pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20495 · v1 · pith:LLKHQRLLnew · submitted 2026-06-18 · 💻 cs.RO

Increasing Resilience of Continuum Robots via Motion Planning Algorithms

Oxana Shamilyan , Ievgen Kabin , Zoya Dyka , Oleksandr Sudakov , Peter Langendoerfer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 17:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords continuum robotsmotion planninggenetic algorithmA staranalytical hierarchy processresiliencepath planningmulti-criteria optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Genetic algorithm with multi-criteria scoring generates diverse paths whose computation time stays constant as environments grow, unlike A star.

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

The paper tests whether two path-planning algorithms, each paired with a multi-criteria ranking method, can produce routes that reduce wear on continuum robots and thereby delay maintenance. Four factors—total distance, motor damage, mechanical stress on the arm, and positioning accuracy—are weighed together to score every candidate path. In two simulated workspaces that differ in the number of possible waypoints, the Genetic algorithm keeps the same running time no matter how many waypoints are added, while A star slows down. The Genetic algorithm also returns a broader set of distinct routes. A reader would care because longer intervals between maintenance would let such robots stay in service longer in confined or repetitive tasks.

Core claim

By embedding the Analytical Hierarchy Process inside both the Genetic algorithm and A star, the authors let the planner trade off distance against motor damage, arm damage, and accuracy. The resulting paths are intended to increase the time until maintenance is required. Experiments show that the Genetic algorithm’s run time remains independent of the number of path points in the environment, whereas A star’s time grows with that number, and that the Genetic algorithm produces a more varied collection of acceptable paths.

What carries the argument

Analytical Hierarchy Process used to rank candidate paths on the four resilience criteria inside a Genetic algorithm and inside A star.

If this is right

  • Genetic algorithm run time stays constant when the workspace gains more waypoints.
  • The same algorithm returns a larger set of distinct feasible paths than A star.
  • Paths that balance the four criteria are expected to postpone the next maintenance operation.
  • A star’s running time grows with the number of candidate points in the environment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same multi-criteria ranking could be tried on rigid-link robots or on mobile bases where repeated stress on joints is also a concern.
  • Diverse route sets might let an operator switch paths on the fly if one route begins to show unexpected wear.
  • The approach could be checked by logging cumulative motor current and joint torque on a real prototype while it repeatedly follows the generated paths.

Load-bearing premise

That scoring paths on distance, motor damage, arm damage, and accuracy inside two simplified simulated workspaces is enough to show real gains in maintenance interval for an actual continuum robot.

What would settle it

Measure wall-clock time for both algorithms while steadily increasing the number of waypoints; if Genetic algorithm time rises with waypoint count or if the paths it returns do not reduce measured motor or arm stress in a physical prototype, the claimed advantage disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20495 by Ievgen Kabin, Oleksandr Sudakov, Oxana Shamilyan, Peter Langendoerfer, Zoya Dyka.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents an experimental study of motion planning for resilient continuum robots. In this study we mainly focused on multi-criteria decision-making, its application for path-planning algorithms, impact on the generated path and execution time. To do this, we used two well-known algorithms for path planning, namely Genetic algorithm and A star algorithm, and modified them by adding the Analytical Hierarchy Process algorithm to evaluate the quality of the paths generated. In our experiment the Analytical Hierarchy Process considers four different criteria, i.e. distance, motors damage, mechanical damage of the robot's arm and accuracy, each considered to contribute to the resilience of a continuum robot. The use of different criteria is necessary to increase the time to maintenance operations of the continuum robot. We conducted the experiments using two different simulated environments of the robot. Although we significantly simplified the robot's model and its environment, we still implemented some of the features of the environment based on the real robot prototype. In particular, one of the environments has single- as well as multi-path points, and other consists of the multi-path points only. The results show that, in contrast to A star, the performance time of Genetic algorithm does not depend on the environment's cardinality. It generates more diverse paths, which increases the robot's resilience.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an experimental study comparing Genetic Algorithm (GA) and A* for continuum robot motion planning, both augmented with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to rank paths according to four criteria (distance, motors damage, mechanical damage of the arm, accuracy). Experiments are performed in two simplified simulated environments derived from a physical prototype (one containing single- and multi-path points, the other multi-path points only). The central claim is that GA runtime is independent of environment cardinality while A* is not, and that GA produces more diverse paths, thereby increasing resilience measured as time to maintenance.

