Optimizing H-Graph Hybridization for Diffusion-Guided RRT
Organizations: Tel Aviv University
Abstract
Sampling-based motion planners guided by diffusion models produce high-quality trajectories in a single run, yet the stochastic diversity available at inference time is left largely unexploited. We present two inference-time diversification strategies for a fixed, pretrained DiTree model, combined via H-Graph hybridization, and evaluate them on a holonomic AntMaze robot across 15 maze scenarios. The first, factorial diversity, sweeps the random seed and Diffusion Goal Bias (DGB) parameter, the second, refinement-only diversity, sweeps the diffusion refinement strength (RS) that controls how much an RRT-generated trajectory is edited. Because a single-run baseline only partially succeeds, we additionally compare H-Graph results with pool-based statistics. H-Graph improves the mean pool length of the factorial and refinement-only diversities by 18.8% and 14.5%, respectively. In addition, it also improves the best individual candidate's lengths by 9.7% and 6.8%, respectively. And last, compared with the successful baseline's trajectory length, it improves the results by 18.2% and 19.9%, respectively. These results show that inference-time parameter variation is a reliable, training-free source of path diversity, and that H-Graph hybridization reliably converts this diversity into shorter, higher quality trajectories.
Figures & tables
| Scenario | Best ind. | Pool mean | Baseline len | H-Graph | vs. Best ind. | vs. Pool mean | vs. Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rand. XLarge Easy | 65.3 | 76.9 | 69.4 | 60.0 | +8.0% | +22.0% | +13.5% |
| Boxes | 135.6 | 145.3 | – | 120.0 | +11.5% | +17.4% | – |
| Boxes 2 | 106.1 | 131.9 | – | 108.2 | 2.0% | +18.0% | – |
| Boxes 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Narrow | 44.3 | 47.8 | 44.7 | 38.6 | +12.9% | +19.2% | +13.7% |
| Shapes | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Scenario | Best ind. | Pool mean | Baseline len | H-Graph | vs. Best ind. | vs. Pool mean | vs. Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rand. XLarge Easy | 70.5 | 76.3 | – | 67.5 | +4.2% | +11.5% | – |
| Boxes | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Boxes 2 | 142.5 | 142.5 | – | 142.5 | +0.0% | +0.0% | – |
| Boxes 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Narrow | 43.5 | 58.4 | 54.2 | 41.3 | +5.0% | +29.3% | +23.7% |
| Shapes | 193.3 | 193.3 | – | 193.3 | +0.0% | +0.0% | – |
| Scenario | RS=0.00 | RS=0.25 | RS=0.50 | RS=0.75 | RS=1.00 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rand. XLarge Easy | – | 3.21 | – | – | 2.81 |
| Boxes 2 | – | 2.61 | – | – | – |
| Narrow | – | 1.40 | 1.62 | 2.81 | 1.36 |
| Shapes | – | 1.97 | – | – | – |
| Shapes 2 | 2.50 | – | – | 2.64 | 1.63 |
| Rand. Large 2 | – | 1.98 | – | – | – |
Motion Planning
Motion planning finds safe, feasible paths and trajectories for robots and vehicles amid geometric, dynamic, and task constraints.
See all 405 papers