Proceedings of the 5th RSI

International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (IcRoM 2017)

October 25-27, 2017, Tehran, Iran

A Comparative Study of Deterministic and

Probabilistic Mobile Robot Path Planning Algorithms
Esmaeel Khanmirza, Morteza Haghbeigi Milad Nazarahari, Samira Doostie
Department of Mechanical Engineering Department of Mechanical Engineering
Iran University of Science and Technology University of Alberta
Tehran, Iran Edmonton, Canada
khanmirza@iust.ac.ir nazaraha@ualberta.ca

Abstract— This paper presents a comparative study between
seven deterministic and probabilistic mobile robot path planning
algorithms. For this purpose, 19 different environments with
various complexities were designed and the performance of the
(1) A*, (2) Dijkstra, (3) Visibility Graph, (4) Probabilistic
Roadmap, (5) Lazy Probabilistic Roadmap, (6) Rapid-exploring
Random Tree, and (7) Bidirectional Rapid-exploring Random
Tree were assessed in terms of (i) path length, (ii) path
smoothness, (iii) runtime, and (iv) success rate for each
environment. In addition, for probabilistic algorithms, the
parameters of the planners were evaluated to assess their
efficiency under different working conditions. This comparison
study reveals the advantages and flaws of the mentioned path
planning algorithms and provides an informative insight for
researchers to select the best path planning method based on
their application.
Keywords—Path Planning, Dijkstra’s Algorithm, A* Algorithm,
Probabilistic Roadmap, Rapid- Exploring Random Tree
I. INTRODUCTION
Path planning (PP) problem is of crucial importance in several
robotic related research areas. A diverse range of robotic
applications in industry, agriculture, and medicine encourage
researchers to carry out vast research works in the path
planning field. A path planner should find the optimal (or
suboptimal) path between start and goal positions of a robot in
an environment filled with obstacles. The PP problem could be
solved for robotic arms or mobile robots. Considering the
affecting factors like different kinds of robots and
environments, static or dynamic obstacles, and multi-agent PP,
PP is known as a challenging problem. For example, finding
the shortest path with the highest degree of smoothness which
avoids collision with other robots or obstacles is still a
challenging problem [1].
Different approaches proposed in the literature for PP in
environments with different complexities. In general, the most
well-recognized techniques can be divided into three groups:
deterministic algorithms [2–5], probabilistic algorithms [6–8],
and heuristic algorithms [9–12]. When the robot has only a few
degrees of freedom, e.g., a mobile robot moving in a 2D
environment, deterministic algorithms are preferred. On the
other hand, in a high dimensional space, e.g., a multiple linkage
robot arm, probabilistic algorithms are favored as they can
search the configuration space of the robot in a time-efficient
manner [13]. While the efficiency of the deterministic and
probabilistic algorithms was proved in various PP problems
[1], heuristic algorithms provide a more flexible programming
platform to deal with complex PP problems, e.g., multiple
robot PP [14], multi-objective PP [15], and PP in a dynamic
environment.
In the recent years, several surveys have been performed to
investigate the performance of the heuristic mobile robot PP
algorithms [16], however, to the best of authors’ knowledge,
there is a lack of comparative study between various
deterministic and probabilistic PP algorithms in the literature.
As a result, this study presents a comparison between seven
well-recognized deterministic and probabilistic mobile robot
PP algorithms, and assess their performance in environments
with different complexities. It should be noted that the selected
algorithms are considered as they received more attention in
comparison to similar PP algorithms and were used as basis to
develop several PP algorithms.
II. ENVIRONMENT MODELING AND PATH PLANNING
The environment (or configuration space) consists of free space
and space filled with obstacles. The predefined start and
desired destination of the robot are located in the free space. PP
can be defined as finding a finite set of feasible movements
(movements in the free space) to navigate the robot between
start and destination positions [1]. Usually, there is more than
one path between start and destination; however, the PP
algorithms are used to find the optimal path in terms of a
predefined objective function, e.g., the path with the shortest
length, the highest degree of smoothness, or the safest path.
A common approach for PP consists of representing the
configuration space of the robot as a weighted directed graph
G=(V,E), where V is a set of possible robot states (locations),
and E is a set of edges which represent transitions between
these states. The weight of each edge corresponds to the cost of
transition between the two states (locations) [1]. Different
approaches can be used to build such an explicit representation
of the free configuration space: accurate and approximate Cell
Decomposition, Visibility Graph, and Voronoi Graph.
However, these methods are time-consuming in high
dimensional spaces. Sampling-based approaches were
introduced to deal with complexities of the PP in high
dimensional spaces. In sampling-based PP, random points are
sampled within the environment, and then collision detection
methods are applied to check if these points located in the free
space. Again, weighted directed graph G can be built using