Significance. If the reported runtime independence and path-diversity results are substantiated with quantitative data, statistical tests, and physical validation, the work would offer a concrete demonstration that multi-criteria AHP weighting can be used to trade off damage-related objectives against conventional metrics in continuum-robot planning. The explicit linkage of path diversity to maintenance intervals and the grounding of simulation features in a real prototype are positive modeling choices that could be useful to the robotics community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claims that 'the performance time of Genetic algorithm does not depend on the environment's cardinality' and that GA 'generates more diverse paths' are stated without any accompanying numerical values, tables, runtime plots, diversity counts, error bars, or statistical tests. Because these statements constitute the central empirical result, the absence of supporting data renders the claim unevaluable from the manuscript.
  2. [Experimental Setup] Experimental description (throughout): no implementation details are supplied for how the four AHP criteria are quantified in simulation, how GA and A* are parameterized, how path diversity is computed, or how the simulated environments map to the physical prototype. These omissions are load-bearing because the paper's argument rests on an empirical comparison whose reproducibility and validity cannot be assessed.
  3. [Introduction / Motivation] Resilience modeling: the manuscript equates increased path diversity with extended time to maintenance but provides no quantitative mapping or validation against the physical prototype that would confirm the four chosen criteria are sufficient proxies for resilience. This assumption is central to the paper's motivation yet remains untested within the reported scope.
minor comments (2)
  1. The term 'environment's cardinality' is used without an explicit definition; clarify whether it denotes number of obstacles, number of path points, or another quantity.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a brief statement of the AHP pairwise-comparison matrix or priority-vector computation to make the multi-criteria weighting reproducible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below, indicating planned revisions to strengthen the manuscript while remaining faithful to the scope of the reported simulation study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claims that 'the performance time of Genetic algorithm does not depend on the environment's cardinality' and that GA 'generates more diverse paths' are stated without any accompanying numerical values, tables, runtime plots, diversity counts, error bars, or statistical tests. Because these statements constitute the central empirical result, the absence of supporting data renders the claim unevaluable from the manuscript.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract must be supported by concrete evidence. The results section presents runtime comparisons across environments of varying cardinality and path diversity metrics (e.g., variation in waypoint distributions and motor usage). In revision we will insert specific numerical examples (average runtimes, diversity scores), reference the existing runtime plots and tables, and add any missing error bars or statistical comparisons directly into the abstract text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental Setup] Experimental description (throughout): no implementation details are supplied for how the four AHP criteria are quantified in simulation, how GA and A* are parameterized, how path diversity is computed, or how the simulated environments map to the physical prototype. These omissions are load-bearing because the paper's argument rests on an empirical comparison whose reproducibility and validity cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We accept that additional implementation details are required for reproducibility. The revised manuscript will include a new subsection specifying: (1) exact formulas used to quantify each AHP criterion (distance, motor damage, mechanical damage, accuracy) from the simulated robot state; (2) GA parameters (population size, generations, crossover/mutation rates) and A* heuristic and tie-breaking rules; (3) the path diversity metric employed; and (4) the concrete measurements taken from the physical prototype that informed the two simulated environments. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Introduction / Motivation] Resilience modeling: the manuscript equates increased path diversity with extended time to maintenance but provides no quantitative mapping or validation against the physical prototype that would confirm the four chosen criteria are sufficient proxies for resilience. This assumption is central to the paper's motivation yet remains untested within the reported scope.

    Authors: The four criteria were chosen because they correspond to observed wear mechanisms on the physical prototype. Path diversity is argued to distribute load and thereby delay maintenance. However, the study contains no direct quantitative mapping from diversity scores to measured maintenance intervals, nor any physical-robot validation experiments. We will revise the introduction and discussion to present this linkage explicitly as a modeling hypothesis, add a limitations paragraph, and note the need for future physical validation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical comparison only

full rationale

The paper performs an empirical comparison of two existing path-planning algorithms (Genetic algorithm and A*) each augmented with AHP for multi-criteria path evaluation. No derivations, first-principles predictions, fitted parameters renamed as outputs, or self-citation load-bearing steps appear. Claims rest on direct runtime and diversity measurements in two simplified simulated environments; the mapping from the four AHP criteria to resilience is presented as an explicit modeling choice rather than a hidden definitional loop. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no reduction of results to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no equations, free parameters, or new entities are introduced. The work rests on the domain assumption that the four listed criteria adequately proxy resilience.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5770 in / 1147 out tokens · 36545 ms · 2026-06-26T17:03:54.147449+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ⋮𝐴#) 𝑤!𝑤

    provides a comparison of different motion models and demonstrates that the Cosserat theory can be used for the tasks where high accuracy is needed, but it is not suitable for real-time applications. The so-called model-free ap-proaches [13–15] help to solve the motion problem of continuum robots faster, as they do not consider mathematical background of c...

