Classical Approaches for Mobile Robot Path
Planning: A Review
2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS) | 978-1-6654-6200-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICCCIS56430.2022.10037620
Rajat Agrawal
Department of Electrical Engineering Department of Electrical Engineering
Malaviya National Institute of Technology Malaviya National Institute of Technology
Jaipur, India
rajatagarwal686@gmail.com bharatsingh1942@gmail.com
Abstract—Robotics experts are paying close attention to robot
motion planning, which has grown into a crucial job in the field
of navigation. It provides a simple and effective approach to the
coordination of robots in a complex environment. This article
presents a review of various classical approaches employed for the
path planning of mobile robots and their performance in a static
grid environment. This article discusses the various methods
used for disintegrating an environment. Classical approaches are
classified into two categories: (a) Search-based, and (b) Sample-
based. These algorithms were run on two grid environments and
compared based on the time taken to discover the shortest path,
the length of the path and the number of paths discovered to
select the shortest among them. A* algorithm was observed to
be the most optimal search-based algorithm and Fast Marching
Trees was the most optimal sample-based algorithm in a static
known environment.
Index Terms—Path planning, Classical approaches, Search-
based algorithms, Sample-based algorithms, Cell decomposition,
A* algorithm, Fast Marching Trees
I. I NTRODUCTION
Nowadays, autonomous robots, such as industrial robots in
factories and service robots in public spaces, have gained
a lot of attention and are growing rapidly. In increasingly
complicated contexts, such as shopping malls, city streets,
or train stations, these robots are increasingly utilized and
coexist alongside people. Path planning is one of the oldest
and most significant challenges for navigation procedures. It
involves finding a collision-free path in a potentially known
or unknown environment while avoiding obstacles that the
robotic system may encounter on its way from one point to
another. In these circumstances, the robot must navigate a safe
path and collision-free course to provide effective services to
humans.
The surroundings of the robot can be both static or dynamic
[1]. For static environments, the position of obstacles, starting
and goal positions are fixed. Whereas, in dynamic environ-
ments the position of obstacles and even the starting/goal
positions can be varying. The real time application deals with
the dynamic environment, since the obstacles can be moving
in many cases. The process of planning a path begins with
the creation of the map for known surroundings, while the
map is built in real time when the robot explores unknown
environments. [2]. Path planning algorithms can be either
global or local. Global methods consider the entire workspace
978-1-6654-6200-6/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:38:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Bharat Singh Rajesh Kumar
Department of Electrical Engineering
Malaviya National Institute of Technology
Jaipur, India Jaipur, India
rkumar.ee@mnit.ac.in
before the path planning process whereas the local methods
consider a small area around the robot. Path planning problem
can be further divided into two sub-problems:
• To identify all the environmentally safe and practicable
nodes.
• From all the conceivable paths created by joining these
viable nodes, choose the one that is the most ideal.
The first sub-problem can be addressed by disintegrating
the environment into small environments and taking actions
on these small environments. This can be done using poten-
tial field method, visibility graph method, voronoi diagram
method, grid decomposition method and cell decomposition
method. The second sub-problem can be solved using some
algorithms designed for path planning. The algorithms for
solving the path planning problems can be of two types -
Classical approaches and Reactive approaches [3]. Initially,
traditional approaches to tackling robot navigational difficul-
ties were quite popular because artificially intelligent solutions
had not yet been created. The traditional classical based
approaches are always expected to give the most optimal path.
All these algorithms are however restricted to static environ-
ments. They can also be used to discover the path in dynamic
situations, although the processing costs for such operation
are considerable. So, these algorithms are only applicable
for static environments and not for dynamic environments.
Classical approaches are also of two types - Search based and
Sample based. Each of them have their pros and cons which
is discussed in this review paper.
The main contributions of this article are highlighted as
1) the various methods for disintegrating the environment
and their pros and cons
2) the various search based classical approaches and sample
based classical approaches for finding the feasible path
and their pros and cons
3) a comparative analysis of these algorithms on a static
known and a static unknown environment
This paper is divided into different sections. Section 2
discusses the strategies for disintegrating the environment, as
well as their advantages and disadvantages. Section 3 discusses
search-based classical approaches, whereas Section 4 discusses
sample-based classical approaches. Section 5 contains the
400

