, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 472–501 | Cite as

Landmark-Based Robot Navigation

  • A. Lazanas
  • J. -C. Latombe


Achieving goals despite uncertainty in control and sensing may require robots to perform complicated motion planning and execution monitoring. This paper describes a reduced version of the general planning problem in the presence of uncertainty and a complete polynomial algorithm solving it. The planar computes a guaranteed plan (for given uncertainty bounds) by backchaining omnidirectional backprojections of the goal until the set of possible initial positions of the robot is fully contained. The algorithm assumes that landmarks are scattered across the workspace, that robot control and position sensing are perfect within the fields of influence of these landmarks (the regions in which the landmarks can be sensed by the robot), and that control is imperfect and sensing null outside these fields. The polynomiality and completeness of the algorithm derive from these simplifying assumptions, whose satisfaction may require the robot and/or its workspace to be specifically engineered. This leads us to view robot/workspace engineering as a means to make planning problems tractable. A computer program embedding the planner was implemented, along with navigation techniques and a robot simulator. Several examples run with this program are presented in this paper. Nonimplemented extensions of the planner are also discussed.

Key words

Motion planning Mobile robot navigation Uncertainty Landmark 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Ayache, N.,Artificial Vision for Mobile Robots: Stereo Vision and Multisensory Perception, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Briggs, A. J., An efficient Algorithm for One-Step Planar Compliant Motion Planning with Uncertainty,Proc. 5th Annual ACM Symp. on Computational Geometry, Saarbruchen, 1989, pp. 187–196.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Buckley, S. J.,Planning and Teaching Compliant Motion Strategies, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Canny, J. F., On Computability of Fine Motion Plans,Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Scottsdale, AZ, 1989, pp. 177–182.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Canny, J. F., and Reif, J., New Lower Bound Techniques for Robot Motion Planning Problems,Proc. 27th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, Los Angeles, CA, 1987, pp. 49–60.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Christiansen, A., Mason, M., and Mitchell, T. M., Learning Reliable Manipulation Strategies Without Initial Physical Models,Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Cincinnati, OH, 1990, pp. 1224–1230.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Crowley, J. L., World Modeling and Position Estimation for a Mobile Robot Using Ultrasonic Ranging,Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Scottsdale, AZ, 1989, pp. 674–680.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Donald, B. R., A Geometric Approach to Error Detection and Recovery for Robot Motion Planning with Uncertainty,Artificial Intelligence J.,37(1–3) (1988), 223–271.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Donald, B. R., The Complexity of Planar Compliant Motion Planning Under Uncertainty,Algorithmica,5 (1990), 353–382.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Donald, B. R., and Jennings, J., Sensor Interpretation and Task-Directed Planning Using Perceptual Equivalence Classes,Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, 1991, pp. 190–197.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Dufay, B., and Latombe, J. C., An Approach to Automatic Robot Programming Based on Inductive Learning,Internat. J. Robotics Res.,3(4) (1984), 3–20.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Erdmann, M.,On Motion Planning with Uncertainty, Technical Report 810, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Erdmann, M.,Towards Task-Level Planning: Action-Based Sensor Design, Technical Report CMU-CS-92-116, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, February 1992.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Fox, A., and Hutchinson, S.,Exploiting Visual Constraints in the Synthesis of Uncertainty-Tolerant Motion Plans, Technical Report UIUC-BI-AI-RCV-92-05, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, October 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Friedman, J.,Computational Aspects of Compliant Motion Planning, Ph.D. Dissertation, Technical Report No. STAN-CS-91-1368, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Gottschlich, S. N., and Kak, A. C., Dealing with Uncertainty in CAD-Based Assembly Motion Planning,Proc. 9th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Anaheim, CA, July 1991, pp. 646–652.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Hutchinson, S., Exploiting Visual Constraints in Robot Motion Planning,Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. of Robotics and Automation, Sacramento, CA, 1991, pp. 1722–1727.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Latombe, J. C.,Robot Motion Planning, Kluwer, Boston, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Latombe, J. C., Lazanas, A., and Shekhar, S., Robot Motion Planning with Uncertainty in Control and Sensing,Artificial Intelligence J.,52(1) (1991), 1–47.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Laugier, C., and Théveneau, P., Planning Sensor-Based Motions for Part-Mating Using Geometric Reasoning Techniques,Proc. European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Brighton, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lazanas, A., and Latombe, J. C.,Landmark-Based Robot Navigation, Technical Report STAN-CS-92-1428, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Leonard, J. J., and Durrant-Whyte, H. F., Mobile Robot Localization by Tracking Geometric Beacons,IEEE Trans. Robotics Automat.,7(3) (1991), 376–382.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Levitt, T. S., Lawton, D. T., Chelberg, D. M., and Nelson, P. C, Qualitative Navigation,Proc. Image Understanding Workshop, Los Angeles, CA, 1987, pp. 447–465.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Lozano-Pérez, T.,The Design of a Mechanical Assembly System, Technical Report AI-TR 397, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1976.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Lozano-Pérez, T., Mason, M. T., and Taylor, R. H., Automatic Synthesis of Fine-Motion Strategies for Robots,Internat. J. Robotics Res.,3(1) (1984), 3–24.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Mahadevan, S., and Connell, J.,Automatic Programming of Behavior-Based Robots Using Reinforcement Learning, Research Report, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Mason, M. T., Automatic Planning of Fine Motions: Correctness and Completeness,Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Atlanta, GA, 1984, pp. 492–503.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Natarajan, B. K., The Complexity of Fine Motion Planning,Internat. J. Robotics Res.,7(2) (1988), 36–42.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Preparata, F. P., and Shamos, M. I.,Computational Geometry: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Schoppers, M. J.,Representation and Automatic Synthesis of Reaction Plans, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 1989.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Takeda, H., and Latombe, J. C., Sensory Uncertainty Field for Mobile Robot Navigation,Proc. IEEE Internat. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Nice, 1992, pp. 2465–2472.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Taylor, R. H.,Synthesis of Manipulator Control Programs from Task-Level Specifications, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1976.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Zhang, Z., and Faugeras, O., A 3D World Model Builder with a Mobile Robot,The Internat. J. of Robotics Res.,11(4) (1992), 269–285.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Lazanas
    • 1
  • J. -C. Latombe
    • 1
  1. 1.Robotics Laboratory, Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations