Hubbry Logo
Robot navigationRobot navigationMain
Open search
Robot navigation
Community hub
Robot navigation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Robot navigation
Robot navigation
Robot navigation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Robot navigation using visual and sensorimotor information (2013)

Robot localization denotes the robot's ability to establish its own position and orientation within the frame of reference. Path planning is effectively an extension of localization, in that it requires the determination of the robot's current position and a position of a goal location, both within the same frame of reference or coordinates. Map building can be in the shape of a metric map or any notation describing locations in the robot frame of reference.[citation needed]

For any mobile device, the ability to navigate in its environment is important. Avoiding dangerous situations such as collisions and unsafe conditions (temperature, radiation, exposure to weather, etc.) comes first, but if the robot has a purpose that relates to specific places in the robot environment, it must find those places. This article will present an overview of the skill of navigation and try to identify the basic blocks of a robot navigation system, types of navigation systems, and closer look at its related building components.

Robot navigation means the robot's ability to determine its own position in its frame of reference and then to plan a path towards some goal location. In order to navigate in its environment, the robot or any other mobility device requires representation, i.e. a map of the environment and the ability to interpret that representation.

Navigation can be defined as the combination of the three fundamental competences:[1]

  1. Self-localization
  2. Path planning
  3. Map-building and map interpretation

Some robot navigation systems use simultaneous localization and mapping to generate 3D reconstructions of their surroundings.[2]

Vision-based navigation

[edit]

Vision-based navigation or optical navigation uses computer vision algorithms and optical sensors, including laser-based range finder and photometric cameras using CCD arrays, to extract the visual features required to the localization in the surrounding environment. However, there are a range of techniques for navigation and localization using vision information, the main components of each technique are:

  • representations of the environment.
  • sensing models.
  • localization algorithms.

In order to give an overview of vision-based navigation and its techniques, we classify these techniques under indoor navigation and outdoor navigation.

Indoor navigation

[edit]
Egomotion estimation from a moving camera

The easiest way of making a robot go to a goal location is simply to guide it to this location. This guidance can be done in different ways: burying an inductive loop or magnets in the floor, painting lines on the floor, or by placing beacons, markers, bar codes etc. in the environment. Such Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) are used in industrial scenarios for transportation tasks. Indoor Navigation of Robots are possible by IMU based indoor positioning devices.[3][4]

There are a very wider variety of indoor navigation systems. The basic reference of indoor and outdoor navigation systems is "Vision for mobile robot navigation: a survey" by Guilherme N. DeSouza and Avinash C. Kak.

Also see "Vision based positioning" and AVM Navigator.

Autonomous Flight Controllers

[edit]

Typical Open Source Autonomous Flight Controllers have the ability to fly in full automatic mode and perform the following operations;

  • Take off from the ground and fly to a defined altitude
  • Fly to one or more waypoints
  • Orbit around a designated point
  • Return to the launch position
  • Descend at a specified speed and land the aircraft

The onboard flight controller relies on GPS for navigation and stabilized flight, and often employ additional Satellite-based augmentation systems (SBAS) and altitude (barometric pressure) sensor.[5]

Inertial navigation

[edit]

Some navigation systems for airborne robots are based on inertial sensors.[6]

Acoustic navigation

[edit]

Autonomous underwater vehicles can be guided by underwater acoustic positioning systems.[7] Navigation systems using sonar have also been developed.[8]

Radio navigation

[edit]

Robots can also determine their positions using radio navigation.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Robot navigation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Robot navigation is the process by which a autonomously moves through static or dynamic environments, using sensors to perceive surroundings, localize itself, plan collision-free paths, and execute to reach a designated goal while avoiding obstacles. This capability is essential for applications in diverse fields, including , transportation, , , operations, and , where robots reduce human labor and enhance efficiency through integration. Historically, robot navigation techniques originated with classical algorithms in the mid-20th century, such as Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm introduced in 1959 for graph-based global planning in static environments. In the 1960s, the A* algorithm improved efficiency for optimal , while extensions such as D* enabled replanning in dynamic settings by the . In the late , sampling-based methods like Rapidly-exploring Random Trees (RRT) and Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM) were introduced to handle higher-dimensional spaces and real-time challenges, with early 2000s research focusing on two-dimensional planning for simpler environments and further refinements. Key components of robot navigation include global navigation for offline, complete-environment path optimization using techniques like A* or Dijkstra; local navigation for real-time obstacle avoidance via sensor data from , cameras, or ultrasonics, often employing reactive methods such as Vector Field Histogram (VFH) or Dynamic Window Approach (DWA); and hybrid approaches that combine these with bio-inspired optimization like (PSO) or Genetic Algorithms (GA) for multi-objective efficiency. Perception and localization rely on (SLAM) to build environment models, while ensures precise execution. Recent advances, particularly since the 2010s, have shifted toward learning-based methods, including (DRL) with algorithms like Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) to handle high-dimensional inputs such as camera feeds in uncertain, dynamic environments. Integration of large language models (LLMs) for semantic reasoning and natural language-guided planning represents an emerging frontier, enhancing adaptability in complex scenarios, as seen in frameworks like DCIP from 2024. In 2025, bio-inspired approaches, such as systems mimicking and navigation for GPS-denied environments, further advanced reliable locomotion in complex terrains. These developments, supported by simulation platforms like and AI2-THOR, underscore ongoing research into reliable, computationally efficient for real-world deployment.

Fundamentals

Definition and Scope

Robot navigation refers to the capability of a to determine its position in an environment, build or utilize a representation of that environment, and and execute paths to reach specified goals while avoiding obstacles, relying on data and partial prior . This process integrates several core components: , which acquires environmental information through sensors; localization, which estimates the robot's pose; mapping, which constructs spatial representations; and , which involves path planning and to enable autonomous movement from start to goal positions. Central to robot navigation are significant challenges arising from real-world conditions. Sensor data often introduces uncertainty due to noise, inaccuracies, or incomplete coverage, necessitating robust techniques to maintain reliable pose and updates. Dynamic environments, with moving obstacles or changing layouts, demand adaptive strategies that account for temporal variability and prediction of external agents. Additionally, computational constraints require efficient algorithms to process high-dimensional , while real-time requirements impose strict limits on latency to ensure safe and responsive operation. The field exhibits a strongly interdisciplinary character, drawing from for hardware integration, for planning and learning-based decision-making, for interpreting visual and spatial data, and for precise motion execution and stability. Key terminology includes pose estimation, which determines the robot's position and orientation relative to a reference frame; configuration space, a multidimensional representation of all possible robot states and environmental constraints used in planning; and the navigation stack, a modular framework encapsulating the perception-planning-control loop to orchestrate these elements.

