Online Navigation Planning for Long-term Autonomous Operation of Underwater Gliders
Authors: Victor-Alexandru Darvariu, Charlotte Z. Reed, Jan Stratmann, Bruno Lacerda, Benjamin Allsup, Stephen Woodward, Elizabeth Siddle, Trishna Saeharaseelan, Owain Jones, Dan Jones, Tobias Ferreira, Chloe Baker, Kevin Chaplin, James Kirk, Ashley Iceton-Morris, Ryan D. Patmore, Jeff Polton, Charlotte Williams, Christopher D. J. Auckland, Rob A. Hall, Alexandra Kokkinaki, Alvaro Lorenzo Lopez, Justin J. H. Buck, Nick Hawes
Organizations: Oxford Robotics Institute, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK · Optiver, Amsterdam, The Netherlands · Stateful Robotics, Oxford, UK · National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK · School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK · Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, UK
Underwater glider robots have become indispensable for ocean sampling, yet fully autonomous long-term operation remains rare in practice. Although stakeholders are calling for tools to manage increasingly large fleets of gliders, existing methods have seen limited adoption due to their inability to account for environmental uncertainty and operational constraints. In this work, we demonstrate that uncertainty-aware online navigation planning can be deployed in real-world glider missions at scale. We formulate the problem as a stochastic shortest-path Markov Decision Process and propose a sample-based online planner based on Monte Carlo Tree Search. Samples are generated by a physics-informed simulator calibrated on real-world glider data that captures uncertain execution of controls and ocean current forecasts while remaining computationally tractable. Our methodology is integrated into an autonomous system for Slocum gliders that performs closed-loop replanning at each surfacing. The system was validated in two North Sea deployments totalling approximately 3 months and 1000 km, representing the longest fully autonomous glider campaigns in the literature to date. Results demonstrate improvements of up to 9.88% in dive duration and 16.51% in path length compared to standard straight-to-goal navigation, including a statistically significant path length reduction of 9.55% in a field deployment.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Slocum glider in operation during the eSWEETS 3 field deployment. The proposed Glider Autonomy Long-term Planning Engine system was used to pilot gliders autonomously in two long-term deployments totalling approximately 3 months and 1000 km.
Figure 2: An illustration of basic glider operation and the relevant control parameters for Slocum gliders. These include the yo floor zbottom , ceiling ztop , climb pitch ϑclimb , dive pitch ϑdive , buoyancy change Δbuoy , and number of yos nyos ( 3 yos are completed in this dive).
Figure 3: The online planning loop of the GALE system and key considerations. Upload Science Data and Plan Next Dive occur simultaneously while the glider is at the surface.
Figure 4: An illustration of the key inputs and outputs of the glider dive simulator. The glider icon represents the dive initial location , the arrow indicates its direction , and background arrows correspond to ocean current forecasts over several depth levels. The grey circles are the outputs of the simulator indicating possible surfacing locations , i.e., stochastic MDP transitions. The red triangle is the true surfacing location .
Figure 5: An illustration of a search tree built by the planner. Circles represent state nodes and squares represent action nodes. Action nodes can have mulitple children as MDP transitions T are stochastic. Q is the expected cost of an action. At the root, diving at −30 degrees relative to the goal is estimated to lead to the lowest expected cost. The search tree is several levels deep and explored asymmetrically by the planner to balance exploration and exploitation. Starred nodes denote terminal states in which the glider reaches the goal.
Figure 6: Illustration of the proposed action space formulation (left), which uses bearings α that are relative to the goal. This leads to a lower branching factor than deciding headings ψ directly (right) while retaining relevant actions.
Figure 7: Visualisation of waypoint list generation. The first waypoint corresponds to the planner action (here, α=−30 ). The first backup waypoint is set to be the current goal as otherwise the goal would be overshot. The second backup waypoint is aimed straight at the next goal.
Figure 8: Diagram illustrating the components and steps of the two system workflows. The Mission Configuration Workflow (right) is executed once at the start the mission, while the Online Planning Workflow (left) is executed every few hours upon the surfacing of the glider.
