Receding-Horizon Next-Best-View Planning for Highly Occluded Target Perception
Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Donders Centre for Cognition, Department of Human-Centred Intelligent Systems, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Robotic systems that must acquire information about a specific target often face severe occlusion from sur- rounding structures or from the target itself, such that a single camera viewpoint provides only partial information. Active perception must therefore select viewpoints that progressively reveal unobserved regions. However, conventional local next- best-view (NBV) methods typically select viewpoints according to their immediate utility, which can overlook views that provide limited information initially but enable more informative obser- vations from subsequent viewpoints. We formulated local target perception as a short-horizon sequential view-planning problem and proposed a Receding-Horizon Next-Best-View (RH-NBV) planner that evaluates candidate sequences of future viewpoints rather than isolated views. RH-NBV is evaluated on a UR5e manipulator with an eye-in-hand RGB-D camera in simulation as well as on physical robot against a gradient-based NBV planner, and random search, using a coffee mug and Stanford bunny under controlled occlusion and a tomato plant with natural self-occlusion. Under heavy occlusion, RH-NBV achieves substantially higher target information recovery, reaching 63.8% ROI coverage versus 34.2% and 85.5% occluded-surface recall versus 7.4% for the single-step NBV baselines on the most occluded mug configuration. A controlled horizon ablation shows that this improvement arises from multi-step reasoning rather than additional computation. RH-NBV provides the greatest benefit for strongly occluded targets, while myopic NBV remains competitive and substantially cheaper when visibility is less constrained.
Figures & tables
| Symbol | Meaning | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Number of future viewpoints in each candidate sequence | 3 | |
| Number of candidate viewpoint sequences per iteration | 10 | |
| Discount factor for future viewpoint utilities | 0.85 | |
| Weight of the camera-motion cost | 2.0 | |
| Weight of the occlusion-aware utility term | 2.0 | |
| Maximum tangential orbit-step length (m) | 0.065 |
| ROI coverage (%) | score (%) | Occluded recall (%) | Ray-tracing calls (#) | Trajectory distance (m) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Target | Planner | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mug | RH-NBV | 0.0 | 67.1 | 71.5 | 75.4 | 76.0 | 0.0 | 81.0 | 81.8 | 82.7 | 83.3 | 0.0 | 72.8 | 74.3 | 75.7 | 76.3 | 0 | 150 | 300 | 450 | 600 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.95 | 1.75 | 2.15 |
| GradientNBV | 0.0 | 62.3 | 66.6 | 68.9 | 69.4 | 0.0 | 56.7 | 64.8 | 68.0 | 68.1 | 0.0 | 47.8 | 54.6 | 58.6 | 58.8 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.42 | 0.50 | |
| Random | 0.0 | 46.5 | 56.0 | 57.9 | 59.1 | 0.0 | 53.7 | 53.5 | 54.0 | 54.3 | 0.0 | 49.1 | 50.2 | 50.3 | 50.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.39 | 0.80 | 1.30 | 1.62 | |
| Bunny | RH-NBV | 0.0 | 28.6 | 34.2 | 38.9 | 41.1 | 0.0 | 42.8 | 47.4 | 50.4 | 52.8 | 0.0 | 33.8 | 36.9 | 40.0 | 42.2 | 0 | 150 | 300 | 450 | 600 | 0.00 | 0.46 | 0.81 | 1.25 | 1.50 |
| GradientNBV | 0.0 | 22.5 | 24.8 | 26.1 | 26.4 | 0.0 | 30.7 | 32.3 | 34.0 | 34.4 | 0.0 | 24.7 | 26.9 | 28.6 | 29.2 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.37 | 0.42 | |
| Coverage (%) | Occluded recall | |||||
| Stage | RH-NBV | GradientNBV | RH-NBV | GradientNBV | ||
| Coffee mug | ||||||
| panels1 | 91.59 | 88.84 | 0.903 | 0.812 | ||
| panels2 | 89.95 | 87.61 | 0.868 | 0.799 | ||
| panels3 | 63.82 | 34.23 | 0.855 | 0.074 | ||
| panels5 | 56.93 | 33.96 | 0.712 | 0.070 | ||
| ROI coverage (%) | score | Ray-tracing calls (#) | Trajectory distance (m) | |||||||||||||||||
| # Viewpoints | ||||||||||||||||||||
| RH-NBV | 0.0 | 77.3 | 85.6 | 90.7 | 92.8 | 0.000 | 0.927 | 0.961 | 0.967 | 0.970 | 0 | 150 | 300 | 450 | 600 | 0.00 | 0.36 | 0.64 | 1.32 | 1.77 |
| GradientNBV | 0.0 | 85.5 | 91.7 | 94.6 | 95.7 | 0.000 | 0.923 | 0.938 | 0.954 | 0.960 | 0 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.40 | 0.49 |
| Random | 0.0 | 80.7 | 86.6 | 90.8 | 91.5 | 0.000 | 0.945 | 0.958 | 0.967 | 0.969 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.95 | 1.45 | 1.75 |
| Configuration | Cov. (%) | OccRec | Trajectory distance (m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (default) | 63.82 | 0.892 | 0.855 | 3.46 |
| 36.97 | 0.500 | 0.354 | 2.33 | |
| 36.25 | 0.573 | 0.443 | 2.75 | |
| (equal compute) | 34.51 | 0.198 | 0.113 | 0.64 |
| Scenario | Method | Cov. (%) | Trajectory distance (m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | RH-NBV | 83.84 | 0.367 | 1.17 |
| GradientNBV | 99.24 | 0.180 | 0.35 | |
| Random | 90.13 | 0.318 | 0.92 | |
| Hard | RH-NBV | 90.24 | 0.222 | 1.15 |
| GradientNBV | 78.64 | 0.040 | 0.26 | |
| Random | 87.96 | 0.018 | 0.93 |
Next-Best-View Planning
Next-best-view planning selects camera or sensor viewpoints that gather useful evidence while balancing coverage, reconstruction quality, and motion cost.
See all 61 papers