Search-based
Classical
Approaches
Sample-based
Fig. 1: Classification of classical approaches for mobile robot path planning
simulation results and remarks. The conclusion is found in
Section 6.
II. M ETHODS OF DISINTEGRATING THE ENVIRONMENT
There are five different methods which can be used for
disintegrating the environment. These techniques are used to
identify all the possible nodes in the environment that the mo-
bile robotic system could employ as intermediate configuration
sites from the starting point to the end point.
A. Potential Field Method
This approach treats the robot as a positively charged
particle travelling through a magnetic field. The goal position
is considered as negatively changed and the obstacles as well
as the starting position is considered as positively charged. A
potential function that combines the attraction potential and
the repulsive potential drives these charged particles. [4]. This
method is cost effective and has ability to solve both local
and global problems. The main issue with this algorithm is
the local minimum trap, which is however taken care by some
of the optimization-based approaches.
B. Visibility Graph Method
The visible graph of a set of non-intersecting obstacles in
a 2D plane is an undirected graph with edges that are pairs
of vertices that do not overlap any of the barriers and vertices
that represent the obstacles [5]. The main advantage of this
approach is that it may be applied in dynamical circumstances.
Not every point on the map needs to be calculated. Instead,
the graph may be locally updated, which makes it perfect for
online use. The main disadvantage of this method is that it is
computationally heavy to process and some good algorithms
have to be developed to compute the optimal path from all the
generates feasible nodes.
2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS)
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:38:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Bidirectional A*
Breadth First Search Learning Real-
Time A*
Depth First Search
Real-Time
A* algorithm Adaptive A*
Best First Search Anytime
Repairing A*
Dijkstra’s algorithm
Dynamic A*
Fast Marching Trees Bidirectional RRT
Rapidly-Exploring RRT*
Random Trees
Dynamic RRT
C. Voronoi Diagram Method
A Voronoi diagram is created by dividing a plane with n
points into convex polygons, each of which has exactly one
generating point and all of which have points that are closer
to that point than any other point. [6]. The main disadvantage
of this method is the failure of the method to give the shortest
path. This method is devised to generate an optimal path with
a clearance.
D. Grid Decomposition Method
In this approach, the vacant space is divided into cells,
and the shortest path between the start and target coordinates
is found using a graph search algorithm. [7]. With the grid
decomposition method, free space is divided into a fixed
number of cells. The process then generates an adjacency
network by identifying which cells are close to one another,
and lastly determines the shortest route between the start
and destination sites using a graph-based method. Grid-based
approaches that partition free space into a grid include the
A* and Dijkstra algorithms. This approach can determine the
most efficient path in huge environments since the environment
is split into extremely small environments, but it becomes
computationally demanding as the grid size grows.
E. Cell Decomposition Method
Cell decomposition method divides the vacant area into
a number of cells depending on the barriers rather than
equal-sized cells. This algorithm creates cells considering the
vertices of the obstacles and thus decreases the computation
time [8]. After creation of the cells in the free space by one of
the above mentioned methods, an adjacency graph is created
and the shortest path is found out using some graph algorithms.
This method is comparatively good as compared to grid based
method in terms of time complexity and space complexity but
401
 this method has some shortcomings when the obstacles are too
close. This method is also not expected to give the shortest
path but is expected to give a safe and optimal path.
III. S EARCH BASED C LASSICAL A PPROACHES
Using graph search methods, search-based planning com-
putes paths or trajectories across a discrete representation
of the problem.Search-based planning faces two challenges:
converting the problem into a graph and then searching the
graph for the best solution. Search based approaches can help
us to find an efficient path but at an expense of computation
time. The various search based path planning algorithms are
discussed below.
A. Breadth First Search (BFS)
The Breadth First Explore (BFS) algorithm is used to
traverse or search data structures such as trees and graphs.
Before going on to the nodes at the next depth level, it explores
all of the nodes at the current depth. BFS starts at the robot’s
starting location (root node) and expands all of the root node’s
successors in search of the goal. A node’s successors are all
possible paths that the robot could take next. The possible
paths include the directions that cause the robot to collide
with an obstruction. Those paths will be omitted which leaves
the workspace. Nodes that the robot has already visited will
also not be considered. In path planning, BFS helps in finding
the most optimal path by traversing the nodes in diagonal
manner at different depths [9]. This algorithm is however only
good if the cost of finding the path is same in all directions.
For larger environment, this algorithm however can have high
computational cost since it have to go deeper into the levels
to find the goal position. This method also have high space
complexity.
B. Depth First Search (DFS)
The complement to breadth first search is depth first search.
It is also an uninformed search method. It expands all the