978-1-5386-5703-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

534
these sampled-points and the feasible connections among them
[1].
III. DETERMINISTIC ALGORITHMS
A. Dijkstra’s Algorithm
Dijkstra is a non-informed method for finding paths with the
shortest length between two nodes of a graph [2]. In this
algorithm, first, an infinity cost is assigned to every node
except for the start node. The cost of each node is the sum of
the length of all edges which should be passed (from start
node) to reach that node. Then, the distance(s) between the
start node and its neighbor(s) is calculated. In the case that the
cost of reaching to the neighbor node(s), sum the cost of the
source node (here start node) and the calculated distance, is
smaller than its (their) current cost, it will be replaced with
higher cost and the source node will be labeled as the parent of
the neighbor. This process will be repeated for the neighbor(s)
of the unseen node with the smallest cost. By performing this
procedure, the algorithm finally will find the shortest path
between start and destination nodes, if one exists [2]. The
Dijkstra’s algorithm finds the shortest path between a node and
all other nodes in the graph; as such this method might seem
time-consuming for PP, specifically in large graphs.
B. A* Algorithm
A* is an improved version of Dijkstra’s algorithm which
benefits from the auxiliary information of a heuristic cost,
which in fact is an estimate of the path length between current
and destination nodes. Using this extra information, the A* will
move toward the destination by selecting the nodes more
intelligently and not to try to visit every node in the graph [3].
The procedure for A* is similar to Dijkstra’s algorithm, with
the exception of cost calculation. In A*, the cost is the sum of
the costs of passing from start node to the current node and the
heuristic cost of passing from current node to the destination.
The heuristic function can be Euclidean or Manhattan distance
between the current node and the destination. The A* is
guaranteed to find the optimal path if the heuristic function is
admissible, which means that the estimated distance from
every node to the destination is smaller or equal to true distance
[3].
C. Visibility Graph
By considering the nodes in an environment as vertices of a
graph, the set of all feasible (collision-free) connections
between two vertices is called the “Visibility Graph” [17]. To
find a visibility graph with vertices as close as possible to
obstacles, the outer edges of obstacles can be considered as
vertices and the feasible connections between them as edges of
the graph. After building the visibility graph, Dijkstra’s
algorithm can be employed to find the shortest path between
start and destination nodes [17]. The visibility graph algorithm
is simple to use, however, the more the number of obstacles,
the more complex and time-consuming it gets [1].
IV. SAMPLING-BASED ALGORITHMS
A. Probabilistic Roadmap (PRM) & Lazy PRM (L-PRM)
PRM is a popular sampling-based PP algorithm which consists
of two main steps: (1) learning, where a graph or roadmap of
535
the free space is constructed, and (2) searching for a path in the
constructed graph using Dijkstra’s algorithms [7]. In the
learning phase, a roadmap of the free space is built which
demonstrates the possible edges between randomly selected
nodes. For this purpose, a random node is selected in the free
space of the environment, and then the feasible edges between
the selected node and its K nearest neighbors (neighbors with
distance less than R) are built. This process is repeated till a
pre-defined number of nodes fill the environment [7]. Although
the parameters of the original PRM are K and R, in this paper,
all nodes within the radius of R from each node are considered
as its neighbors. After the learning phase, Dijkstra’s algorithm
can be applied to the graph to find the shortest path between
start and destination nodes.
L-PRM constructs a roadmap in the environment, whose
nodes are a set of randomly generated feasible nodes and start
and destination nodes [18]. In contrast to PRM, L-PRM
initially assumes that all nodes and edges in the roadmap are
feasible (collision-free), and searches the graph using
Dijkstra’s algorithm to find the shortest path between the start
and destination nodes. Then the edges along the path are
checked for collision. If a collision occurs, the corresponding
edges are removed from the graph. Otherwise, a feasible path
has been found. In another word, in each iteration, L-PRM
either finds the shortest path, or updates the roadmap by
deleting the infeasible edges, and then searches for the shortest
path. This process is repeated until a feasible path is found
[18].
B. Rapid- Exploring Random Tree (RRT) & Bidirectional
RRT (B-RRT)
RRT is a sampling-based PP algorithm which adds a new edge
to a graph started from start node in the direction of a randomly
sampled point in the environment [8]. RRT begins from the
start node in the first iteration. Then at each iteration, a random
point Vrand is chosen in the environment, and the closest node in
the existing graph to it (Vnear) is determined. Next, a new node
(Vnew) is selected at a predefined distance (ε) from Vnear in the
direction of Vrand to Vnear. If Vnew and the edge connecting Vnew
to Vnear (Enew ) lie in the free space, Vnew and the connecting
edge Enew are added to the graph. Usually, two termination
conditions are considered for RRT: (1) a predetermined
number of iterations reached, or (2) the closest node to the
destination can be connected to the destination via a feasible
edge. In this paper, both termination conditions were applied
simultaneously. It should be noted that the affecting parameters
on the performance of RRT are the maximum number of
iterations and step size ε [8]. In B-RRT, two independent trees,
one from start node and the other from the destination, grow
simultaneously. In each iteration, one of the trees is selected,
and a new node and edge are added to it. This process will be
repeated till the algorithm can find a feasible connection
between the two trees.
V. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
The simulations were performed in 19 planar environments.
Table I and Fig. 1 show the benchmark maps and their
characteristics. Considering the stochastic behavior of PRM, L-
PRM, RRT, and B-RRT, these algorithms were evaluated 50
times separately, and the mean and standard deviation values of
the cost were used for comparison.
The objectives used to assess the performance of the
algorithms are the path length, the path smoothness, the
runtime, and the planning success rate. The path smoothness is
measured by calculating the angles between line segments of
the path. The success rate is only meaningful for sampling-
based algorithms and shows the ability of the algorithms in
finding a feasible solution. All algorithms were implemented in
the MATLAB, on an Intel Core i5 processor running at 2.27
GHz with 4 GB of RAM.
For all algorithms, an improvement operator was used to
enhance the determined paths. In some cases, a node can be
deleted and its previous and next nodes connected together
directly. The improvement operator identifies and deletes these
middle nodes and reconstructs a new path. This operator
always improves the path length, and in most cases the path
smoothness.
TABLE I. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BENCHMARK ENVIRONMENTS
USED FOR COMPARISON STUDY