Deployment
Goal 1
Goal 2
Dist.
ρ
ρwpt
nbck
MOGli
59.32∘ N 0.35∘ W
59.32∘ N 0.65∘ W
17.0
2.0
7.0
2
eSWEETS 3 N
57.089∘ N 1.856∘ W
57.062∘ N 1.698∘ W
10.0
1.0
7.0
2
eSWEETS 3 S
56.929∘ N 1.945∘ W
56.903∘ N 1.787∘ W
10.0
1.0
7.0
2
Table 1: Deployment goal locations and parameters. All distances are given in km.
Deployment
Transects completed
Duration (days)
Total dives
Distance travelled (km)
MOGli
41
42
343
665
eSWEETS 3 North
20
27
150
173
eSWEETS 3 South
23
22
147
207
Table 2: Deployment summary statistics.
Figure 9: Field deployment locations in the North Sea.
Figure 10: Learning curve showing the best value of J(Θ) found as a function of Bayesian optimisation iterations using the MOGli training data.
Metric
MOGli
eSWEETS 3 North
eSWEETS 3 South
True dive distance (m)
2733
5650
4679
Simulated dive distance (m)
2119
4991
4362
Distance delta (m)
1448
1555
1080
True dive duration (s)
10421
15923
12935
Duration delta (s)
345
1481
1377
Mean log-likelihood ℓˉ
-9.29
-78.67
-133.90
Table 3: Comparison of simulated and true dive metrics averaged over all dives in the real-world deployments.
Figure 11: Progress of the proposed simulator parameter optimisation procedure (Section 4.D ) on one of the dives in the MOGli deployment. Simulator parameters are progressively adjusted such that the surfacing locations generated by the simulator (grey circles) best match the true surfacing location (red triangle).
Deployment
Scenario
Algorithm
Mean Duration (hrs)
Mean Number Dives
Mean Path Length (km)
MOGli
Fav.
STG
22.48 ± 0.30
7.68 ± 0.10
17.31 ± 0.05
Planner
22.13 ± 0.30
7.57 ± 0.10
16.79 ± 0.06
Neutral
STG
22.93 ± 0.31
7.87 ± 0.11
17.66 ± 0.05
Planner
22.38 ± 0.30
7.68 ± 0.10
16.87 ± 0.06
Unfav.
STG
23.60 ± 0.34
8.10 ± 0.12
17.85 ± 0.06
Planner
22.84 ± 0.32
7.80 ± 0.11
16.92 ± 0.06
Table 4: Results comparing the Straight-to-Goal and Planner algorithms across several scenarios in simulation. Bold indicates the better-performing algorithm.
Figure 12: Transects completed by the proposed GALE system in the MOGli field deployment using the Planner and the Straight-to-Goal baseline. Only transects in which all transfers of control instructions succeeded are shown. The goal radii are represented by two dotted circles around the goals. The Planner results in transects with shorter minimum, mean, and maximum durations. Transects produced by the two methods are also discernible visually. The transects completed by the Planner have statistically significantly shorter path lengths and avoid overshooting the western goal.
Deployment
Algorithm
Mean Duration (hrs)
Min Duration (hrs)
Max Duration (hrs)
Mean Number Dives
Min Number Dives
Max Number Dives
Mean Path Length (km)
MOGli
Straight-to-Goal
23.09
16.00
31.70
8.45
6
11
22.58
Planner
22.68
14.35
26.98
8.28
5
10
20.52
eSWEETS 3 North
Straight-to-Goal
40.38
19.80
83.54
9.43
5
18
49.10
Planner
28.88
18.05
43.10
6.46
4
10
38.36
eSWEETS 3 South
Straight-to-Goal
21.37
10.75
54.64
6.00
3
14
29.29
Planner
26.82
10.44
47.55
7.29
3
13
32.95
Table 5: Results comparing the Straight-to-Goal and Planner algorithms in the field deployments. Bold denotes the better-performing algorithm for each deployment and metric.
Figure 13: Proportions of actions chosen by the Planner during the three field deployments, split between the East and West directions of travel. The stronger currents of the eSWEETS 3 region resulted in a wider distribution of action frequencies.
