Self-Evolutionary Replanning for Failure-Aware Motion Planning
Authors: Guoliang Li, Ruihua Han, Chengyang Li, He Li, Shuai Wang, Wenchao Ding, Hong Zhang, Chengzhong Xu
Organizations: Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Macau · Department of Computer Science, University of Hong Kong · SIAT, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Academy for Engineering & Technology, Fudan University · Department of EEE, Southern University of Science and Technology
Motion planners tuned under nominal conditions can fail when execution conditions change. Existing differentiable adaptation methods provide efficient online updates but remain constrained by static loss functions and gradient-only parameter updates. We propose Self-Evolutionary RePlanning (SERP), a failure-aware framework that jointly adapts motion-planner parameters and loss function weights from closed-loop execution feedback. SERP provides two adaptation mechanisms. First, in-context learning with auto-differentiation (ILAD) enables rapid online adaptation by coupling local numerical refinement with history-conditioned semantic intervention. Auto-differentiation performs numerical updates, while a vision-language model (VLM) interprets recent adaptation history to jointly revise planner parameters and loss weights when local adaptation becomes ineffective. Second, the memory-augmented rollout system (MARS) extends ILAD into a deliberative and evolutionary recovery process with memory-guided candidate generation and parallel low-fidelity rollout evaluation. The resulting recovery trace is then consolidated into recovery memory to guide future adaptation. Extensive simulation and real-world experiments demonstrate improved failure recovery performance over various baselines across diverse environments.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Comparison of planner adaptation methods.
Fig. 2 : Overview of SERP, which consists of ILAD and MARS.
Fig. 3 : IR-SIM scenario profiles.
Fig. 4 : Qualitative comparison in a 50-obstacle uniform-random IR-SIM scene.
Metric
Method
SFM
ORCA
NeuPAN
DiffTune
SERP
[ 28 ]
[ 29 ]
[ 7 ]
[ 6 ]
-
30 obstacles
AvgSpeed ↑
2.299
1.938
3.018
3.023
2.870
AvgAcc ↓
1.015
0.828
0.410
0.479
0.774
AvgEpoch ↓
–
–
–
3.610
2.750
TABLE I: Quantitative Comparison in the IR-SIM simulator. Purple denotes the best performance.
Fig. 5 : Qualitative comparison in Habitat simulator.
Method
AvgEpoch ↓
TotTime ↓
ColRate ↓
SucRate ↑
SERP
2.66
43.75
2.0%
94.0%
SERP w/o IL
3.82
43.66
20.0%
74.0%
SERP w/o AD
3.22
48.47
4.0%
84.0%
TABLE II: Ablation study of SERP. Purple denotes the best performance.
Method
AvgEpoch ↓
TotTime ↓
ColRate ↓
SucRate ↑
SERP
4.06
74.72
1.7%
87.7%
DiffTune [ 6 ]
4.48
49.46
4.7%
77.0%
SERP w/o MARS
4.35
55.90
2.7%
81.3%
TABLE III: Quantitative comparison in the Habitat simulator. Purple denotes the best performance.
Fig. 6 : Analysis of SERP in the Habitat simulator.
Fig. 7 : Experimental setup.
Fig. 8 : Trajectory and control profiles of SERP.
Fig. 9 : Replanning in the cluttered laboratory.
Door
# Obstacles
Success
Navigation Time (s)
Speed Avg./Std (m/s)
Acc. Avg./Std (m/s 2 )
w/ SERP
w/o SERP
w/ SERP
w/o SERP
w/ SERP
w/o SERP
w/ SERP
w/o SERP
Open
2
✔
✔
10.78
11.13
0.415 / 0.166
0.396 / 0.179
0.487 / 1.587
0.636 / 1.875
Open
4
✔
✔
10.97
11.46
0.419 / 0.151
0.392 / 0.172
0.484 / 1.218
0.418 / 0.899
Open
6
✔
✔
11.42
11.70
0.416 / 0.131
0.405 / 0.180
0.537 / 0.988
0.485 / 1.625
Almost Closed
2
✔
✗
19.55
–
0.274 / 0.212
–
0.405 / 1.281
–
Almost Closed
4
✔
✗
14.46
–
0.378 / 0.151
–
0.651 / 1.754
–
TABLE IV : Ablation study of SERP in real experiments.