Map ID Size Map ID Size Map ID Size

1-random 1 30x30 8-random 2 20x20 15-corridor 40x40
2-back&forth 30x30 9-maze 1 20x20 16-corridor 40x40
3-bugtrap 30x30 10-slits 1 60x60 17-corridor 30x30
4-bugtrap 2 30x30 11-slits 2 60x60 18-maze 3 50x50
5-clasps 40x40 12-flower 20x20 19-room 20x20
6-clasps 2 40x40 13-maze 2 30x30
7-clasps 3 30x30 14-plankpile 30x30

A. Parameter of the Planners

The performance of the probabilistic methods can be highly
affected by tuning their parameters. For this purpose, the
performance of the PRM, L-PRM, RRT, and B-RRT was
evaluated in terms of path length, runtime, and success rate
through 50 separated executions for a sample map (here map
5). In addition to original paths (Original) found by algorithms,
the improvement operator was used to improve the paths
(Improved).
Table II shows the mean and standard deviation values of
the Original and Improved paths obtained by PRM algorithm
for six different cases: small (2) and medium (4) radiuses, low
(1000), medium (2000), and high (3000) number of points. The
success rate of six cases are 2%, 26%, 74%, 42%, 88%, and
100%, respectively. While using a high number of points and
large radius resulted in highest success rate, using a high
number of points and small radius or medium number of points
and large radius showed to be much more time-efficient.
The performance of L-PRM was investigated for five Fig. 1. The set of benchmark maps used to comapre the performance of the
different number of points: 100, 130, 150, 180, 200. Only for seven deterministic and probabolisitic PP algorithms.
150 or more points, the L-PRM was able to find a feasible
path; success rates: 0%, 0%, 1%, 10%, 26%, respectively. In Finally, a comparison has been made between RRT and B-
terms of path length and runtime, the best paths obtained using RRT for several step sizes (ε). Figs. 2 (a) and (b) show mean +
200 points (with the length of 51.05) and 150 points (28.02 s). standard deviation and best path length among 50 separate
executions of each method for step sizes from 0.5 to 4. It can
be seen from Figs. 2 (a) and (b) that in all cases, the
improvement operator modifies the paths such that the path
lengths are smaller than original paths. Moreover, Fig 2 (c)
shows that by increasing or decreasing the step size, the
runtimes are increased considerably. Thus, fine-tuning the step

536
size is of crucial importance when using RRT and B-RRT than B-RRT, however, it found a feasible solution for every
algorithms. environment.
TABLE II. COMPARISON STUDY OF PRM PARAMETERS

# of Mean Mean Mean Mean

Radius
Random Length Time (s) Length Time (s)
(R)
Points Original Original Improved Improved
1000 54.9+0.0 2.6+0.0 49.4+0.0 2.6+0.0
2 2000 51.4+0.7 10.4+0.1 49.8+0.7 10.5+0.1
3000 50.1+0.5 22.1+0.4 49.3+0.5 23.2+0.4
1000 51.8+1.0 9.6+0.1 51.3+1.0 9.6+0.1
4 2000 50.0+0.8 38.3+0.5 49.7+0.8 38.3+0.5
3000 49.5+0.5 81.1+1.0 49.4+0.6 81.2+1.0

B. Comparative Study Results

First, we investigated the performance of deterministic models
for 19 maps. For A* and Dijkstra, the environments were
discretized using square grids with unit length, and the nodes
located at the edges of grids were used for PP, e.g.,
environment 1 which is a 30x30 environment, disseized with
900 nodes. For Visibility Graph algorithm, the graph was built
using the nodes located at the outer edges of obstacles. For
probabilistic methods, first, the effect of the parameters of the
planners was analyzed, similar to Section VI.A, and parameters
were fine-tuned to find the best result in terms of both path
length and runtime.
To compare the objectives (path length, path smoothness,
and runtime) for each algorithm and 19 environments, we used
dimensionless plots (Figs. 3 and 4). In these figures, the
minimum value of each objective which was found by an
algorithm was selected as the base value, and the values of that
objective which were found by other algorithms were
compared to the base (minimum) value. This method was
adopted to provide a meaningful comparison among
environments with different sizes.
Fig. 3 shows the performance of the deterministic methods
in terms of path length (Fig. 3(a)), runtime (Fig. 3(b)), and path
Fig. 2. Assessing the performance of the RRT and B-RRT algorithms with
smoothness (Fig. 3(c)). Fig. 3(a) shows that except for maps 1, different step sizes for environment 5.
14, and 18, the paths obtained by visibility graph are the
shortest and smoothness among other algorithms. For example, Fig. 4 provides a performance comparison between the best
the path lengths obtained by visibility graph for maps 1, 4, 8, solutions obtained by PRM, L-PRM, RRT, and B-RRT after
12, 14, and 18 are 35.64, 44.37, 26.83, 27.72, 57.21, and applying the improvement operator. Fig. 4 shows that the
243.19 units, respectively. Based on these values, the length of shortest and smoothest paths were found using PRM method.
the paths obtained by other deterministic algorithms can be For example, the path lengths obtained by PRM for maps 1, 4,
determined. 8, 12, 14, and 18 are 35.21, 45.85, 27.11, 28.68, 58.28, and
However, the runtime of the visibility graph algorithm is 227.94 units, respectively. Based on these values, the length of
longer than the other deterministic algorithms, particularly, for the paths obtained by other probabilistic algorithms can be
environments filled with irregular obstacles, like map 1, e.g., determined. However, it should be noted that the B-RRT is the
for map 1, the runtimes of the A* and Dijkstra and visibility most time-efficient method among the four probabilistic
graph are 0.44, 0.55, and 25.48 seconds, respectively. Based on algorithms, such that in some cases, it can even be compared
the mentioned fact, and to keep the comparison between with A* and Dijkstra’s algorithms.
runtimes meaningful, the runtimes of the visibility graph are Fig. 5 shows the obtained improved paths obtained using
not shown in Fig. 3(b). deterministic (left column) and probabilistic (right column)
Table III shows the success rate of four probabilistic PP methods for maps 2, 9. Fig. 5(a) shows that the Dijkstra’s
algorithms. The dash lines indicate that the algorithm could not algorithm is able to find a shorter path in comparison to A* as it
find any feasible path during 50 executions. It can be seen from extends its search in all directions; and as a consequence, it
Table III that the highest success rates were achieved using B- needs more time, see Fig. 3(b). However, in a maze shape
RRT, however, the B-RRT trapped in the maze structure of environment, Fig. 5(c), the performance of both A* and
maps 13 and 18. Although the success rate of PRM is lower Dijkstra is the same. The random behavior of probabilistic
methods is shown in Fig. 5. While deterministic methods