Historical Development

The foundations of robot navigation trace back to the mid-20th century, with Norbert Wiener's introduction of in 1948, which emphasized feedback control systems for machines interacting with dynamic environments, laying the groundwork for autonomous robotic behaviors. This theoretical framework influenced early robotic experiments, shifting focus from purely mechanical automation to mechanisms. A pivotal milestone occurred in the late with , developed at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) from 1966 to 1972, which demonstrated basic navigation through rule-based planning and route-finding using a camera and range finder to perceive and manipulate its environment. Shakey's ability to reason about actions in a controlled indoor space marked the first integration of in mobile , relying on deterministic logic to avoid obstacles and execute tasks. The 1980s and 1990s saw a from deterministic to probabilistic approaches, addressing uncertainties in real-world sensing and motion. Probabilistic methods gained prominence with the development of (MCL) in the late 1990s, introduced by Dieter Fox and colleagues in 1999 as a sample-based technique for efficient position estimation in mobile robots using particle filters to represent belief distributions over possible locations. This era also witnessed the maturation of Extended Kalman Filter-based (EKF-SLAM), building on early estimation-theoretic ideas from the 1980s and formalized in the 1990s to simultaneously estimate robot pose and map features under Gaussian noise assumptions. The of 2004-2005 accelerated advancements in autonomous vehicle navigation, challenging teams to build unmanned ground vehicles capable of traversing rugged desert terrain over 132 miles, though no vehicle completed the 2004 course, it spurred innovations in and path planning for unstructured environments. Entering the 2000s, SLAM techniques evolved further with Graph-SLAM, proposed by Sebastian Thrun in 2005, which optimized large-scale maps by representing the problem as a graph of poses and constraints, enabling scalable solutions for urban and outdoor navigation. Post-2010, integration of deep learning transformed robot navigation by enabling end-to-end learning from raw sensor data, with reinforcement learning frameworks allowing robots to adapt to complex, dynamic settings without explicit programming of low-level controls. This progression is exemplified by NASA's Perseverance rover, which landed on Mars in 2021 and utilized the enhanced AutoNav system for autonomous hazard avoidance and terrain mapping, traversing over 37 kilometers (as of November 2025) at speeds up to 0.04 meters per second while prioritizing scientific objectives in unpredictable Martian landscapes. These developments reflect broader shifts from static, rule-driven systems to probabilistic handling of uncertainty and, ultimately, learning-based adaptation in dynamic environments.

Localization Techniques

Odometry and Dead Reckoning

Odometry serves as a fundamental localization technique in robotics, relying on internal sensors to estimate a robot's position and orientation by tracking its motion relative to a known starting point. Dead reckoning, a broader concept encompassing odometry, involves computing successive positions through the integration of velocity and time measurements, often derived from proprioceptive sensors such as wheel encoders in wheeled mobile robots. This method provides real-time estimates without external references, making it computationally efficient for short-distance navigation. In implementation, wheel odometry for differential-drive robots calculates incremental displacements from encoder readings on the left and right wheels. The change in position is given by the formulas: Δx=r2(Δθleft+Δθright)cos⁡ϕ\Delta x = \frac{r}{2} (\Delta \theta_\text{left} + \Delta \theta_\text{right}) \cos \phi Δy=r2(Δθleft+Δθright)sin⁡ϕ\Delta y = \frac{r}{2} (\Delta \theta_\text{left} + \Delta \theta_\text{right}) \sin \phi where rr is the wheel radius, Δθleft\Delta \theta_\text{left} and Δθright\Delta \theta_\text{right} are the angular displacements from the encoders, and ϕ\phi is the current heading angle. The orientation update is Δϕ=rb(Δθright−Δθleft)\Delta \phi = \frac{r}{b} (\Delta \theta_\text{right} - \Delta \theta_\text{left}), with bb as the wheelbase distance. These equations assume no slippage and integrate over small time steps to update the robot's pose. Errors in arise primarily from systematic and non-systematic sources, leading to cumulative drift that is neither bounded and degrades accuracy over time. Systematic errors include mismatches in wheel diameters, measurements, and encoder scaling factors, while non-systematic errors stem from wheel slippage, uneven terrain, and external forces like bumps or inclines. Without periodic corrections, these errors can result in position estimates deviating by several percent of the traveled distance after tens of meters. Odometry finds primary application in short-term localization for wheeled robots, such as indoor service robots or autonomous vehicles, where it enables basic between landmarks. It is often fused with inertial measurement units to mitigate errors in dynamic environments, though it remains deterministic and prone to unbounded accumulation without external validation.

Inertial Measurement Units

Inertial measurement units () are essential sensors in robot , providing measurements of a robot's motion and orientation independent of external references, enabling in environments where other sensors may fail. These units integrate data from multiple inertial sensors to estimate position, , and attitude through successive , though they are prone to accumulating errors over time. In robotic systems, IMUs are particularly valuable for short-duration maneuvers where precise, high-frequency updates are needed without reliance on environmental features. The core components of an IMU include accelerometers, which measure linear acceleration along three orthogonal axes, and gyroscopes, which detect around those same axes. Some advanced IMUs incorporate magnetometers to provide absolute heading information by sensing the , aiding in orientation estimation. These sensors are typically MEMS-based in modern robotic applications due to their compact size, low cost, and sufficient accuracy for short-term use. To derive position from IMU data, acceleration measurements are first transformed to the inertial frame to remove gravitational components, then integrated once to obtain and twice to compute displacement. The fundamental kinematic for position under constant is given by: s(t)=s0+v0t+12at2\mathbf{s}(t) = \mathbf{s}_0 + \mathbf{v}_0 t + \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{a} t^2 where s(t)\mathbf{s}(t) is position at time tt, s0\mathbf{s}_0 and v0\mathbf{v}_0 are initial position and , and a\mathbf{a} is . However, sensor noise, biases, and integration amplify errors, leading to quadratic drift in position estimates that renders standalone IMU unreliable beyond seconds to minutes. For instance, even small accelerometer biases on the order of 0.1 m/s² can cause position errors exceeding 150 meters after one minute of integration. Error mitigation in IMUs relies on techniques like Kalman filtering, which fuses noisy IMU measurements with predictive models to estimate states while bounding uncertainties. The extended Kalman filter (EKF), for example, linearizes the nonlinear IMU dynamics around the current estimate, propagating covariances to correct for drift through state updates. Additionally, system architectures differ between gimbaled platforms, which mechanically isolate sensors from body rotations using gimbals to maintain a stable reference frame, and strapdown systems, where sensors are rigidly fixed to the robot's body, requiring computational attitude propagation via gyroscope integration— the latter being preferred in robotics for simplicity and reduced mechanical complexity despite higher computational demands. IMUs can also be fused with odometry data to extend accuracy in wheeled robots. In applications, excel in GPS-denied environments such as indoor settings or underground spaces, where they support short-term for robots and drones by providing continuous motion estimates during brief flights or traversals. For example, in autonomous drones, enable stable hovering and trajectory following in warehouses or tunnels for durations up to 30 seconds before significant drift necessitates aiding from other sensors. This capability has been critical in search-and-rescue operations and inspection tasks in confined, signal-blocked areas.