successors of the starting node from the root node, just as
BFS [10]. When compared to BFS, depth first search typically
takes far less memory. This is due to the fact that DFS does not
always spread out each and every node at different depths. DFS
does not guarantee to find the shortest path for an environment.
Also, this is a time taking process and sometimes when it
does not find the goal node it unnecessarily runs down an
unbounded branch.
C. Best First Search
Unlike BFS and DFS which considers any of the nearby
as the next node from the current node, this algorithm takes
into account the cost function. It is a type of heuristic search
or informed search algorithm. The concept behind Best First
Search is to utilize an assessment function to determine which
nearby node is the most promising, and then explore that
area [11]. It chooses the vertex closest to the goal rather than
the one closest to the starting point. The shortest path is not
402 2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS)
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:38:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
always found by using Best First Search. It is, nevertheless,
significantly faster than BFS and DFS since it uses the
heuristic function to quickly direct itself towards the objective.
D. Dijkstra’s Algorithm
Dijkstra can find the shortest path from any starting point
to any destination in an acyclic situation. In a graph, it is
used to discover the shortest path. It is concerned with finding
the shortest path without paying formal regard to the solution’s
pragmatism. Dijkstra is a dependable path planning algorithm.
It uses a lot of memory since it has to calculate all potential
outcomes to find the shortest path, and it can’t handle negative
edges [12]. Many enhanced variants based on the applications
arose as a result of its limitations.
E. A* Algorithm
A prominent network traversal path planning algorithm is
the A* Algorithm. This algorithm works in a similar way as
Dijkstra’s algorithm but instead it moves towards the most
optimal states, thus saving time and space. For approaching
a near-optimal solution with the provided nodes, A* is the
most often utilized method. It is commonly employed in static
contexts, but it is also used in dynamic environments [13].
Dijkstra’s approach simply takes into account how far the
current node is from the starting node, however this algorithm
also takes into account how far the current node is from both
the current node and the final node. The function that this
algorithm uses is given below
F (n) = f 1(n) + f 2(n) (1)
where f 1(n) is the cost of moving from initial node to node n,
and f 2(n) is the cost of moving from node n to final node. It
is less computationally intensive and simpler than many other
path planning methods, and its efficiency makes it suitable
for use on limited and embedded systems. There are some
variations in the A* algorithm which were also used. These
were Bidirectional A* algorithm [14], Learning Real Time
A* algorithm [15], Real Time Adaptive A* algorithm [16],
Anytime Repairing A* algorithm [17] and many more. The
dynamic A* algorithm [18] is also designed for static and
unknown settings in which the robot does not know where the
obstacles are.
IV. S AMPLE BASED C LASSICAL A PPROACHES
Without a graph representation, sample-based planning ap-
proaches can handle problems in continuous space. However,
some sample based planning methods are equipped to dis-
cretize the environment. Sampling based approaches run faster
than the search based approaches but they may produce un-
usually shaped and possibly inefficient pathways. The various
sampling based path planning algorithms are discussed below.
 A. Rapidly-Exploring Random Trees (RRT) i7-1050H CPU running at 2.60 GHz on a 16-bit operating
Unlike A* algorithm, RRT does not require a prior infor- system with 16.0 GB of RAM. The programmes were writ-
mation of the path. Rather, it grows throughout all regions and ten in Python, and the simulation results for the different
form a path from start to finish based on the weights applied classical-based techniques outlined above were recorded. For
to each node. RRTs were created to address a wide range of the simulations, two ecosystems with 50 × 30 grids each were
path design issues. They were created primarily to deal with developed. The red node shows the beginning point, while the
real time environments about which the information is not green node represents the destination. Obstacles are indicated
given. These environments can be fully known or partially by black nodes, while travelled nodes will be signified by
known to the mobile robot [19]. RRTs works by rapidly colours other than red, green, and black.
growing the sample spaces, then growing from the starting
point until the tree is close enough to the goal point. The tree
expands to the nearest vertex of the randomly produced vertex
with each iteration. A distance measure is used to choose the
nearest vertex. As a result, we might argue that RRT favors
uncharted territory. RRT’s vertices have a uniform distribution.
Even though the number of edges is limited, the algorithm is
quite straightforward, and RRTs always stay connected. RRT
Connect [20], also known as bi-directional RRTs, is a heuristic
that connects two RRTs, one at the starting point and the other (a) (b)
at the goal position. This method is appropriate for issues
with no differential restrictions. One tree is enlarged with each
iteration, and the new vertex is linked to the nearest vertex of
the other tree. RRT* [21] is an RRT extension that uses triangle
equality to discover the best path from a start to a goal node.
Lower-cost (more optimum) pathways are discovered as the
number of nodes grows. The dynamic RRT algorithm [22] is
also designed for static and unknown environments in which
the robot does not know where the obstacles are. (c) (d)

