geng, C., Kalatzis, D., Hauschultz, H., González-Duque, M., Warburg, F., Miani, M., Hauberg, S.: StochMan. GitHub. Note: https://github.com/MachineLearningLifeScience/stochman/ (2021)

work page 2021
[14]

Journal of the ACM (JACM)40(5), 1048–1066 (1993)

Donald, B., Xavier, P., Canny, J., Reif, J.: Kinodynamic motion planning. Journal of the ACM (JACM)40(5), 1048–1066 (1993)

work page 1993
[15]

Biological Cybernetics96(6), 577–601 (2007)

Flash, T., Handzel, A.A.: Affine differential geometry analysis of human arm movements. Biological Cybernetics96(6), 577–601 (2007)

work page 2007
[16]

In: Biomechanics of Anthropomorphic Systems, pp

Flash, T., Karklinsky, M., Fuchs, R., Berthoz, A., Bennequin, D., Meirovitch, Y.: Motor compositionality and timing: combined geometrical and optimization approaches. In: Biomechanics of Anthropomorphic Systems, pp. 155–184. Springer (2018) 18 P. T. Kyaw and J. Kelly

work page 2018
[17]

Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society6(3), 309–321 (1999)

Handzel, A.A., Flash, T.: Geometric methods in the study of human motor control. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society6(3), 309–321 (1999)

work page 1999
[18]

Helgason, S.: Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces, vol. 80. Academic Press (1979)

work page 1979
[19]

International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos12(03), 451–476 (2002)

Henderson, M.E.: Multiple parameter continuation: Computing implicitly defined k-manifolds. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos12(03), 451–476 (2002)

work page 2002
[20]

IEEE Transactions on Robotics29(1), 105–117 (2012)

Jaillet, L., Porta, J.M.: Path planning under kinematic constraints by rapidly exploring manifolds. IEEE Transactions on Robotics29(1), 105–117 (2012)

work page 2012
[21]

In: The International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR)

Jaquier, N., Asfour, T.: Riemannian geometry as a unifying theory for robot motion learning and control. In: The International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR). pp. 395–403. Springer (2022)

work page 2022
[22]

The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(2-3), 624–650 (2021)

Jaquier, N., Rozo, L., Caldwell, D.G., Calinon, S.: Geometry-aware manipulability learning, tracking, and transfer. The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(2-3), 624–650 (2021)

work page 2021
[23]

The International Journal of Robotics Research30(7), 846–894 (2011)

Karaman, S., Frazzoli, E.: Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research30(7), 846–894 (2011)

work page 2011
[24]

Robotica34(1), 202–225 (2016)

Kim, B., Um, T.T., Suh, C., Park, F.C.: Tangent bundle RRT: A randomized algorithm for constrained motion planning. Robotica34(1), 202–225 (2016)

work page 2016
[25]

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 1(1), 159–185 (2018)

Kingston, Z., Moll, M., Kavraki, L.E.: Sampling-based methods for motion planning with constraints. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 1(1), 159–185 (2018)

work page 2018
[26]

In: 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Klein, H., Jaquier, N., Meixner, A., Asfour, T.: On the design of region-avoiding metrics for collision-safe motion generation on Riemannian manifolds. In: 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 2346–2353 (2023)

work page 2023
[27]

In: Proceedings 2000 ICRA

Kuffner, J.J., LaValle, S.M.: RRT-Connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning. In: Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium conference. IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065). vol. 2, pp. 995–1001. IEEE (2000)

work page 2000
[28]

IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation10(5), 577–593 (2002)

Laumond, J.P., Jacobs, P.E., Taix, M., Murray, R.M.: A motion planner for non- holonomic mobile robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation10(5), 577–593 (2002)

work page 2002
[29]

In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Laux, M., Zell, A.: Robot arm motion planning based on geodesics. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 7585–7591 (2021)

work page 2021
[30]

In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Laux, M., Zell, A.: Boundary conditions in geodesic motion planning for manipula- tors. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 1558–1564 (2023)

work page 2023
[31]

Cambridge University Press (2006)

LaValle, S.M.: Planning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press (2006)

work page 2006
[32]

The Interna- tional Journal of Robotics Research20(5), 378–400 (2001)

LaValle, S.M., Kuffner Jr, J.J.: Randomized kinodynamic planning. The Interna- tional Journal of Robotics Research20(5), 378–400 (2001)

work page 2001
[33]

Springer, 2 edn

Lee, J.M.: Introduction to Smooth Manifolds. Springer, 2 edn. (2012)

work page 2012
[34]

Springer, 2 edn

Lee, J.M.: Introduction to Riemannian Manifolds. Springer, 2 edn. (2018)

work page 2018
[35]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05197 (2024)

Li, Y., Qiu, J., Calinon, S.: A Riemannian take on distance fields and geodesic flows in robotics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05197 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[36]