Probabilistic Localization

Probabilistic localization estimates a mobile robot's pose by maintaining and updating a over possible poses in a known environment, explicitly modeling uncertainties arising from and motion errors. This approach contrasts with deterministic methods by representing the robot's state as a bel(xt)=p(xt∣z1:t,u1:t)bel(x_t) = p(x_t \mid z_{1:t}, u_{1:t}), where xtx_t denotes the pose at time tt, z1:tz_{1:t} the sequence of measurements, and u1:tu_{1:t} the sequence of control actions. The foundational framework is the Bayes filter, a recursive that computes the posterior through two stages: and update. In the step, the prior is convolved with the motion model to account for control uncertainty: bel‾(xt)=∫p(xt∣ut,xt−1) bel(xt−1) dxt−1\overline{bel}(x_t) = \int p(x_t \mid u_t, x_{t-1}) \, bel(x_{t-1}) \, dx_{t-1} This yields a predicted bel‾(xt)\overline{bel}(x_t). The update step then incorporates the current via the sensor model: bel(xt)=η p(zt∣xt) bel‾(xt)bel(x_t) = \eta \, p(z_t \mid x_t) \, \overline{bel}(x_t) where η\eta is the normalization constant ensuring the belief integrates to 1. These equations enable the filter to handle sequential data, supporting both local tracking and global localization from an initial uniform . Markov localization implements the Bayes filter using a grid-based representation of the , discretizing the pose into cells and approximating the probability as a over these cells. Belief updates involve convolving the grid with the discrete motion model for prediction and multiplying by the likelihood for correction, followed by normalization; this grid approach facilitates exact computation in low-dimensional spaces while accommodating dynamic environments through techniques like scan matching for noisy data. Markov localization excels in enabling the robot to recover from localization failures and maintain accurate estimates amid moving obstacles, as demonstrated in real-world deployments of tour-guide robots. Monte Carlo localization (MCL) approximates the continuous belief using a particle filter, a set of NN weighted samples (particles) St={⟨xt(i),wt(i)⟩}i=1NS_t = \{ \langle x_t^{(i)}, w_t^{(i)} \rangle \}_{i=1}^N, each representing a hypothesis pose with importance weight ww. The algorithm iterates as follows: (1) Prediction: For each particle, sample a new pose from the motion model p(xt∣ut,xt−1(i))p(x_t \mid u_t, x_{t-1}^{(i)}), introducing noise to reflect odometry uncertainty. (2) Update: Compute weights wt(i)=p(zt∣xt(i))w_t^{(i)} = p(z_t \mid x_t^{(i)}) using the sensor model, then normalize so ∑wt(i)=1\sum w_t^{(i)} = 1. (3) Resampling: Draw NN new particles with replacement proportional to weights, using low-variance resampling to prevent sample impoverishment and maintain particle diversity; if the belief is unimodal, add random samples for global relocalization. MCL dynamically adjusts NN based on belief divergence, achieving efficiency with fewer particles (e.g., hundreds) compared to grid methods while representing multimodal distributions accurately. Histogram filters provide a discrete, exact realization of the Bayes filter on a fixed grid, performing full for motion and pointwise with likelihoods for updates, without sampling approximations. This method yields precise probability densities but scales poorly with grid resolution due to O(n2)O(n^2) computational cost per update in 2D, limiting its use to coarse grids or offline processing. These probabilistic methods offer robust handling of multimodal beliefs—essential in symmetric or ambiguous environments—and inherent fusion of noisy data sources, outperforming unimodal assumptions like those in Kalman filters. Limitations arise in high-dimensional spaces (e.g., 3D poses with velocities), where particle depletion or grid explosion demands efficient approximations; nonetheless, they form the basis for integration with mapping in approaches like SLAM. Recent advances as of 2025 include extensions such as adaptive Monte Carlo localization (AMCL) with for improved sensor models and particle weighting, enhancing accuracy in dynamic or complex indoor environments through hybrid .

Mapping Methods

Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM)

(SLAM) addresses the challenge of enabling a to construct a of an unknown environment while simultaneously determining its own within that , without relying on prior information about either. This process, often described as solving a "chicken-and-egg" problem, integrates measurements and motion controls to estimate both the robot's and the environmental features, forming the foundation for autonomous navigation in unstructured settings. The SLAM problem is formally defined in probabilistic terms as the joint estimation of the robot's xx and the mm given a sequence of observations zz and control inputs uu, expressed as the posterior distribution p(x,m∣z,u)p(x, m | z, u). This estimation is typically approached through maximum (MAP) methods, which seek to maximize the probability by minimizing a nonlinear least-squares objective that incorporates motion and measurement constraints, often represented in factor graphs for efficient sparse optimization. Seminal work establishing the probabilistic foundations traces back to early formulations modeling spatial relationships with Gaussian uncertainties. Key algorithmic variants include EKF-SLAM, which employs an to approximate the joint distribution under assumptions, maintaining a state vector of poses and s with recursive updates for prediction and correction; this approach proves effective for linear Gaussian cases but struggles with nonlinearities and linearization errors. FastSLAM, in contrast, uses a particle filter-based of the posterior into a distribution over paths and conditional landmark estimates, enabling scalability to large maps by achieving linear complexity in the number of landmarks and better handling of nonlinear motion models through sampling. Loop closure plays a crucial role in SLAM by detecting when the robot revisits a previously mapped area, allowing it to identify and correct accumulated pose errors or drift in the and through re-observation of landmarks, thereby enforcing global consistency in the pose graph. This mechanism is essential for reducing inconsistencies that build up over long traversals, though it requires robust data association to current observations with prior features accurately. SLAM systems face significant challenges, including data association—determining which measurements correspond to which map features amid noise and perceptual —computational as the number of landmarks grows, potentially leading to quadratic complexity in filter-based methods, and achieving real-time performance in dynamic environments with limited resources. Modern advances, such as ORB-SLAM3 (2020) and recent semantic SLAM methods integrating and 3D Gaussian splatting for collaborative mapping (as of 2025), address these by leveraging (ORB) features for efficient, real-time monocular visual processing, incorporating automatic loop closure via pose-graph optimization and robust relocalization to handle scale drift and viewpoint changes in diverse indoor and outdoor settings. Recent developments as of 2025 include -powered visual SLAM for aiding visually impaired and multi-robot collaborative SLAM using 3D Gaussian splatting, enhancing adaptability in dynamic and semantic-rich environments.

