MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414183612 · doi:10.3390/robotics14090127

Decision-Making for Path Planning of Mobile Robots Under Uncertainty: A Review of Belief-Space Planning Simplifications

2025· review· en· W4414183612 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRobotics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicObservabilityReinforcement learningMarkov decision processPartially observable Markov decision processAdaptabilityScalabilityMotion planningMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it