A Review of Deep Reinforcement Learning Algorithms for Mobile Robot Path Planning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Path planning is the most fundamental necessity for autonomous mobile robots. Traditionally, the path planning problem was solved using analytical methods, but these methods need perfect localization in the environment, a fully developed map to plan the path, and cannot deal with complex environments and emergencies. Recently, deep neural networks have been applied to solve this complex problem. This review paper discusses path-planning methods that use neural networks, including deep reinforcement learning, and its different types, such as model-free and model-based, Q-value function-based, policy-based, and actor-critic-based methods. Additionally, a dedicated section delves into the nuances and methods of robot interactions with pedestrians, exploring these dynamics in diverse environments such as sidewalks, road crossings, and indoor spaces, underscoring the importance of social compliance in robot navigation. In the end, the common challenges faced by these methods and applied solutions such as reward shaping, transfer learning, parallel simulations, etc. to optimize the solutions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it