Feature-based Mapping

Feature-based mapping in robotics constructs sparse representations of the environment by detecting, tracking, and localizing distinct landmarks extracted from sensor data, enabling efficient in structured or semi-structured spaces. This method contrasts with dense approaches by focusing on salient features rather than complete geometric coverage, which reduces computational demands while maintaining accuracy for pose estimation and path planning. Seminal work in this area, such as the use of scale-invariant keypoints for real-time mapping, has demonstrated its viability in monocular camera systems. Feature extraction forms the foundation of this process, identifying robust keypoints in images or point clouds that are invariant to changes in scale, rotation, and illumination. Algorithms like the detect interest points by analyzing local image gradients and generate 128-dimensional descriptors for matching, proving effective for wide-baseline stereo in robotic vision. Similarly, the method combines a fast corner detector with binary descriptors, offering computational efficiency suitable for real-time applications on resource-constrained platforms, with matching speeds up to 50 times faster than SIFT in feature-rich scenes. These descriptors are applied to visual data from cameras or converted point clouds from , prioritizing distinctive elements like corners or edges as landmarks. The mapping process begins with observing features across multiple robot poses, followed by triangulation to estimate their 3D positions relative to the robot's trajectory. When a feature is detected in stereo or sequential monocular views, epipolar geometry or direct depth estimation computes its landmark coordinates, initializing it in the map with an associated uncertainty. To maintain global consistency, bundle adjustment refines the map by minimizing the reprojection error across all observed features and camera poses, jointly optimizing landmark positions and robot trajectory in a least-squares framework. This non-linear optimization, often solved via Levenberg-Marquardt, corrects accumulated errors from tracking drift, achieving sub-pixel accuracy in landmark localization. In feature-based SLAM frameworks, this refinement integrates with probabilistic state estimation for ongoing updates. Representations in feature-based mapping typically consist of a set of 3D , each augmented with pose covariances that capture estimation uncertainty and correlations between elements. In probabilistic formulations like (EKF)-based SLAM, the map state vector includes landmark positions alongside the robot's pose, with the encoding joint uncertainties to propagate errors during updates. This sparse structure—storing only landmark descriptors, positions, and covariances—offers significant memory efficiency, scaling linearly with the number of features rather than environmental volume, making it ideal for large-scale outdoor or indoor navigation where dense grids would exceed storage limits. For instance, systems handling thousands of landmarks use under 1 MB for maps spanning hundreds of meters. Applications of feature-based mapping extend visual odometry by building persistent maps for loop closure and relocalization, as seen in (AR) systems where ORB-SLAM enables real-time overlay of virtual content on dynamic environments with millimeter accuracy. In planetary exploration, NASA's Mars Exploration Rovers employed feature tracking for , estimating motion over sandy terrains by matching corner features across stereo images, achieving errors below 2% over kilometer-scale traverses despite wheel slip. Recent advances as of 2025 include semantics-driven active mapping and integration with vision-language models for enhanced feature understanding in unstructured environments.

Grid-based Mapping

Grid-based mapping represents the robot's environment as a discretized lattice, typically in 2D or 3D, where each cell encodes the probability of given sensor measurements, denoted as p(mi,j=1∣z1:t)p(m_{i,j} = 1 | z_{1:t}), with mi,jm_{i,j} indicating whether cell (i,j)(i,j) is occupied. This probabilistic framework, pioneered by Moravec's certainty grids and formalized by Elfes, allows for a dense, uniform spatial model that captures uncertainty from noisy sensors like or , making it suitable for and path planning in structured environments. The core update mechanism relies on inverse sensor models, which map raw readings zz to probabilities for affected cells along the beam. For a range , the inverse model defines p(z∣mi,j=1)p(z | m_{i,j} = 1) and p(z∣mi,j=0)p(z | m_{i,j} = 0) based on beam geometry, such as maximum range and cones, enabling Bayesian fusion of new data with prior estimates. To efficiently combine over time, the log-odds representation is used, where the update rule adds the log-odds contribution of each to the prior: l(mi,j)=l(mi,jt−1)+log⁡p(zt∣mi,j=1)p(zt∣mi,j=0)l(m_{i,j}) = l(m_{i,j}^{t-1}) + \log \frac{p(z_t | m_{i,j} = 1)}{p(z_t | m_{i,j} = 0)} This additive property avoids repeated normalization and handles multiple independent observations, with the final occupancy probability recovered via p(mi,j=1∣z1:t)=11+e−l(mi,j)p(m_{i,j} = 1 | z_{1:t}) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-l(m_{i,j})}}. The foundational algorithm, Occupancy Grid Mapping, processes sensor beams via ray tracing: starting from the robot's pose, the beam is traced cell-by-cell to the reported range, updating endpoint cells as likely occupied, intermediate cells as free, and beyond-range cells with lower confidence based on the inverse model. Extensions to 3D grids apply similar principles for volumetric environments, such as in aerial robotics, though at higher computational cost. Occupancy grids excel in managing for static environments, providing a complete probabilistic map that supports robust tasks without requiring feature identification. However, they struggle in dynamic scenes where moving objects invalidate the static assumption, leading to outdated maps unless augmented with temporal models, and their fixed resolution can limit scalability in large or highly detailed spaces. Recent advances as of 2025 include brain-inspired probabilistic with and transitional grid maps for joint static-dynamic modeling, improving performance in dynamic environments.

Path Planning and Motion Control

Global Path Planning Algorithms

Global path planning algorithms compute feasible or optimal paths from a starting configuration to a goal in environments represented by maps, such as occupancy grids derived from grid-based mapping techniques. These methods assume prior knowledge of the environment, enabling offline computation of complete trajectories that avoid obstacles while minimizing criteria like path length or energy consumption. They are foundational in for tasks requiring long-range , contrasting with reactive approaches by prioritizing global optimality over immediate responses. Search-based methods, such as the A* , systematically explore a discretized search space to find the shortest path. Introduced by Hart, Nilsson, and Raphael in , A* uses a strategy guided by an f(n)=g(n)+h(n)f(n) = g(n) + h(n), where g(n)g(n) represents the exact cost from the start node to the current node nn, and h(n)h(n) is an estimating the cost from nn to the goal. For admissibility, h(n)h(n) must never overestimate the true cost, ensuring optimality; a common choice is the in Euclidean spaces. When the heuristic is consistent (satisfying the ), A* expands nodes in a manner that guarantees finding the optimal path without re-expansions. This makes A* complete—finding a solution if one exists—and optimal under uniform edge costs, though its grows exponentially with the state space size due to the need to explore up to O(bd)O(b^d) nodes in the worst case, where bb is the and dd is the dimensionality. Sampling-based methods address the curse of dimensionality in high-dimensional configuration spaces by probabilistically sampling states rather than exhaustively searching a grid. The Probabilistic Roadmap (PRM) method, developed by Kavraki, Svestka, Latombe, and Overmars in 1996, preprocesses the environment by generating a roadmap of random collision-free configurations connected via local planners, forming a graph queried for paths from start to goal. PRM is probabilistically complete, converging to a solution with probability approaching 1 as sampling density increases, and exhibits logarithmic complexity in the number of samples for narrow passages, making it suitable for static environments with complex kinematics like manipulators. In contrast, the Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) algorithm, proposed by LaValle in 1998, builds an exploration tree incrementally by sampling random states and extending toward the nearest tree node, enabling efficient path finding in high-dimensional spaces without preprocessing. RRT is also probabilistically complete but generally produces suboptimal paths, with a time complexity dominated by the number of samples needed to cover the space, often scaling as O(log⁡n)O(\log n) extensions per iteration. To achieve optimality in sampling-based planning, variants like RRT* incorporate rewiring mechanisms during tree growth. Karaman and Frazzoli's 2011 extension, RRT*, selects extensions that minimize cost to the goal and rewires nearby nodes to improve paths, ensuring asymptotic optimality—the generated path's cost converges to the optimal as the number of samples approaches infinity. This process maintains probabilistic completeness while increasing computational overhead through the rewiring step, which examines a neighborhood of scaling as O(log⁡n/n)O(\log n / n) in dd-dimensions. In static maps, these algorithms balance completeness, optimality, and complexity: search-based methods like A* offer strong guarantees in low dimensions but suffer from and scaling issues, while sampling-based approaches like PRM and RRT* excel in high dimensions at the cost of probabilistic rather than deterministic properties and higher variance in runtime.

