DUGM-R: Uncertainty-Aware Dynamic Grid Mapping and Risk-Triggered Recovery for Learned Local Navigation
Organizations: The Hamlyn Centre for Robotic Surgery, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. · Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Learned local navigation in crowded indoor environments is sensitive to how dynamic obstacle motion is represented, while collision-prone behaviour may persist after nominal policy training. We present a risk-aware reinforcement-learning framework that addresses these two issues through an uncertainty-aware Dynamic Uncertainty Grid Map (DUGM) and a modular post-training recovery mechanism. DUGM combines local occupancy, estimated obstacle motion, and motion-estimation uncertainty in a robot-centric representation. After the nominal policy is frozen, a finite-horizon Risk Value Function (RVF) is trained from nominal rollouts and used to trigger a dedicated recovery policy when continued nominal execution is predicted to be collision-prone. Experiments in a held-out NVIDIA Isaac Sim clinical-logistics benchmark show that uncertainty-aware dynamic representation improves nominal navigation over static and deterministic alternatives, while the recovery mechanism further mitigates residual collision-prone behaviour. The complete framework is also deployed directly on a TurtleBot3 without policy fine-tuning, retraining, or site-specific adaptation, retaining the performance trend observed in simulation. These results indicate that uncertainty-aware dynamic representation and post-training recovery provide complementary mechanisms for improving learned local navigation.
Figures & tables
| Group | Method | SR | CR | TR | (m/s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| External | DWA | 51.1% | 15.6% | 33.3% | 0.150 |
| Nav2 MPPI | 35.6% | 3.3% | 61.1% | 0.114 | |
| ORCA | 27.8% | 65.6% | 6.6% | 0.125 | |
| DRL-VO | 38.9% | 61.1% | 0.0% | 0.134 | |
| OGM–Lagrangian | 58.9% | 41.1% | 0.0% | 0.140 | |
| Observation | OGM | 57.8% | 41.1% | 1.1% | 0.149 |
| Method | SR | CR | TR |
|---|---|---|---|
| DWA | 62.5% | 8.3% | 29.2% |
| OGM | 70.8% | 29.2% | 0.0% |
| DUGM | 79.2% | 20.8% | 0.0% |
| DUGM + recovery | 83.3% | 4.2% | 12.5% |