VIP: Variation-based Iterative-learning Planning for Robotic Navigation
Organizations: School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, P.R. China · Tianmushan Laboratory, Beihang University, Hangzhou, P.R. China
Abstract
Over the past decade, autonomous robotic systems have been increasingly deployed in applications such as surveying, search and rescue, and last-mile delivery. These applications require robots to generate safe and efficient motion plans in large, complex, and obstacle-dense environments, often under limited onboard computing resources. However, conventional planning methods commonly rely on finite-dimensional trajectory parameterization or increasingly long prediction horizons, leading to rapidly growing computational costs, particularly in multi-robot scenarios. This paper presents a novel variation-based iterative-learning planning (VIP) framework for efficient motion planning of both single robots and robotic swarms. Instead of optimizing a large number of discrete trajectory variables, VIP directly updates the planning command as a continuous function in an infinite-dimensional function space. The same variation-based update can be implemented in a model-in-the-loop manner for offline planning or in a robot-in-the-loop manner between online physical executions. By avoiding the computational burden associated with horizon expansion and high-dimensional trajectory discretization, VIP maintains a per-iteration computational complexity of , where denotes the number of spatial discretization points. Extensive simulations and real-world experiments demonstrate that the proposed framework can efficiently generate and iteratively improve motion plans for different planning objectives, robotic platforms, and swarm configurations, highlighting its effectiveness, computational efficiency, and scalability as a general planning methodology.
Figures & tables
| Paradigm | Subclass | Single robot | Robotic swarm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prediction-based planning | Optimization-based | Explicit optimization ; constraint handling; model dependence; high computation | Coordinated trajectories; collision avoidance; increasing computation and communication |
| Parameterized trajectory | Reduced variables; smooth trajectories; complex time optimization | Individual trajectory parameterization; demanding joint optimization | |
| Sampling-based | Nonlinear objectives; flexible search; sampling dependence | Flexible motion generation; conflict resolution; limited scalability | |
| Reactive-based planning | Vector/potential field | Fast response ; low computation; convergence-oriented | Local interactions; distributed coordination; limited global optimization |
| CBF/flocking | Safety constraints; reactive collision avoidance; online optimization | Collision avoidance; connectivity; cooperation; dense-swarm complexity | |
| Iterative learning | Model-based ILC | Function-space update; model information; tracking-level learning | Repetitive collective tracking; predefined references; model dependence |
| Paradigm | Principle | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Bottom-up | Generates collective motion through individual planning, control, or local interactions | Explicit individual coordination, but increasing computation and communication |
| Top-down | Describes the swarm using shared regions, macroscopic variables, or density evolution | High scalability, but limited direct control of individual motion performance |
| Obstacle Number | Traversal Time (s) | Avg. Replanning Time (ms) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MPCC | Polynomial | VIP | vs. Others | MPCC | Polynomial | VIP | vs. Others | |
| 60 | 34.30 | 34.39 | 33.85 | -1.31% vs. MPCC -1.57% vs. Poly | 5.32 | 17.66 | 2.37 | -55.5% vs. MPCC -86.6% vs. Poly |
| 80 | 25.55 | 27.79 | 25.90 | +1.37% vs. MPCC -6.80% vs. Poly | 4.98 | 21.32 | 2.62 | -47.4% vs. MPCC -87.7% vs. Poly |
| 100 | 25.05 | 26.77 | 25.25 | +0.80% vs. MPCC -5.68% vs. Poly | 5.44 | 19.81 | 2.45 | -55.0% vs. MPCC -87.6% vs. Poly |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Explore similar work
Dual Process Motion Planning
System-2'' component with experience-driven System-1'' modules. A metacognitive controller dynamically orchestrates their interaction, selecting when to rely on fast intuition versus slower, more precise reasoning. By evaluating the framework across diverse nonlinear benchmark environments, we demonstrate that this architecture yields consistent gains in planning efficiency, accuracy, and generalization, while promoting reuse across tasks. The results suggest that tightly coupling learning with structured reasoning offers a scalable path toward more capable and adaptive robotic systems.