    1980

  2. [2]

    Fitness values for the generated paths Robot Start and goal points Combi-na-tion of cri-teria weights Fitness values for the generated paths Local Environment 1 N=165 points Local Environment 2 N=61 points GA A* GA A* 2 - sections Start point: {50, 47} Goal point: {3,14} 1 1559.50 1583.53 2139.27 1824.71 2 4793.19 4783.54 4751.13 4744.52 3 2251.92 2117.54...

    1929

  3. [3]

    In: 2022 11th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Compu-ting (MECO)

    Shamilyan O, Kabin I, Dyka Z, Langendoerfer P (2022) Distributed Artificial Intelligence as a Means to Achieve Self-X-Functions for Increasing Resilience: the First Steps. In: 2022 11th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Compu-ting (MECO). pp 1–6

    2022

  4. [4]

    IEEE Access 11:60988–61003

    Shamilyan O, Kabin I, Dyka Z, et al (2023) Intelligence and Motion Models of Continuum Robots: An Overview. IEEE Access 11:60988–61003. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3286300

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2023.3286300 2023

  5. [5]

    In: 2021 10th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Compu-ting (MECO)

    Shamilyan O, Kabin I, Dyka Z, et al (2021) Octopuses: biological facts and tech-nical solutions. In: 2021 10th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Compu-ting (MECO). IEEE, Budva, Montenegro, pp 1–7

    2021

  6. [6]

    In: Multi-Objective Decision Making Work-shop at ECAI

    Shamilyan O, Kabin I, Dyka Z, Langendoerfer P (2024) Resilient Movement Planning for Continuum Robots. In: Multi-Objective Decision Making Work-shop at ECAI

    2024

  7. [7]

    In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Ro-bots and Systems (IROS)

    Nguyen T-D, Burgner-Kahrs J (2015) A tendon-driven continuum robot with ex-tensible sections. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Ro-bots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2130–2135

    2015

  8. [8]

    IEEE transactions on robotics : a pub-lication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 34:1518–1533

    Renda F, Boyer F, Dias J, Seneviratne L (2018) Discrete Cosserat Approach for Multisection Soft Manipulator Dynamics. IEEE transactions on robotics : a pub-lication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 34:1518–1533. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2018.2868815

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2018.2868815 2018

  9. [9]

    In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2016)

    Neumann M, Burgner-Kahrs J (2016) Considerations for follow-the-leader mo-tion of extensible tendon-driven continuum robots. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2016). IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp 917–923

    2016

  10. [10]

    IEEE transactions on ro-botics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 26:769–780

    Rucker DC, Jones BA, Webster RJ (2010) A Geometrically Exact Model for Ex-ternally Loaded Concentric-Tube Continuum Robots. IEEE transactions on ro-botics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 26:769–780. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2010.2062570

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2010.2062570 2010

  11. [11]

    IEEE transactions on ro-botics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 27:1033–1044

    Rucker DC, Webster III RJ (2011) Statics and Dynamics of Continuum Robots With General Tendon Routing and External Loading. IEEE transactions on ro-botics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 27:1033–1044. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2011.2160469

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2011.2160469 2011

  12. [12]

    IEEE transactions on robotics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 30:1109–1122

    Renda F, Giorelli M, Calisti M, et al (2014) Dynamic Model of a Multibending Soft Robot Arm Driven by Cables. IEEE transactions on robotics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society 30:1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2014.2325992

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2014.2325992 2014

  13. [13]

    Nature 81:67

    Cosserat F, Cosserat E (1909) Théorie des Corps déformables. Nature 81:67. https://doi.org/10.1038/081067a0 37

    work page doi:10.1038/081067a0 1909

  14. [14]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4:989–996

    Chikhaoui MT, Lilge S, Kleinschmidt S, Burgner-Kahrs J (2019) Comparison of Modeling Approaches for a Tendon Actuated Continuum Robot With Three Ex-tensible Segments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4:989–996. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2019.2893610

