Robot Path Planning Using Imprecise and Sporadic Advisory Information from Humans

  • Gianni A. Di CaroEmail author
  • Eduardo Feo-Flushing
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11650)


In environments featuring hazards (e.g., debris, holes in the ground), robot navigation can be challenging. Robot’s sensors alone might be not able to guarantee timely detection of the threats. In such situations, the presence of nearby humans can be exploited to support safe robot navigation. The human can proactively provide advisory information and issue warnings. Unfortunately, verbally expressed human’s inputs are usually quite imprecise or ambiguous when referring to spatial elements. We consider how to model the inherently imprecise and sporadic “human sensor” by using the formalism of imprecise probabilities, and how to use the model to build maps fusing robot sensor data and human inputs. Map information is used for path planning, searching for paths that balance survivability and efficiency (e.g., time). In a number of simulation scenarios we study the effectiveness of our approach compared to standard ways to build the map and perform path planning.


Survivable path planning Imprecise probabilities HRI 


  1. 1.
    Agmon, N.: Robotic strategic behavior in adversarial environments. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 5106–5110 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Augustin, T., Coolen, F.P., de Cooman, G., Troffaes, M.C.: Introduction to Imprecise Probabilities. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertsekas, D.P., Tsitsiklis, J.N.: An analysis of stochastic shortest path problems. Math. Oper. Res. 16(3), 580–595 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertsimas, D., Sim, M.: Robust discrete optimization and network flows. Math. Program. 98(1–3), 49–71 (2003). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertuccelli, L.F., How, J.: Robust UAV search for environments with imprecise probability maps. In: 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control & European Control Conference (CDC-ECC), pp. 5680–5685 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fried, D., Shimony, S.E., Benbassat, A., Wenner, C.: Complexity of Canadian traveler problem variants. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 487, 1–16 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hutter, M.: Robust estimators under the imprecise Dirichlet model. In: Proceedings of 3nd International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and their Applications (ISIPTA), pp. 274–289 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keidar, O., Agmon, N.: Safe navigation in adversarial environments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 83(2), 121–164 (2018). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kordjamshidi, P., Hois, J., van Otterlo, M., Moens, M.F.: Learning to interpret spatial natural language in terms of qualitative spatial relations. In: Wiener, J.M., Tenbrink, T. (eds.) Representing Space in Cognition, pp. 115–146. Oxford University Press, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lei, Z., Gan, Z.H., Jiang, M., Dong, K.: Artificial robot navigation based on gesture and speech recognition. In: IEEE SPAC, pp. 323–327 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levinson, S.C.: Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levit, M., Roy, D.: Interpretation of spatial language in a map navigation task. IEEE Trans. Sys. Man Cybern. Part B Cybern. 37(3), 667–679 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lyu, Y.H.: Implications of motion planning: optimality and k-survivability. Ph.D. thesis, Dartmouth College, Department of Computer Science (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miranda, E.: A survey of the theory of coherent lower previsions. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 48(2), 628–658 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moratz, R., Tenbrink, T.: Spatial reference in linguistic human-robot interaction: iterative, empirically supported development of a model of projective relations. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 6(1), 63–107 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pillai, R.: A mixed initiative system for survivable path planning in unknown cluttered environments. Senior Thesis, Computer Science, CMU in Qatar (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skubic, M., et al.: Spatial language for human-robot dialogs. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., Part C Appl. Rev. 34(2), 154–167 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thrun, S., Burgard, W., Fox, D.: Probabilistic Robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon University in QatarDohaQatar

Personalised recommendations