Local Obstacle Avoidance

Local obstacle avoidance encompasses reactive techniques that enable mobile robots to detect and circumvent unforeseen obstacles in real-time during motion, prioritizing computational efficiency and responsiveness over long-term optimality. These methods process immediate sensor data to generate corrective commands, ensuring safe in dynamic or partially mapped environments without relying on complete prior knowledge of the surroundings. Unlike global planning, local avoidance focuses on short-range decisions to maintain progress toward a reference while adapting to emergent threats. One foundational approach is the artificial potential field method, which models the robot's environment as a virtual force landscape where the goal exerts an attractive potential and obstacles generate repulsive potentials. The total potential function UU combines these, typically as U=Uatt+UrepU = U_{\text{att}} + U_{\text{rep}}, with the attractive potential Uatt=12ηd2U_{\text{att}} = \frac{1}{2} \eta d^2 (where dd is the distance to the goal and η\eta a positive constant) drawing the forward, and the repulsive potential Urep=12η′(1ρ−1ρ0)2U_{\text{rep}} = \frac{1}{2} \eta' \left( \frac{1}{\rho} - \frac{1}{\rho_0} \right)^2 (where ρ\rho is the distance to the nearest obstacle, ρ0\rho_0 the influence range, and η′\eta' a scaling factor) pushing it away from hazards when within range. The resulting control force is derived as F=−∇U\mathbf{F} = -\nabla U, guiding the 's directly from the negative of this potential; this formulation allows smooth, continuous motion but can trap the in local minima near concave obstacles. Introduced by in 1986 for real-time avoidance in manipulators and extended to mobile robots, the method's simplicity enables execution at high frequencies, often exceeding 100 Hz on early hardware. The dynamic window approach addresses limitations in potential fields by explicitly accounting for the robot's and dynamics, sampling feasible velocity commands within a constrained search space to select obstacle-free . It operates in the robot's velocity space (v,ω)(v, \omega), where linear vv and angular ω\omega are discretized into a "dynamic window"—a of admissible velocities bounded by limits, maximum speeds, and predicted clearance over a short lookahead time (typically 0.25–1 second). Candidate are evaluated using an objective function that balances forward progress toward the goal (e.g., via heading alignment α(v,ω)\alpha(v, \omega)), trajectory clearance from obstacles (e.g., distance to closest point β(v,ω)\beta(v, \omega)), and velocity magnitude for (e.g., γ(v,ω)=v\gamma(v, \omega) = v); the optimal velocity is chosen as (v,ω)=arg⁡max⁡[aα+bβ+cγ](v, \omega) = \arg\max [a \alpha + b \beta + c \gamma], with weights a,b,ca, b, c tuned for priorities. Developed by , Burgard, and Thrun in 1997 for synchro-drive robots, this method demonstrated robust performance in cluttered indoor settings, achieving speeds up to 1 m/s while avoiding collisions in simulations and on physical platforms like the RHINO . The vector field (VFH) provides a histogram-based representation of densities to select safe steering directions, transforming raw readings into a polar coordinate framework for rapid . data populates a 2D occupancy grid, from which a polar is constructed by binning counts into angular sectors (e.g., 1–5 degrees per bin over 360 degrees), yielding a "valley" in the indicating free paths; the selects the direction minimizing deviation from the preferred heading while maximizing clearance, often expanded to VFH+ for curved trajectories via cost functions on sector densities. This reduces computational load, enabling real-time operation at 10–50 Hz on resource-constrained systems, though it may produce jagged paths in dense environments. Proposed by Borenstein and Koren in 1991, VFH was validated on mobile s navigating unknown spaces, showing effective avoidance of point s up to 2 meters away using arrays. Hybrid approaches integrate these local methods with global path plans to enhance overall navigation reliability, layering reactive avoidance atop precomputed routes for handling both anticipated and unexpected obstacles. For instance, potential fields or dynamic windows can modulate deviations from a global trajectory, using the planned path as an additional attractive force to prevent excessive wandering. Such combinations, as reviewed in comparative studies of navigation strategies, improve performance over purely reactive methods.

Motion Control Strategies

Motion control strategies in robot navigation focus on the low-level actuation required to execute desired velocities and positions derived from higher-level planning commands, ensuring precise tracking while maintaining stability. These strategies typically employ feedback mechanisms to correct deviations caused by environmental disturbances, model uncertainties, or limitations. Common approaches include proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control for straightforward velocity and position regulation, (MPC) for handling constraints and dynamics, and specialized techniques to address nonholonomic constraints inherent in many platforms. Stability guarantees, often analyzed via Lyapunov methods, underpin the design of these controllers to ensure convergence to desired trajectories. PID control is a widely adopted feedback mechanism for robot motion control, computing the control input as a linear combination of the error, its , and its derivative: u=Kpe+Ki∫e dt+Kddedtu = K_p e + K_i \int e \, dt + K_d \frac{de}{dt}, where ee is the , and KpK_p, KiK_i, KdK_d are tunable gains. This formulation enables effective and position tracking in , such as differential-drive platforms, by compensating for steady-state errors (via the term), responding to current deviations (proportional term), and anticipating changes (derivative term). Tuning methods like Ziegler-Nichols provide initial gain values based on process response characteristics, ensuring robust performance in tasks like path following. In practice, PID controllers have been applied to mobile robot path tracking, demonstrating reduced tracking errors and improved stability under varying speeds. Model predictive control (MPC) advances by optimizing a sequence of future control actions over a receding horizon, subject to the robot's dynamic model and constraints such as velocity limits or proximity. This optimization minimizes a cost function that penalizes deviations from the reference while respecting input saturations and state bounds, making MPC suitable for real-time in constrained environments. For mobile robots, MPC integrates to generate feasible control inputs, often outperforming PID in scenarios with predictive avoidance inputs. Seminal implementations have shown MPC achieving precise tracking for nonholonomic systems, with computational enabling deployment on embedded hardware. Nonholonomic constraints arise in wheeled mobile robots due to limited steering capabilities, restricting instantaneous motion to specific directions and requiring careful control design for differential-drive or Ackermann steering models. In differential-drive robots, the kinematics are modeled as x˙=vcos⁡θ\dot{x} = v \cos \theta, y˙=vsin⁡θ\dot{y} = v \sin \theta, θ˙=ω\dot{\theta} = \omega, where vv and ω\omega are linear and angular velocities controlled by differential wheel speeds, enforcing no sideways motion. Control strategies handle these constraints by decomposing tasks into feasible velocity commands, such as using feedback linearization or backstepping to achieve stable tracking despite the underactuated nature. For Ackermann steering, similar constraints apply but with coupled front-wheel angles, necessitating coordinated control to avoid slippage during turns. Stability analysis in motion control relies on Lyapunov methods to prove convergence guarantees, constructing a positive definite Lyapunov function VV whose time derivative V˙≤0\dot{V} \leq 0 ensures asymptotic stability. For nonholonomic mobile robots, controllers like those based on error postures between reference and current states use quadratic forms in position and orientation errors as Lyapunov candidates, demonstrating global asymptotic tracking under bounded disturbances. This approach extends to adaptive schemes, where parameter updates maintain stability via Lyapunov redesign, as in tracking controllers for uncertain dynamics. Such analyses confirm that strategies robustly execute commands, including minor adjustments from local avoidance, while preventing divergence.