537
identify the obstacles and determine the path based on their
positions, the performance of the probabilistic methods is
highly dependent to random samples of the environment.
the performance of the mentioned algorithms was evaluated in
terms of path length, path smoothness, and runtime.
TABLE III. THE SUCCESS RATE OF PROBABILISTIC ALGORITHMS FOR 50
SEPARATE EXECUTIONS

Map L- B- Map L- B-
PRM RRT PRM RRT
ID PRM RRT ID PRM RRT
1 84 10 80 100 11 10 - - 44
2 92 100 80 100 12 90 98 80 100
3 94 100 100 100 13 30 - - -
4 68 32 74 100 14 80 2 80 80
5 64 74 26 100 15 72 - 80 100
6 30 - - 100 16 2 - 20 100
7 80 2 12 100 17 96 92 80 100
8 100 100 100 100 18 72 - - -
9 94 34 78 100 19 48 64 80 100
10 82 36 - 100

Fig. 3 shows that the visibility graph outperforms A* and

Fig. 3. Comparison of four deterministic PP algorithms for 19 benchmark
environments in terms of (a) path length, (b) runtime, and (c) path
smoothness. The graphs are dimentionless and shows the results as a fraction
of the minimum values of objectives.
VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Mobile robot motion planning has become an increasingly
popular research field in the recent years, and several
approaches have been proposed to determine the optimal path
in complex environments. Despite the heuristic PP algorithms,
to the best of authors’ knowledge, there is a lack of comparison
study for well-recognized deterministic and probabilistic PP
algorithms in the literature. As such, the present study
compares the performance of seven deterministic and
probabilistic PP algorithms, A* and Dijkstra, Visibility Graph,
PRM, L-PRM, RRT, and B-RRT. For this purpose, 19
environments with different complexities have been built, and
Dijkstra in finding shorter and smoother paths. However, the
main disadvantage of visibility graph is the long runtimes,
particularly for environments with obstacles with irregular
shapes. Building a graph using obstacles edges is the most
time-consuming part of visibility graph algorithm. Moreover,
Figs. 3 shows that the improvement operator is able to decrease
(increase) the length (smoothness) of the paths obtained by A*
or Dijkstra.
The time complexity of A* depends on both the
discretization size and heuristic function. Although by
decreasing the grid size (increasing the number of nodes), the
performance of both A* and Dijkstra will improve both in
terms of path length and smoothness, but their runtime will
also increase; the time complexities of A* and Dijkstra are
O(n×log(n)) and O(n2) which n is the number of nodes. The
present comparison study shows that using A* or Dijkstra along
with an improvement operator is the best choice for PP in 2D
environments.
Table III shows the success rate of the probabilistic
algorithms. Although the highest success rates were obtained
using B-RRT, Fig. 4 shows that the shortest and smoothest
paths were determined by PRM. On the other hand, the
runtimes of B-RRT is the shortest among algorithms. Thus,
selecting the best probabilistic PP algorithm should be
performed while considering the trade-off between different
objectives. In addition, it should be noted that the performance
of the PRM and B-RRT can be highly affected by the number
of random points and the step size, respectively. Finally, based
on Table III and Fig. 4, it can be concluded that L-PRM and
RRT are not preferred for 2D motion planning. In the future,
the performance of more efficient algorithms, like Semi-Lazy
PRM [19] should be compared with PRM, LPRM, and RRT-
based algorithms.
The present study shows that deterministic PP algorithms
outperform the probabilistic algorithms for PP in 2D
environments. To improve the performance of the probabilistic
methods, sampling must be performed intelligently, e.g.,
considering the knowledge about the position and shape of
obstacles, the samples can be taken in the vicinity of obstacles.
Such an approach will help to avoid extra samples in parts of
environments which are not useful for PP, e.g., samples inside
the obstacle boxes in maps 15, 16, and 17 cannot be used to
determine a feasible path.