Autonomous underwater navigation develops methods for underwater vehicles to localize, plan routes, and move safely despite uncertain sensing, currents, and communication.
Navigating autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) in unknown environments is significantly challenging due to poor visibility, weak signal transmission, and dynamic water currents. These factors pose challenges in accurate global localization, reliable communication, and obstacle avoidance. Local sensing provides critical real time environmental data to enable online decision making. However, the inherent noise in underwater sensor measurements introduces uncertainty, complicating planning and control. To address these challenges, we propose an integrated planning and control framework that leverages real time sensor data to dynamically induce closed loop AUV trajectories, ensuring robust obstacle avoidance and enhanced maneuverability in tight spaces. By planning motion based on pre designed feedback controllers, the approach reduces the computational complexity needed for carrying out online optimizations and enhances operational safety in complex underwater spaces. The proposed method is validated through ROS Gazebo simulations on the RexRov AUV, demonstrating its efficacy. Its performance is evaluated by comparison against PID based tracking methods, and quantifying localization errors in dead reckoning as the AUV transitions into the target communication range.
Veejay Karthik, Udit Ekansh, Tejal Bedmutha +3
Centre for Systems and Control, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai · Institute for Control, Optimization, and Networks, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
This paper presents an observation-only autonomy framework for Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) navigation in dynamic underwater environments that integrates persistent occupancy mapping, global clearance-aware planning, and risk-aware local control. The proposed pipeline constructs occupancy maps solely from onboard sonar and depth image observations, adapts a clearance-constrained global planner (GP) to provide long-horizon structure, and integrates a reinforcement learning (RL) policy to handle short-range tracking and reactive avoidance. To further support decision-making under partial observability, the system learns a compact latent state representation from onboard sensor data, encoding environmental structure, obstacle dynamics, and uncertainty. Behavior tree (BT) distillation with staged supervision is introduced to improve safety and training stability, while an uncertainty-calibrated distillation mechanism reweights teacher guidance using online latent-model uncertainty, emphasizing uncertain regimes during learning, with time-to-collision (TTC) and clearance cues remaining explicit in planning and local policy features. To demonstrate the efficacy of the framework, a reproducible multi-seed evaluation protocol is established in high-fidelity GPU-accelerated simulation using NVIDIA Isaac Sim, and performance is benchmarked against BT-only and standard RL baselines. The results obtained demonstrate improved robustness and safety under dynamic conditions, thus providing a general pipeline with a unified hybrid planning learning architecture and a reproducible methodology for robust UUV autonomy under partial observability.
Md Ether Deowan, Eleni Kelasidi
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) traditionally rely on complex, heavily engineered pipelines for perception, path planning, and motion control. This paper explores the feasibility of an end-to-end Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) approach that maps raw sensor data directly to thruster commands, reducing manual engineering. We propose a hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) architecture splitting the problem into two Markov Decision Processes. A High-Level (HL) policy operating at 2Hz processes raw 84×84 pixel monocular camera frames, stacked 100×100 pixel forward-looking imaging sonar, and proprioceptive data to generate spatial subgoals. Simultaneously, a Low-Level (LL) policy operating at 10Hz converts these subgoals into thruster commands. The HL policy is trained using Reinforcement Learning from Prior Demonstrations (RLPD) within a modified Sample-Efficient Robotic Reinforcement Learning (SERL) framework, while the LL policy utilizes Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) combined with Hindsight Experience Replay (HER). Evaluated in the high-fidelity HoloOcean simulator, our method demonstrates successful obstacle avoidance, achieving trajectory lengths closely approximating (within 4% to 6% of) an RRT∗ planning baseline. Furthermore, the learned policy exhibits strong robustness to simulated sensor noise and decreased visibility. While the system navigates familiar geometries effectively, experiments reveal generalization limitations when encountering unvisited areas with novel obstacle shapes. Ultimately, this work demonstrates the promise of sample-efficient, end-to-end DRL for underwater navigation using minimal computational hardware.
Elisei Shafer, Oren Gal
Department of Marine Technologies, University of Haifa, Israel