Decision-Making for Path Planning of Mobile Robots Under Uncertainty: A Review of Belief-Space Planning Simplifications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty remains a central challenge in robotic navigation, exploration, and coordination. This paper examines how Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) and their decentralized variants (Dec-POMDPs) provide a rigorous foundation for decision-making under partial observability across tasks such as Active Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (A-SLAM), adaptive informative path planning, and multi-robot coordination. We review recent advances that integrate deep reinforcement learning (DRL) with POMDP formulations, highlighting improvements in scalability and adaptability as well as unresolved challenges of robustness, interpretability, and sim-to-real transfer. To complement learning-driven methods, we discuss emerging strategies that embed probabilistic reasoning directly into navigation, including belief-space planning, distributionally robust control formulations, and probabilistic graph models such as enhanced probabilistic roadmaps (PRMs) and Canadian Traveler Problem-based roadmaps. These approaches collectively demonstrate that uncertainty can be managed more effectively by coupling structured inference with data-driven adaptation. The survey concludes by outlining future research directions, emphasizing hybrid learning–planning architectures, neuro-symbolic reasoning, and socially aware navigation frameworks as critical steps toward resilient, transparent, and human-centered autonomy.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".