Sensor Modalities

Vision-based Sensing

Vision-based sensing in robot navigation leverages cameras to capture visual data, enabling the perception of the environment through image processing and . This modality provides rich about shapes, colors, and textures, allowing robots to estimate positions, detect obstacles, and understand scenes semantically. Unlike range-based sensors, vision offers dense pixel-level data but requires computational algorithms to interpret 2D projections into 3D understanding. Monocular vision uses a single camera to infer depth from motion or cues like perspective, while stereo vision employs two cameras to compute 3D structure via . In stereo setups, corresponding points in left and right images lie on epipolar lines, defined by the fundamental matrix that encodes the relative camera pose. This geometry facilitates by triangulating matched features. Depth estimation relies on disparity maps, where the horizontal shift dd between matched pixels relates to depth zz as d=fbzd = \frac{f b}{z}, with ff as and bb as baseline. Seminal work in multiple-view geometry formalized these principles, enabling robust stereo matching for . Visual odometry (VO) estimates a robot's ego-motion by tracking image features across frames, serving as a core component for localization. Feature-based methods, such as those using SIFT or ORB descriptors, match keypoints and apply (ICP) alignment or for pose refinement. Direct methods minimize photometric errors between frames, suitable for texture-rich scenes. The foundational VO framework, introduced for ground vehicles, demonstrated real-time performance with 1-2% drift over kilometer-scale trajectories using stereo inputs. Vision-based VO is often integrated into SLAM systems for loop closure and global consistency. Post-2015 advancements incorporate , with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) enhancing . Semantic segmentation via architectures like Fully Convolutional Networks (FCN) labels pixels with object classes, aiding obstacle avoidance by distinguishing traversable areas. For real-time detection, YOLO processes images in a single pass, bounding dynamic obstacles like pedestrians with high speed (45 FPS on GPUs), crucial for safe navigation. These integrations improve robustness in complex environments by fusing learned features with geometric methods. Challenges in vision-based sensing include sensitivity to lighting variations, which cause shadows or glare affecting feature matching, and textureless areas like walls that lead to tracking failures. Computational demands are high, as real-time processing of high-resolution images requires optimized hardware, with VO pipelines often limited to 30 FPS on embedded systems. These issues necessitate hybrid approaches or preprocessing to maintain reliability in diverse conditions.

Acoustic and Sonar Sensing

Acoustic and sensing leverage sound wave propagation to enable robot , particularly in environments where visibility is limited, such as settings. These methods rely on the transmission and reception of acoustic signals to detect obstacles, map surroundings, and estimate , offering robustness in turbid or dark conditions compared to optical sensors. systems are broadly classified into active and passive types. Active emits acoustic pulses from a and measures the time-of-flight (ToF) of echoes reflected from objects to determine range, calculated as = (c × t)/2, where c is the in the medium (approximately 1500 m/s in ) and t is the round-trip time. Passive , in contrast, only receives ambient sounds without emitting signals, allowing stealthy detection of noise sources like or other vessels but providing less precise localization. In robotic applications, active dominates for due to its ability to actively probe the environment, as demonstrated in early systems that used directed arrays to track features for positioning. For imaging and mapping, acoustic techniques include , which projects a fan-shaped beam sideways to create high-resolution images of the seafloor and , facilitating avoidance and terrain mapping in underwater robots. Multibeam sonar extends this by emitting multiple narrow beams across a swath, enabling detailed bathymetric surveys that reconstruct 3D seafloor for path in autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). enhances directionality in these systems by processing signals from transducer arrays to focus on specific angles, improving and reducing noise in cluttered environments. Underwater navigation represents a primary application, where sonar integrates with inertial measurement units (IMUs) for hybrid localization in GPS-denied zones. However, challenges arise from error sources like multipath reflections, where echoes bounce off surfaces causing false targets, and acoustic absorption by water, which attenuates high-frequency signals and limits range. Advancements such as synthetic aperture sonar (SAS), developed since the 1990s, address resolution limits by synthetically extending the aperture through vehicle motion, achieving centimeter-scale imaging for precise mapping in robotic surveys.

Radio-frequency and GPS Sensing

Radio-frequency (RF) and (GPS) sensing play a crucial role in robot navigation by providing global and local positioning through electromagnetic signal propagation. GPS, a satellite-based system, enables outdoor localization by calculating a robot's position via , which determines the intersection of spheres derived from distances to multiple satellites. The core measurement is the pseudorange, defined as ρ=∥p−s∥+cδt\rho = \| \mathbf{p} - \mathbf{s} \| + c \delta t, where p\mathbf{p} is the receiver's position vector, s\mathbf{s} is the satellite's position vector, cc is the , and δt\delta t represents the receiver's clock . At least four satellites are required to solve for the three-dimensional position and time offset, achieving typical accuracies of 1-5 meters under open-sky conditions. To enhance precision for robotic applications, (DGPS) corrects common errors such as atmospheric delays and satellite clock inaccuracies by using a fixed reference station to broadcast corrections to the mobile receiver. This technique can reduce positioning errors to 0.5-3 meters, enabling precise path following in tasks like agricultural robots or autonomous vehicles. In , DGPS has been integrated into mobile platforms to support centimeter-level navigation in open environments, outperforming standard GPS for applications requiring sub-meter accuracy. RF alternatives to GPS are essential for indoor or GPS-denied environments, where signals are unavailable. (UWB) technology facilitates high-precision ranging by transmitting short pulses across a wide frequency band (typically 3.1-10.6 GHz), achieving sub-10 cm accuracy over distances up to 100 meters through time-of-flight measurements. UWB is particularly suited for robot localization in warehouses or homes, as it resists multipath interference better than narrower-band RF systems. (BLE) beacons, operating at 2.4 GHz, support fingerprinting-based localization by mapping received signal strength indicators (RSSI) from multiple beacons to pre-collected fingerprints, yielding median errors of 1-2 meters in indoor settings. This approach has been applied in robotic tracking systems, leveraging low-cost beacons for scalable deployment without extensive infrastructure. Despite their advantages, RF and GPS sensing face significant limitations that impact robotic reliability. Signal blockage occurs in urban canyons or indoors, where buildings obstruct line-of-sight paths, leading to intermittent or no position updates. , common in dense urban areas, causes signal reflections off surfaces, distorting pseudoranges and degrading accuracy to tens of meters. Additionally, are vulnerable to jamming, where intentional interference overwhelms the weak satellite transmissions (around -160 dBW), potentially causing complete failure in adversarial environments. Enhancements like Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS address these issues by using carrier-phase measurements from a base station to resolve ambiguities in real time, delivering 1-2 cm horizontal accuracy suitable for dynamic robotic operations. RTK has become standard in precision agriculture robots since the early 2010s, enabling autonomous navigation over large fields with minimal drift. Integration of GPS with Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), which began gaining traction in robotics during the 2000s, fuses accelerometer and gyroscope data with GPS fixes to bridge outages, maintaining positioning during short-term signal loss through Kalman filtering or factor graph optimization. This hybrid approach ensures continuous navigation for ground and aerial robots in partially obstructed environments.