B. Fast Marching Trees (FMT)

Fast Marching Trees is probabilistic sampling-based algo-
rithm used for mobile robot navigation. This algorithm is
designed primarily to solve mobile robot navigation difficulties
in 2D and 3D domains [23]. By running a slow dynamic
programming recursion on a collection of probabilistically
chosen samples, the FMT basically develops a tree of paths
outward in cost-to-come space. Unlike RRT, FMT generates (e) (f)
optimal nodes within a limited radius for a given set of nodes.
This algorithm is found to perform well than RRT in terms
of solution quality per nodes. If a smoothness constraint is Fig. 2: Simulation results of search based and sample based
imposed on routes, for example, each new branch solves the approaches on first environment in (a), (b) and (c), and on
differentially constrained system with initial circumstances second environment in (d), (e) and (f)
starting from its parent node/state, whose optimal path has
Figure 2 depicts the outcomes of several search-based and
already been found, because FMT constructs its paths out-
sample-based algorithms in two different contexts. Tables 1
wards. Many edges are added at once with no well-defined
and 2 detail the performance of these methods in the first and
parent in graph-based approaches, making it unclear what the
second environments, respectively. Three parameters are used
beginning conditions that must be met for each edge are. Even
to compare performance on these static grid environment:
with RRT, the rewiring process reroutes a differentially limited
path in the middle of the journey, which is a more difficult • Time taken to discover the shortest path

challenge than just concatenating to the conclusion. • Number of nodes investigated

V. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSIONS
The grid environment was chosen to perform simulations
because it is simple to set up and can be dissolved into any
other environment. The simulations were run on an Intel Core
• Number of nodes containing the shortest path
For identifying the most optimal solution, the shortest path
and time are prioritised. The path discovered using the Bidi-
rectional A* technique was determined to be the most feasible
in the first environment based on the results. Fast Marching

2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS) 403
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:38:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I: A comparison of classical path planning algorithms TABLE II: A comparison of classical path planning algorithms
on environment 1 in terms of time needed by the algorithm to on environment 2 in terms of time needed by the algorithm to
discover the shortest path, number of nodes investigated, and discover the shortest path, number of nodes investigated, and
number of nodes with the shortest path number of nodes with the shortest path.