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2019.2893610 2019

  15. [15]

    Bioinspiration & biomimetics 12:066003

    Thuruthel TG, Falotico E, Renda F, Laschi C (2017) Learning dynamic models for open loop predictive control of soft robotic manipulators. Bioinspiration & biomimetics 12:066003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/aa839f

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-3190/aa839f 2017

  16. [16]

    Bioinspiration & biomimetics 14:034001

    Thuruthel TG, Falotico E, Renda F, et al (2019) Emergence of behavior through morphology: a case study on an octopus inspired manipulator. Bioinspiration & biomimetics 14:034001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3190/ab1621

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-3190/ab1621 2019

  17. [17]

    Soft robotics 5:149–163

    George Thuruthel T, Ansari Y, Falotico E, Laschi C (2018) Control Strategies for Soft Robotic Manipulators: A Survey. Soft robotics 5:149–163. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2017.0007

    work page doi:10.1089/soro.2017.0007 2018

  18. [18]

    IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 804:022024

    Tang Z, Ma H (2021) An overview of path planning algorithms. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 804:022024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/804/2/022024

    work page doi:10.1088/1755-1315/804/2/022024 2021

  19. [19]

    Vehicles 3:448–468

    Karur K, Sharma N, Dharmatti C, Siegel JE (2021) A Survey of Path Planning Algorithms for Mobile Robots. Vehicles 3:448–468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ve-hicles3030027

    work page doi:10.3390/ve-hicles3030027 2021

  20. [20]

    Gade PK, Osuri M (2014) Evaluation of Multi Criteria Decision Making Meth-ods for Potential Use in Application Security

    2014

  21. [21]

    American Journal of Infor-mation Systems 1:31–43

    Aruldoss M, Lakshmi TM, Venkatesan VP (2013) A Survey on Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications. American Journal of Infor-mation Systems 1:31–43. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajis-1-1-5

    work page doi:10.12691/ajis-1-1-5 2013

  22. [22]

    Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods

    2013

  23. [23]

    Electronics 9:290

    Kim C, Kim Y, Yi H (2020) Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based Mobile Robot Path Planning. Electronics 9:290. https://doi.org/10.3390/electron-ics9020290

    work page doi:10.3390/electron-ics9020290 2020

  24. [24]

    Sensors 20:4258

    Kim C, Suh J, Han J-H (2020) Development of a Hybrid Path Planning Algo-rithm and a Bio-Inspired Control for an Omni-Wheel Mobile Robot. Sensors 20:4258. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20154258

    work page doi:10.3390/s20154258 2020

  25. [25]

    https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/docu-ment/9995976

    Multi-Criteria Decision Method Applied to Path Planning for Mobile Robots | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/docu-ment/9995976. Accessed 29 Nov 2024

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Symmetry 11:1241

    Zagradjanin, Pamucar, Jovanovic (2019) Cloud-Based Multi-Robot Path Plan-ning in Complex and Crowded Environment with Multi-Criteria Decision Mak-ing using Full Consistency Method. Symmetry 11:1241. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11101241

    work page doi:10.3390/sym11101241 2019

  27. [27]

    IJGI 10:530

    Damos MA, Zhu J, Li W, et al (2021) A Novel Urban Tourism Path Planning Approach Based on a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm. IJGI 10:530. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10080530

    work page doi:10.3390/ijgi10080530 2021

  28. [28]

    In: 2022 2nd International Conference on Algorithms, High Perfor-mance Computing and Artificial Intelligence (AHPCAI)

    Wang H (2022) Continuum Robot Path Planning Based on Improved Genetic Algorithm. In: 2022 2nd International Conference on Algorithms, High Perfor-mance Computing and Artificial Intelligence (AHPCAI). pp 23–29 38

    2022

  29. [29]

    In: Greco S, Marques Pereira RA, Squil-lante M, et al (eds) Preferences and Decisions: Models and Applications

    García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT, Verdegay JL (2010) The TOPSIS Method and Its Application to Linguistic Variables. In: Greco S, Marques Pereira RA, Squil-lante M, et al (eds) Preferences and Decisions: Models and Applications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 383–395

    2010

  30. [30]

    McGraw-Hill International Book Company

    Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Re-source Allocation. McGraw-Hill International Book Company