Application Domains

Terrestrial Navigation

Terrestrial navigation involves ground-based robots, such as wheeled, tracked, or legged systems, operating on surfaces ranging from flat indoor floors to rugged outdoor environments. These robots must maintain stability and progress despite gravitational forces and direct contact with the , which introduces unique challenges compared to other domains. Key difficulties arise from environmental variability, including uneven surfaces that demand adaptive suspension and to prevent tipping or stalling. Slopes exacerbate these issues by altering and requiring enhanced traction control to avoid slippage or . Wheel slip, in particular, occurs frequently on loose or deformable substrates, where the robot's wheels rotate without proportional forward motion, leading to errors and inaccuracies. To mitigate such problems, hybrid locomotion systems integrate wheels with tracks or legs, enabling seamless mode transitions for better adaptability across mixed terrains, such as switching to tracks for improved grip on soft ground. Integrated sensing and planning systems address these challenges by fusing data for real-time environmental modeling. For instance, sensors enable 3D mapping to detect obstacles and terrain features, allowing path adjustments in dynamic urban settings. This approach was pivotal in the 2007 Urban Challenge, where autonomous vehicles like the winning Tartan Racing entry used units to generate high-resolution point clouds for obstacle avoidance and lane following during a 55-mile urban course. In controlled environments like warehouses, terrestrial navigation often relies on structured guidance for efficiency. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs), such as those developed by Systems in the mid-2000s, navigate vast facilities by reading floor-embedded QR codes or barcodes to determine position and follow predefined paths, enabling hundreds of robots to transport inventory shelves without collisions. Amazon's acquisition and deployment of these systems in 2012 scaled operations across fulfillment centers, reducing item retrieval times from hours to minutes. Emerging trends emphasize legged platforms for unstructured terrains, where wheeled systems falter. The Spot, commercially released in 2019, exemplifies this with its quadrupedal design featuring terrain-adaptive planning that selects foot placements and transitions based on perceived surface properties, allowing over stairs, rubble, and inclines at speeds up to 1.6 m/s. Research simulations of Spot demonstrate for switching, ensuring stability on uneven ground by optimizing foothold selection in real-time.

Aerial Navigation

Aerial navigation encompasses the strategies and technologies enabling unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and drones to traverse three-dimensional autonomously, with a strong emphasis on 3D and real-time collision avoidance to mitigate risks from dynamic environments like wind gusts and obstacles. These systems differ from terrestrial counterparts by operating without ground support, relying on onboard computation for energy-efficient paths that balance speed, safety, and battery life, often under regulatory frameworks promoting integration into shared . Seminal advancements have focused on integrating sensing, , and control to achieve reliable flight in cluttered or urban settings, as demonstrated in high-impact studies on quadrotor dynamics and probabilistic methods. UAV flight dynamics are modeled using (6-DOF) control frameworks, which capture three translational (x, y, z) and three rotational (roll, pitch, yaw) motions to ensure precise maneuvering. following in these systems involves trajectory controllers like or (MPC) that generate smooth paths between predefined points while maintaining stability. Wind compensation is integrated through disturbance observers or adaptive gains in the , allowing UAVs to adjust and attitude in real-time against lateral or vertical gusts up to 10 m/s, as validated in simulations and outdoor tests. Sensing adaptations for aerial platforms prioritize lightweight, onboard cameras and lidar for sense-and-avoid (SAA) functions, enabling detection of obstacles like power lines or birds at ranges of 50-200 meters. These modalities support compliance with FAA regulations established post-2016, which require small UAS (under 55 pounds) to incorporate detect-and-avoid capabilities for operations over people or beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS), as outlined in the 2021 operations over people rule building on the 2016 framework. Multisensor fusion of camera imagery and lidar point clouds achieves collision avoidance probabilities exceeding 99% in cluttered scenarios, with experimental validations on platforms like the DJI Matrice series. Prominent algorithms for 3D trajectory planning include extensions of Rapidly-exploring Random Trees (RRT), such as Informed RRT*, which probabilistically sample the configuration space to find collision-free paths in cluttered environments like forests or urban canyons, converging to near-optimal solutions within seconds on embedded hardware. For low-altitude hovering, algorithms process sequential images from downward-facing cameras to estimate ego-motion and maintain altitude stability, achieving position errors below 0.1 meters in GPS-denied settings by computing pixel displacements as velocity cues. These methods draw briefly from vision-based sensing principles to handle texture-rich terrains without requiring full scene reconstruction. In practical applications, aerial navigation powers delivery drones, exemplified by , which began public trials in 2013 following an initial announcement and secured FAA certification for BVLOS package delivery in 2024, with deliveries starting in late 2022 in locations like Lockeford, California, using payloads up to 5 pounds over distances of 10-15 miles. Search-and-rescue operations leverage UAVs for rapid area coverage, deploying thermal cameras and to locate survivors in disaster zones, as reviewed in surveys showing faster deployment compared to manned teams in events like wildfires or earthquakes.

Marine and Underwater Navigation

Marine and underwater navigation encompasses the autonomous operation of underwater vehicles (AUVs) and surface vessels (USVs) in fluid environments, where management ensures stability and depth control, ocean currents introduce unpredictable drift, and acoustic sensing predominates due to the opacity of to electromagnetic signals. These systems rely on integrated and control to counteract hydrodynamic forces, enabling missions such as seafloor surveying and in regions inaccessible to human operators. Key environmental factors profoundly influence navigation accuracy and vehicle performance. Ocean currents, varying in speed and direction, can alter an AUV's by exerting drag forces, necessitating real-time compensation through predictive models or sensors to maintain planned trajectories. Increasing hydrostatic at depth compresses materials and affects calibration, potentially leading to navigation errors if not accounted for in vehicle design and inertial measurement units. , the accumulation of marine on hulls and sensors, degrades hydrodynamic efficiency and acoustic signal quality over extended deployments, requiring anti-fouling coatings or periodic maintenance to sustain operational reliability. To address GPS unavailability underwater, serves as a foundational technique, integrating inertial data with bottom-referenced velocity measurements from Doppler velocity logs (DVLs). DVLs emit acoustic beams to the seafloor and compute vehicle speed relative to it, enabling position estimation with errors accumulating over time but providing robust short-term localization in current-dominated waters. This method, often fused with inertial navigation systems, has been pivotal in AUV operations since the early implementations in vehicles like REMUS, where it supports continuous tracking despite environmental perturbations. Seafloor mapping in marine navigation frequently employs acoustic simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithms, which use sonar data to simultaneously estimate vehicle pose and construct bathymetric models of unknown terrains. In the REMUS AUV series, developed in the 1990s by , terrain-aided navigation integrated multibeam with SLAM-like techniques to create high-resolution seafloor maps, achieving localization accuracies within meters during surveys. These approaches leverage particle filters or extended Kalman filters to handle sparse acoustic measurements, enabling persistent mapping in low-visibility conditions. Navigation often integrates for real-time obstacle avoidance alongside SLAM. Underwater robots face significant challenges from communication delays and limited energy resources, which constrain real-time coordination and mission duration. Acoustic modems, the primary communication medium, suffer from propagation delays of seconds to minutes over kilometers due to low sound speeds and multipath interference, complicating multi-vehicle operations and requiring delay-tolerant protocols. Battery constraints limit endurance to hours or days, exacerbated by propulsion demands against currents, prompting energy-efficient path planning and opportunistic surfacing for recharging. A notable case study is the Saildrone USV platform, deployed since the for , which has autonomously mapped over 13,000 square nautical miles off in 2023 and 6,400 square nautical miles off in 2021 by harnessing wind and to extend missions up to 12 months while navigating via GPS and inertial systems. Recent advancements in hybrid surface-subsurface vehicles address these limitations by combining USV and AUV functionalities, allowing seamless transitions between air-exposed surface travel for communication and recharging and submerged operations for detailed surveys. These platforms, such as integrated USV-AUV systems tested by Exail and , enable extended missions covering thousands of kilometers, with surface modes facilitating uplinks to mitigate delays and solar/wind to prolong subsurface endurance beyond traditional AUV limits. Such hybrids have demonstrated multi-week deep-sea explorations, enhancing efficiency in remote oceanic regions.