Algorithm used Parameters Algorithm used Parameters

Time Number Number of Time Number Number of
needed to of nodes nodes with needed to of nodes nodes with
discover investigated the shortest discover investigated the shortest
the shortest path the shortest path
path (sec) path (sec)
Breadth First Search 0.012583 1161 48 Breadth First Search 0.002708 308 256
Depth First Search 0.566541 1114 189 Depth First Search 0.011404 984 59
Best First Search 0.007576 196 55 Best First Search 0.001485 125 64
Dijkstra’s Algorithm 0.009938 1220 48 Dijkstra’s Algorithm 0.008416 1008 59
A* Algorithm 0.006239 582 48 A* Algorithm 0.008756 747 59
Bidirectional A* 0.006303 568 48 Bidirectional A* 0.012009 924 59
Learning Real-Time A* 0.366647 989 57 Learning Real-Time A* 1389 989 69
Real-Time Adaptive A* 0.013511 1833 48 Real-Time Adaptive A* 0.017423 2122 59
Anytime Repairing A* 0.026165 993 59 Anytime Repairing A* 0.018866 1050 70
Rapidly-Exploring Ran- 0.702834 1177 143 Rapidly-Exploring Ran- 1.254145 1702 186
dom Trees dom Trees
RRT* 24.643154 4216 66 RRT* 22.501164 3891 35
Bidirectional RRT 0.189450 355 100 Bidirectional RRT 0.435024 729 93
Fast Marching Trees 5.257328 889 24 Fast Marching Trees 3.990387 752 26

(a) (b) (a) (b)

(c) (d) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (e) (f)

Fig. 3: Simulation results of dynamic A* algorithm on first Fig. 4: Simulation results of dynamic RRT algorithm on first
environment in (a), (b) and (c), and on second environment environment in (a), (b) and (c), and on second environment
in (d), (e) and (f) in (d), (e) and (f)

