Extending First-order Robotic Motion Planners to Second-order Robot Dynamics

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2503.17589
• Title: Extending First-order Robotic Motion Planners to Second-order Robot Dynamics
• Authors: Mayur Sawant, Abdelhamid Tayebi (Lakehead University)
• Classification: cs.RO cs.SY eess.SY
• Publication Date: October 10, 2025 (arXiv v2)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17589

Abstract

This paper extends first-order motion planners to robotic systems governed by second-order dynamics. Two control schemes are proposed based on knowledge that the negative gradient of a known scalar function aligns with a given first-order motion planner. When such functions are known, the first-order motion planner is combined with a damped velocity vector featuring dynamic gain, extending the safety and convergence guarantees of the first-order motion planner to second-order systems. In the absence of such functions, an alternative control scheme is proposed to ensure that the error between robot velocity and the first-order motion planner converges to zero. The theoretical development is supported by simulation results demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

Autonomous robot navigation involves guiding a robot to a desired target location while avoiding obstacles. Existing navigation methods are primarily based on artificial potential fields, where attractive vector fields guide the robot toward the target and repulsive vector fields ensure obstacle avoidance.

Core Challenges

1. Dynamics Mismatch Problem: Most navigation strategies assume robot motion is governed by first-order models with velocity control, but actual robotic systems are typically modeled by second-order dynamics
2. Safety Assurance: Direct application of first-order planners to second-order systems may cause overshoot, driving the system into unsafe regions
3. Geometric Constraints: Existing navigation methods for second-order systems are limited in the types of obstacle geometries they can handle

Research Motivation

Existing first-order motion planners (such as 5, 8) can ensure safe navigation in environments with complex geometric obstacles, but direct application to second-order systems loses safety guarantees. Therefore, control schemes must be designed to extend the applicability of first-order motion planners to second-order dynamic systems.

Core Contributions

1. Extension of Safety and Convergence Guarantees: Extends the safety and convergence guarantees of first-order motion planners to second-order systems, enabling navigation in complex obstacle environments
2. No Requirement for Infinite Potential Functions: Unlike existing methods 1, 10, does not require artificial potential functions to diverge as obstacles are approached
3. Relaxation of Initial Condition Constraints: Unlike reference governor methods 13, 14, imposes no restrictions on initial robot velocity
4. Two Complementary Control Schemes: Proposes dynamic damping feedback (DDF) and velocity tracking feedback (VTF) control strategies

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Design a feedback control law u such that the second-order system:

ẋ = v
v̇ = u

ensures safety and asymptotic stability of the target state (x = xd, v = 0), given that the first-order system ẋ = vd ensures safety and asymptotic stability of the target position x = xd.

Fundamental Assumptions

Assumption 1 (Environmental Constraints):

• Free space Xr is path-connected
• There exists δu > 0 such that the unsafe region satisfies: uniqueness of nearest point, boundedness and symmetry of Hessian matrix

Assumption 2 (First-order Planner Properties):

• ω-limit set is E ∪ {xd}, where E contains only isolated equilibrium points
• xd is almost globally asymptotically stable
• All equilibrium points have Jacobian matrices with nonzero real parts of eigenvalues
• Near obstacles: vd(x)⊤η(x) ≥ μ > 0
• vd(x) is bounded

Control Scheme Design

Scheme 1: Dynamic Damping Feedback (DDF) Control

Applicability Condition: A scalar function φ(x) is known such that vd(x) = -k₁∇ₓφ(x)

Control Law:

ud(x,v) = -k₁∇ₓφ(x) - kdβ(dx)v

Dynamic Gain Function:

β(p) = {
  1,           p ≥ ε₂
  φ(p),        ε₁ ≤ p ≤ ε₂  
  p⁻¹,         0 < p ≤ ε₁
}

where dx = d(x,OW) - r is the safety distance to obstacles.