References

  1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44443-025-00216-x
  2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2019.1632046
  3. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/robots-get-brain-to-navigate-without-gps
  4. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rasc/Download/AMRobots6.pdf
  5. http://klara.student.utwente.nl/~stephan/References/ABriefOverviewofRobotNavigationandLocalizationTechniques.pdf
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/autonomous-navigation
  7. https://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/Cybernetics.PDF
  8. https://www.sri.com/hoi/shakey-the-robot/
  9. https://ai.stanford.edu/~nilsson/OnlinePubs-Nils/shakey-the-robot.pdf
  10. http://robots.stanford.edu/papers/fox.aaai99.pdf
  11. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~pabbeel/cs287-fa09/readings/Durrant-Whyte_Bailey_SLAM-tutorial-I.pdf
  12. https://www.darpa.mil/news/2014/grand-challenge-ten-years-later
  13. http://robots.stanford.edu/papers/thrun.graphslam.pdf
  14. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.07608
  15. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/autonomous-systems-help-nasas-perseverance-do-more-science-on-mars/
  16. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/location-map/
  17. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-2020-perseverance/rover-components/
  18. https://www.hmc.edu/lair/ARW/ARW-Lecture01-Odometry.pdf
  19. https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~allen/F17/NOTES/icckinematics.pdf
  20. https://johnloomis.org/ece445/topics/odometry/borenstein/paper58.pdf
  21. https://www.advancednavigation.com/tech-articles/inertial-measurement-unit-imu-an-introduction/
  22. https://daischsensor.com/the-imu-drift-causes-effects-and-solutions/
  23. https://www.autonomousrobotslab.com/inertial-sensors.html
  24. https://www.jouav.com/blog/inertial-measurement-unit.html
  25. https://www.analog.com/en/product-category/inertial-measurement-units.html
  26. https://guidenav.com/can-an-imu-alone-perform-odometry/
  27. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-696.pdf
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6470584/
  29. https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/context/mae_etds/article/1347/viewcontent/Seliquini_implementation_of_an_extended_Kalman_filter.pdf
  30. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/78128/etd-05192015-184107_Jones_PA_T_2015_1.pdf
  31. https://inertiallabs.com/gps-denied-navigation-solution-a-reliable-and-affordable-option/
  32. https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/expo/inertial-navigation-systems/
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889023001720
  34. https://docs.ufpr.br/~danielsantos/ProbabilisticRobotics.pdf
  35. https://www.jair.org/index.php/jair/article/view/10246
  36. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-85067-8
  37. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/robotics-and-ai/articles/10.3389/frobt.2025.1652251/full
  38. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05830
  39. https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3111
  40. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~motionplanning/papers/sbp_papers/d/00938381.pdf
  41. http://ai.stanford.edu/~koller/Papers/Montemerlo+al:AAAI02.pdf
  42. https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00956
  43. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.11898
  44. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23988
  45. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.20549
  46. https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~lowe/papers/ijcv04.pdf
  47. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6126544
  48. https://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/media/documents/vo_ras.pdf
  49. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00225
  50. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~motionplanning/papers/sbp_papers/integrated4/elfes_occup_grids.pdf
  51. https://ojs.aaai.org/aimagazine/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/676
  52. https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/co/1989/06/r6046/13rRUzpzeFt
  53. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~16831-f12/notes/F12/16831_lecture05_vh.pdf
  54. http://ais.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/teaching/ss16/robotics/slides/12-occupancy-mapping.pdf
  55. https://dellaert.github.io/files/Peasley12iros.pdf
  56. http://robots.stanford.edu/papers/thrun.occ-journal.pdf
  57. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09066
  58. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10813430
  59. https://khatib.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/Khatib_1986_IJRR.pdf
  60. https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub1/fox_dieter_1997_1/fox_dieter_1997_1.pdf
  61. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~motionplanning/papers/sbp_papers/integrated1/borenstein_VFHisto.pdf
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914718305130
  63. https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article/64/8/759/1155342/Optimum-Settings-for-Automatic-Controllers
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967066101000661
  65. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00202940211043070
  66. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/126006
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5084145/
  68. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/multiple-view-geometry-in-computer-vision/epipolar-geometry-and-the-fundamental-matrix/F801D2B449DD64441BC793DE38F666F1
  69. http://www.r-5.org/files/books/computers/algo-list/image-processing/vision/Richard_Hartley_Andrew_Zisserman-Multiple_View_Geometry_in_Computer_Vision-EN.pdf
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220556161_Visual_Odometry_Tutorial
  71. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/1/89
  72. https://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~sklar/teaching/f06/air/papers/desouza-kak-2002.pdf
  73. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4615-3652-9
  74. https://www.maxbotix.com/blogs/blog/how-ultrasonic-sensors-work
  75. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/sonar/
  76. https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/pub3/langer_dirk_1991_1/langer_dirk_1991_1.pdf
  77. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/sonar-multibeam/
  78. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/2/499
  79. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8793536
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1474667016350765
  81. https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/high-precision-positioning
  82. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/12/5710
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5713487/
  84. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/4/1178
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253523000398
  86. https://pointonenav.com/news/what-is-rtk-real-time-kinematic/
  87. https://navi.ion.org/content/68/2/315
  88. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.13629
  89. https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2007/4/Tartan_Racing.pdf
  90. https://spectrum.ieee.org/three-engineers-hundreds-of-robots-one-warehouse
  91. https://www.wired.com/story/spot-boston-dynamics/
  92. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03307
  93. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.00255
  94. https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/2/96
  95. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8665162
  96. https://aerospacelab.onera.fr/sites/default/files/2024-01/AL08-03.pdf
  97. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/transportation/amazon-prime-air-prepares-for-drone-deliveries
  98. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/13/3266
  99. https://www.exail.com/product/a6k-ultra-deep-autonomous-underwater-vehicles
  100. https://www.nortekgroup.com/knowledge-center/wiki/new-to-subsea-navigation
  101. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA608055.pdf
  102. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:789903/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  103. https://www.itu.int/en/journal/j-fet/2026/001/Documents/ITUJ-FET_underwater-comm_cfp_2025.pdf
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952197625026697
  105. https://www.saildrone.com/news/surveyor-usv-closing-ocean-exploration-gaps-alaska-california
  106. https://www.saildrone.com/missions/2021-surveyor-hawaii-mapping
  107. https://www.oceansciencetechnology.com/news/joint-usv-auv-mission-enhances-deep-sea-exploration-capabilities/
  108. https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2022/08/extended-range-unmanned-operations-demonstrated-using-a-hybrid-usv/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.