    1980

  31. [31]

    https://bpmsg.com/ahp/ahp-calc.php

    AHP calculator - AHP-OS. https://bpmsg.com/ahp/ahp-calc.php. Accessed 29 Feb 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    https://comcastsamples.github.io/ahp-tool/

    Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Tool. https://comcastsamples.github.io/ahp-tool/. Accessed 29 Feb 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    https://www.spicelogic.com/docs/ahpsoftware/intro/ahp-calculation-methods-396

    Tutorials - AHP Calculation Methods. https://www.spicelogic.com/docs/ahpsoftware/intro/ahp-calculation-methods-396. Accessed 29 Feb 2024

    2024

  34. [34]

    In: Analytics Vidhya

    Sharma P (2020) Understanding Distance Metrics Used in Machine Learning. In: Analytics Vidhya. https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2020/02/4-types-of-distance-metrics-in-machine-learning/. Accessed 7 Mar 2024

    2020

  35. [35]

    In: MIT Press

    Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. In: MIT Press. https://mit-press.mit.edu/9780262581110/adaptation-in-natural-and-artificial-systems/. Ac-cessed 1 Aug 2023

    arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Materials Today: Proceedings 2:2624–2630

    Bhoskar MsT, Kulkarni MrOK, Kulkarni MrNK, et al (2015) Genetic Algorithm and its Applications to Mechanical Engineering: A Review. Materials Today: Proceedings 2:2624–2630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.219

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.219 2015

  37. [37]

    IFAC Proceedings Volumes 30:485–490

    Griffiths IJ, Mehdi QH, Wang T, Gough NE (1997) A Genetic Algorithm for Path Planning. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 30:485–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)43312-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s1474-6670(17)43312-x 1997

  38. [38]

    https://bertcarnell.github.io/lhs/reference/geneticLHS.html

    Latin Hypercube Sampling with a Genetic Algorithm — geneticLHS. https://bertcarnell.github.io/lhs/reference/geneticLHS.html. Accessed 5 Dec 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Multimed Tools Appl 80:8091–8126

    Katoch S, Chauhan SS, Kumar V (2021) A review on genetic algorithm: past, present, and future. Multimed Tools Appl 80:8091–8126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11042-020-10139-6 2021

  40. [40]

    https://www.baeldung.com/cs/genetic-algorithms-roulette-selec-tion

    Luca GD (2020) Roulette Selection in Genetic Algorithms | Baeldung on Com-puter Science. https://www.baeldung.com/cs/genetic-algorithms-roulette-selec-tion. Accessed 27 Feb 2024

    2020

  41. [41]

    https://www.tutorialspoint.com/genetic_algo-rithms/genetic_algorithms_mutation.htm

    Genetic Algorithms - Mutation. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/genetic_algo-rithms/genetic_algorithms_mutation.htm. Accessed 27 Feb 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    Omar Khattab, Keshav Santhanam, Xiang Lisa Li, David Hall, Percy Liang, Christopher Potts, and Matei Zaharia

    Hart PE, Nilsson NJ, Raphael B (1968) A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Deter-mination of Minimum Cost Paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 4:100–107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136

    work page doi:10.1109/tssc.1968.300136 1968

  43. [43]

    JCC 04:15–25

    Barnouti NH, Al-Dabbagh SSM, Sahib Naser MA (2016) Pathfinding in Strategy Games and Maze Solving Using A* Search Algorithm. JCC 04:15–25. https://doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2016.411002

    work page doi:10.4236/jcc.2016.411002 2016

  44. [44]

    Procedia Technology 23:144–149

    Guruji AK, Agarwal H, Parsediya DK (2016) Time-efficient A* Algorithm for Robot Path Planning. Procedia Technology 23:144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.03.010 39

    work page doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2016.03.010 2016

  45. [45]

    Neurocomputing 170:257–266

    Zuo L, Guo Q, Xu X, Fu H (2015) A hierarchical path planning approach based on A⁎ and least-squares policy iteration for mobile robots. Neurocomputing 170:257–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2014.09.092

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2014.09.092 2015

  46. [46]

    Combina-tion

    Jianqin L, Xiao G (2022) Research on improved A-star algorithm for global path planning of unmanned logistics vehicles. In: 2022 14th International Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics (IHMSC). pp 44–47 40 Appendix (b) Fig. A1. Generated paths for the Algorithm 1in Environment 1 for (a) the 2-sections robot, (b) the 4-sections r...

    2022