538
 REFERENCES
[1] G. Klančar, A. Zdešar, S. Blažič, I. Škrjanc, Chapter 4 – Path Planning,
in: Wheel. Mob. Robot., 2017: pp. 161–206.
[2] E.W. Dijkstra, A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs,
Numer. Math. (1959) 269–271.
[3] P.E. Hart, N.J. Nilsson, B. Raphael, A Formal Basis for the Heuristic
Determination of Minimum Cost Paths, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern.
SSC4. 4 (1968) 100–107.
[4] M. Likhachev, D. Ferguson, G. Gordon, A. Stentz, S. Thrun, Anytime
Dynamic A *: An Anytime , Replanning Algorithm, in: Proc. Int. Conf.
Autom. Plan. Sched., Pittsburgh, 2005.
[5] Y.K. Hwang, N. Ahuja, S. Member, A Potential Field Approach to Path
Planning, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 8 (1992) 23–32.
[6] N. Amato, Y. Wu, A Randomized Roadmap Method for Path and
Manipulation Planning, in: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., 1996:
pp. 113–120.
[7] L.E. Kavralu, P. Svestka, J. Latombe, M.H. Overmars, Probabilistic
Roadmaps for Path Planning in High-Dimensional Configuration
Spaces, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 12 (1996) 566–579.
[8] J.J. Kuffner, S.M. Lavalle, RRT-Connect : An Efficient Approach to
Single-Query Path Planning, in: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom.,
San Francisco, 2000.
[9] M. Davoodi, F. Panahi, A. Mohades, S. Naser, Clear and smooth path
planning, Appl. Soft Comput. J. 32 (2015) 568–579.
[10] M.H. Korayem, A.K. Hoshiar, M. Nazarahari, A hybrid co-evolutionary
genetic algorithm for multiple nanoparticle assembly task path planning,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2016).
[11] R. Kala, A. Shukla, R. Tiwari, Dynamic Environment Robot Path
Planning Using Hierarchical Evolutionary Algorithms, Cybern. Syst. An
Int. J. 41 (2010) 435–454.
[12] A.K. Hoshiar, M. Kianpour, M. Nazarahari, M.H. Korayem, Path
planning in AFM nano-manipulation of multiple spherical nano particles
using a co- evolutionary Genetic Algorithm, in: Int. Conf. Manip.
Autom. Robot. Small Scales, Paris, 2016.
Fig. 4. Comparison of four probabilistic PP algorithms for 19 benchmark [13] D. Ferguson, A. Stentz, The Delayed D * Algorithm for Efficient Path
environments in terms of (a) path length, (b) runtime, and (c) path Replanning, in: Proc. Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., Barcelona, 2005: pp.
smoothness. The graphs are dimentionless and shows the results as a fraction 2045–2050.
of the minimum values of objectives. [14] H. Qu, K. Xing, T. Alexander, An improved genetic algorithm with co-
evolutionary strategy for global path planning of multiple mobile robots,
Neurocomputing. 120 (2013) 509–517.
(a) (b)
[15] B. Saicharan, R. Tiwari, N. Roberts, Multi Objective Optimization based
Path Planning in Robotics using Nature Inspired Algorithms : A Survey,
in: IEEE Int. Conf. Power Electron. Intell. Control Energy Syst., Delhi,
2016.
[16] T. Thoa, C. Copot, D. Trung, R. De Keyser, Heuristic approaches in
robot path planning : A survey, Rob. Auton. Syst. 86 (2016) 13–28.
[17] T. Lozano-perez, M.A. Wesley, An Algorithm for Planning Collision-
Free Paths Among Polyhedral Obstacles, Commun. ACM. 22 (1979)
560–570.
[18] R. Bohlin, L.E. Kavraki, Path Planning Using Lazy PRM, in: Proc.
Lntemational Conf. Robot. Autom., San Francisco, 2000: pp. 521–528.
(c)
[19] H. Akbaripour, E. Masehian, Semi-lazy probabilistic roadmap: a
(d)
parameter-tuned, resilient and robust path planning method for
manipulator robots. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 89 (2017) 1401-1430.

Fig. 5. The paths obtained using deterministic and probabilistic PP algorithms

for maps 2, 9. Deterministic algorithms: left column (A*: blue, Dijkstra: red,
visibility graph: green); Probabilistic algorithms: right column (PRM: blue, L-
PRM: red, RRT: green, B-RRT: yellow).

539