404 2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS)
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:38:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Trees tracked an excellent path as well, although it took a
long time to compute the shortest path. The path discovered
by the A* method was found to be the shortest path in second
environment. However, the path traced by FMT was adequate,
although it is taking significantly longer time. As a result, the
A* algorithm is the best search-based approach for finding the
best path in a static known environment. Fast Marching Trees,
on the other hand, outperform Rapidly-Exploring Random
Trees as a sample-based approach for finding the best optimum
path in a static known space.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the outcomes of the dynamic A*
algorithm and the dynamic RRT method, respectively. The
arena in this example is immobile and only partially known to
the robot. In this situation, both methods worked admirably.
VI. C ONCLUSION
One of the oldest and most critical challenges for navigation
methods is path planning. It is the process of identifying a
collision-free path in an unknown environment while avoiding
impediments that the robotics system may encounter on its
way from one location to another. Since the 1970s, many path-
planning algorithms have been developed. Initially, traditional
methodologies were used to handle path planning difficul-
ties. Path planning difficulties were then tackled by utilising
reactive ways once AI tools became available. Traditional
techniques are slow, but they always provide the best road.
They, on the other hand, do not function well in a dynamic
real-time context. Reactive-based techniques can function in
a dynamic real-time context, however they do not always
provide the best path due to flaws. Researchers have used a
hybrid of the two methods.
This article discusses path planning disintegration ap-
proaches and the benefits and drawbacks of each method. Grid
Decomposition was discovered to be simple to implement but
has a significant computational cost. This article also discusses
traditional methodologies such as Breadth First Search, Depth
First Search, Best First Search, Dijkstra’s Algorithm, A*
Algorithm and its variations, and others. Rapidly Exploring
Random Trees and their variations, as well as Fast Marching
Trees. The study addressed the merits and downsides of
each approach, and simulations were done on a static known
environment. The A* method was shown to be the best search-
based approach for finding the best path, while Fast Marching
Trees outperformed Rapidly-Exploring Random Trees.
R EFERENCES
[1] Ajeil, F. H., Ibraheem, I. K., Azar, A. T., Humaidi, A. J. (2020).
Grid-based mobile robot path planning using aging-based ant colony
optimization algorithm in static and dynamic environments. Sensors,
20(7), 1880.
[2] Podsedkowski, L., Nowakowski, J., Idzikowski, M., Vizvary, I. (2001).
A new solution for path planning in partially known or unknown en-
vironment for nonholonomic mobile robots. Robotics and Autonomous
Systems, 34(2-3), 145-152.
[3] Raja, P., Pugazhenthi, S. (2012). Optimal path planning of mobile
robots: A review. International journal of physical sciences, 7(9), 1314-
1320.
2022 International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Intelligent Systems (ICCCIS)
Authorized licensed use limited to: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur. Downloaded on November 06,2023 at 06:38:12 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[4] Wang, Y., Chirikjian, G. S. (2000, April). A new potential field method
for robot path planning. In Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Con-
ference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.
Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065) (Vol. 2, pp. 977-982).
IEEE.
[5] Kaluer, H., Brezak, M., Petrović, I. (2011, May). A visibility graph
based method for path planning in dynamic environments. In 2011
Proceedings of the 34th International Convention MIPRO (pp. 717-721).
IEEE.
[6] Masehian, E., Amin-Naseri, M. R. (2004). A voronoi diagram-visibility
graph-potential field compound algorithm for robot path planning.
Journal of Robotic Systems, 21(6), 275- 300.
[7] Kyaw, P. T., Paing, A., Thu, T. T., Mohan, R. E., Le, A. V., Veeraja-
gadheswar, P. (2020). Coverage path planning for decomposition recon-
figurable grid-maps using deep reinforcement learning based travelling
salesman problem. IEEE Access, 8, 225945- 225956.
[8] Lingelbach, F. (2004, April). Path planning using probabilistic cell
decomposition. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA’04. 2004 (Vol. 1, pp. 467-472).
IEEE.
[9] Miao, X., Lee, J., Kang, B. Y. (2018). Scalable coverage path planning
for cleaning robots using rectangular map decomposition on large
environments. IEEE Access, 6, 38200-38215.
[10] Tang, G., Tang, C., Zhou, H., Claramunt, C., Men, S. (2021). R-
DFS: A Coverage Path Planning Approach Based on Region Optimal
Decomposition. Remote Sensing, 13(8), 1525.
[11] Dellin, C., Srinivasa, S. (2016, March). A unifying formalism for
shortest path problems with expensive edge evaluations via lazy best-first
search over paths with edge selectors. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (Vol. 26, pp. 459-
467).
[12] Wang, H., Yu, Y., Yuan, Q. (2011, July). Application of Dijkstra
algorithm in robot pathplanning. In 2011 second international conference
on mechanic automation and control engineering (pp. 1067-1069). IEEE.
[13] Duchoň, F., Babinec, A., Kajan, M., Beňo, P., Florek, M., Fico, T.,
Jurišica, L. (2014). Path planning with modified a star algorithm for a
mobile robot. Procedia Engineering, 96, 59-69.
[14] Nannicini, G., Delling, D., Liberti, L., Schultes, D. (2008, May).
Bidirectional A search for time-dependent fast paths. In International
Workshop on Experimental and Efficient Algorithms (pp. 334-346).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[15] Bulitko, V., Lee, G. (2006). Learning in real-time search: A unifying
framework. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 25, 119-157.
[16] Koenig, S., Likhachev, M. (2006, May). Real-time adaptive A. In
Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous
agents and multiagent systems (pp. 281-288).
[17] Likhachev, M., Gordon, G. J., Thrun, S. (2003). ARA*: Anytime A*
with provable bounds on sub-optimality. Advances in neural information
processing systems, 16.
[18] Likhachev, M., Ferguson, D. I., Gordon, G. J., Stentz, A., Thrun, S.
(2005, June). Anytime Dynamic A*: An Anytime, Replanning Algo-
rithm. In ICAPS (Vol. 5, pp. 262-271).
[19] Karaman, S., Walter, M. R., Perez, A., Frazzoli, E., Teller, S. (2011,
May). Anytime motion planning using the RRT. In 2011 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 1478-1483). IEEE
[20] Kuffner, J. J., LaValle, S. M. (2000, April). RRT-connect: An efficient
approach to single-query path planning. In Proceedings 2000 ICRA.
Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065) (Vol. 2, pp.
995-1001). IEEE.
[21] Gammell, J. D., Srinivasa, S. S., Barfoot, T. D. (2014, September).
Informed RRT*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via
direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic. In 2014 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 2997-
3004). IEEE.
[22] Shan, E., Dai, B., Song, J., Sun, Z. (2009, December). A dynamic RRT
path planning algorithm based on B-spline. In 2009 Second International
Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design (Vol. 2, pp. 25-
29). IEEE.
[23] Janson, L., Schmerling, E., Clark, A., Pavone, M. (2015). Fast marching
tree: A fast marching sampling-based method for optimal motion plan-
ning in many dimensions. The International journal of robotics research,
34(7), 883-921.
405