Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Motion planning in the presence of moving obstacles

Open access
Reif, John, Sharir, Micha·1994·Journal of the ACM

Abstract

This paper investigates the computational complexity of planning the motion of a body B in 2-D or 3-D space, so as to avoid collision with moving obstacles of known, easily computed, trajectories. Dynamic movement problems are of fundamental importance to robotics, but their computational complexity has not previously been investigated. We provide evidence that the 3-D dynamic movement problem is intractable even if B has only a constant number of degrees of freedom of movement. In particular, we prove the problem is PSPACE-hard if B is given a velocity modulus bound on its movements and is NP-hard even if B has no velocity modulus bound, where, in both cases, B has 6 degrees of freedom. To prove these results, we use a unique method of simulation of a Turing machine that uses time to encode configurations (whereas previous lower bound proofs in robotic motion planning used the system position to encode configurations and so required unbounded number of degrees of freedom). We also investigate a natural class of dynamic problems that we call asteroid avoidance problems : B, the object we wish to move, is a convex polyhedron that is free to move by translation with bounded velocity modulus, and the polyhedral obstacles have known translational trajectories but cannot rotate. This problem has many applications to robot, automobile, and aircraft collision avoidance. Our main positive results are polynomial time algorithms for the 2-D asteroid avoidance problem, where B is a moving polygon and we assume a constant number of obstacles, as well as single exponential time or polynomial space algorithms for the 3-D asteroid avoidance problem, where B is a convex polyhedron and there are arbitrarily many obstacles. Our techniques for solving these asteroid avoidance problems use “normal path” arguments, which are an intereting generalization of techniques previously used to solve static shortest path problems. We also give some additional positive results for various other dynamic movers problems, and in particular give polynomial time algorithms for the case in which B has no velocity bounds and the movements of obstacles are algebraic in space-time.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/179812.179911

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
Reif, J., & Sharir, M.
Venue
Journal of the ACM
Published
1994-07
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
764-790
ISSN
  • 0004-5411 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-735X
OpenAlex
W2083093559
Cited by
174
References
0
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Motion planning in the presence of moving obstacles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/179812.179911
The paper
Reif, J., & Sharir, M. (1994). Motion planning in the presence of moving obstacles. Journal of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/179812.179911

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.