In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Mainprice, J., Ratliff, N., Schaal, S.: Warping the workspace geometry with electric potentials for motion optimization of manipulation tasks. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 3156–3163 (2016) Sampling-Based Motion Planning on Riemannian Manifolds 19

work page 2016
[37]

In: 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN)

Mainprice, J., Ratliff, N., Toussaint, M., Schaal, S.: An interior point method solving motion planning problems with narrow passages. In: 2020 29th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). pp. 547–552 (2020)

work page 2020
[38]

Robotics and Autonomous Systems145, 103865 (2021)

Marić, F., Petrović, L., Guberina, M., Kelly, J., Petrović, I.: A Riemannian metric for geometry-aware singularity avoidance by articulated robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems145, 103865 (2021)

work page 2021
[39]

Advances in Mathe- matics21(3), 293–329 (1976)

Milnor, J.: Curvatures of left invariant metrics on Lie groups. Advances in Mathe- matics21(3), 293–329 (1976)

work page 1976
[40]

HAL (Preprint), April63(2017)

Mirebeau, J.M.: Anisotropic fast-marching on cartesian grids using Voronoi’s first reduction of quadratic forms. HAL (Preprint), April63(2017)

work page 2017
[41]

Foundations and Trends®in Computer Graphics and Vision5(3–4), 197–397 (2010)

Peyré, G., Péchaud, M., Keriven, R., Cohen, L.D., et al.: Geodesic methods in computer vision and graphics. Foundations and Trends®in Computer Graphics and Vision5(3–4), 197–397 (2010)

work page 2010
[42]

In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software

Quigley, M., Conley, K., Gerkey, B., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., Wheeler, R., Ng, A.Y., et al.: ROS: An open-source robot operating system. In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software. vol. 3, p. 5. Kobe (2009)

work page 2009
[43]

In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Ratliff, N., Toussaint, M., Schaal, S.: Understanding the geometry of workspace obstacles in motion optimization. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 4202–4209 (2015)

work page 2015
[44]

In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Ratliff, N., Zucker, M., Bagnell, J.A., Srinivasa, S.: CHOMP: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning. In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 489–494 (2009)

work page 2009
[45]

Riemannian Motion Policies

Ratliff, N.D., Issac, J., Kappler, D., Birchfield, S., Fox, D.: Riemannian motion policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02854 (2018)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[46]

Algorithmica67(4), 547–565 (2013)

Salzman, O., Hemmer, M., Raveh, B., Halperin, D.: Motion planning via manifold samples. Algorithmica67(4), 547–565 (2013)

work page 2013
[47]

Robotics and Autonomous Systems169, 104510 (2023)

Saveriano, M., Abu-Dakka, F.J., Kyrki, V.: Learning stable robotic skills on Rie- mannian manifolds. Robotics and Autonomous Systems169, 104510 (2023)

work page 2023
[48]

In: 2009 ICCAS-SICE

Sekimoto, M., Arimoto, S., Prilutsky, B.I., Isaka, T., Kawamura, S.: Observation of human multi-joint arm movement from the viewpoint of a Riemannian distance. In: 2009 ICCAS-SICE. pp. 2664–2669 (2009)

work page 2009
[49]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences93(4), 1591–1595 (1996)

Sethian, J.A.: A fast marching level set method for monotonically advancing fronts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences93(4), 1591–1595 (1996)

work page 1996
[50]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops

Shao, H., Kumar, A., Thomas Fletcher, P.: The Riemannian geometry of deep generative models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. pp. 315–323 (2018)

work page 2018
[51]

In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

Şucan, I.A., Chitta, S.: Motion planning with constraints using configuration space approximations. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 1904–1910 (2012)

work page 2012
[52]

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine19(4), 72–82 (2012)

Sucan, I.A., Moll, M., Kavraki, L.E.: The open motion planning library. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine19(4), 72–82 (2012)

work page 2012
[53]

ACM Transactions on Graphics24(3), 553–560 (2005)

Surazhsky, V., Surazhsky, T., Kirsanov, D., Gortler, S.J., Hoppe, H.: Fast exact and approximate geodesics on meshes. ACM Transactions on Graphics24(3), 553–560 (2005)

work page 2005
[54]

Nature Neuroscience 7(9), 907–915 (2004)

Todorov, E.: Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nature Neuroscience 7(9), 907–915 (2004)

work page 2004
[55]

In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry

Wilmarth, S.A., Amato, N.M., Stiller, P.F.: Motion planning for a rigid body using random networks on the medial axis of the free space. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry. pp. 173–180 (1999) 20 P. T. Kyaw and J. Kelly

work page 1999
[56]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01697 (2025)

Zhang, Y., Zhou, Q., Yang, X.S.: An RRT* algorithm based on Riemannian metric model for optimal path planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01697 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025