Scheme 2: Velocity Tracking Feedback (VTF) Control

Applicability Condition: First-order planner vd(x) is continuously differentiable with bounded ∇ₓvd(x)

Control Law:

uv(x,v) = -kdβ(dx)(v - vd(x)) + ∇ₓvd(x)⊤v

Technical Innovations

1. Adaptive Damping Mechanism: Dynamically adjusts damping gain based on robot-obstacle distance, maintaining low damping for rapid motion when far from obstacles and increasing damping for safety when approaching obstacles
2. Theoretical Guarantees:
   • Theorem 1: DDF control ensures X°r × Rⁿ is forward invariant, and (xd,0) is almost globally asymptotically stable
   • Theorem 2: VTF control ensures velocity error ‖v(t)-vd(x(t))‖ decreases monotonically, and (xd,0) is almost globally asymptotically stable
3. No Potential Function Divergence Required: Unlike traditional methods, does not require potential functions to diverge at obstacle boundaries

Experimental Setup

Simulation Environments

1. Scenario 1: Planar unbounded workspace with a single circular obstacle
2. Scenario 2: Circular workspace with 8 elliptical obstacles
3. Scenario 3: Bounded workspace with 10 obstacles, robot equipped with distance sensor of sensing radius Rs = 2m

Parameter Settings

• Robot radius: r = 0.1-0.5m
• Damping parameters: ε₁ = 0.25-0.5m, ε₂ = 0.75-1.5m
• Control gains: k₁ = 0.5-5, kd = 0.5-1
• Navigation function parameters: δ₁ = 0.01-0.5, κ = 6-25

Comparison Methods

Fixed damping control: uf(x,v) = -k₁∇ₓφ(x) - kdv

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. Safety Verification: In all simulations, dx(t) > 0 holds consistently, ensuring no robot-obstacle collision
2. Convergence: All trajectories successfully avoid obstacles and asymptotically converge to target positions
3. Path Efficiency: VTF control typically produces shorter path lengths than DDF control

Key Findings

1. Fixed Damping Failure: Fixed damping control causes the robot to enter unsafe regions under certain initial conditions
2. Velocity Error Monotonicity: VTF control ensures ‖v(t)-vd(x(t))‖ decreases monotonically, validating theoretical predictions
3. Adaptive Performance: Dynamic damping mechanism effectively balances safety and motion efficiency

Numerical Results

Path length comparison for 7 different initial positions in 8-obstacle environment:

• DDF control: 8.79-6.30m
• VTF control: 8.66-6.26m (generally shorter)

Related Work

First-order Motion Planning

• Artificial potential field methods 1: suffer from local minima
• Navigation function methods 2-6: ensure almost global convergence but limited to specific geometries
• Separating hyperplane methods 7-8: applicable to complex geometries but limited to first-order systems

Second-order System Navigation

• Control barrier function methods 9: limited to circular obstacles
• Second-order navigation functions 10-12: limited geometric shapes
• Reference governor methods 13-14: require virtual governor states, computationally complex

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Successfully extends first-order motion planners to second-order systems while maintaining safety and stability
2. Two control schemes are complementary: DDF applies when potential functions are known, VTF applies to general continuously differentiable planners
3. Dynamic damping mechanism effectively resolves the trade-off between safety and efficiency

Limitations

1. Assumption Requirements: Requires satisfaction of relatively strong environmental and planner assumptions
2. Computational Complexity: VTF requires computation of Jacobian matrix ∇ₓvd(x)
3. Sensor Requirements: Requires accurate distance measurement and obstacle detection

Future Directions

1. Extension to higher-order dynamic systems
2. Consideration of actuator saturation and uncertainty
3. Validation on actual robotic platforms

In-depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Rigor: Provides complete proofs of stability and safety
2. Practicality: Addresses an important engineering problem with intuitive and understandable methods
3. Generality: Applicable to various types of first-order motion planners
4. Innovation: Dynamic damping mechanism design is elegant and effectively balances performance requirements

Weaknesses

1. Strong Assumptions: High requirements on environmental geometry and planner properties
2. Limited Experiments: Only simulation verification; lacks real robot experiments
3. Scalability: Methods primarily target point robots; extension to complex robot shapes is unclear

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides new theoretical framework for robot motion planning
2. Practical Value: Can be directly applied to extend existing first-order planners
3. Reproducibility: Methods are clearly described with explicit parameter settings

Applicable Scenarios

1. Extending mature first-order motion planners to second-order systems
2. Robot navigation tasks with high safety requirements
3. Autonomous navigation in complex geometric obstacle environments

References

This paper cites 22 relevant references, primarily including:

• Classical work on artificial potential fields and navigation functions 1-2
• Recent advances in navigation in complex geometric environments 5-8
• Related research on second-order system control 9-14
• Foundational mathematical analysis 15-22

Overall Assessment: This is an excellent paper with solid theory and innovative methods that successfully addresses an important problem in robot motion planning. While there is room for improvement in experimental validation, its theoretical contributions and practical value make it a significant advance in the field.