pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01106 · v1 · pith:2YNXPO2Fnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.RO

Technical Report: Asynchronous Distributed Trajectory Estimation of Multi-Robot Systems

Adam Pooley , Matthew Hale This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 11:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords asynchronous distributed estimationtrajectory estimationmulti-robot systemsblock coordinate descentmaximum a posteriori estimationconvergence analysisrobot experiments
0
0 comments X

The pith

An asynchronous block coordinate descent algorithm solves an approximation to the maximum a posteriori estimation problem for distributed multi-robot trajectory estimation, cutting communications by up to 96.9 percent with negligible errors

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops an asynchronous distributed algorithm for estimating the trajectories of multiple robots observed by a team of agents. The agents use block coordinate descent to solve an approximation of the maximum a posteriori estimation problem over a sliding window. The approximation reduces inter-agent communications by as much as 96.9 percent while introducing negligible errors. Agents' estimates converge exponentially to the optimal solution, and simulations demonstrate up to 64 percent lower error than a comparable existing algorithm. Real-robot experiments confirm robustness to communication delays of vastly different lengths.

Core claim

The paper shows that an approximation to the maximum a posteriori estimation problem can be solved asynchronously via block coordinate descent, introducing negligible errors, eliminating up to 96.9 percent of communications, and yielding exponential convergence of the agents' iterates to the optimal robot state estimates, with simulations indicating up to 64 percent less error than state-of-the-art methods.

What carries the argument

Asynchronous block coordinate descent applied to an approximated maximum a posteriori estimation problem for sliding-window trajectory estimation.

If this is right

  • Agents' iterates converge exponentially fast to the optimal estimate of the robots' states.
  • The approximation eliminates up to 96.9% of communications among agents.
  • Simulations show that this approach has up to 64% less error than a comparable state-of-the-art algorithm.
  • Experiments on mobile robots show the robustness of this approach to delays whose lengths span three orders of magnitude.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The communication savings may enable deployment on larger robot teams with limited bandwidth.
  • Similar asynchronous approximations could extend to other distributed estimation problems with intermittent communications.

Load-bearing premise

The approximation to the maximum a posteriori estimation problem introduces only negligible errors for the trajectory estimation task.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment where the approximation errors lead to significantly degraded trajectory estimates compared to the exact MAP solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01106 by Adam Pooley, Matthew Hale.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sub-optimality from the centralized MAP estimate and (i) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Four robots navigating between waypoints (yellow stars). Black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Distributed trajectory estimation arises in many applications across robotics, but existing implementations typically do not consider asynchrony in agents' communications and computations. Therefore, we propose an asynchronous block coordinate descent algorithm for distributed trajectory estimation. We consider a team of agents that observes a team of robots and estimates their states over a sliding window. The agents solve an approximation of the maximum a posteriori estimation problem, which we derive. We show this approximation introduces negligible errors and eliminates up to 96.9% of communications among agents. Next, we prove that agents' iterates converge exponentially fast to the optimal estimate of the robots' states. Simulations show that this approach has up to 64% less error than a comparable state-of-the-art algorithm. Experiments on mobile robots show the robustness of this approach to delays whose lengths span three orders of magnitude.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an asynchronous block coordinate descent algorithm for distributed trajectory estimation in multi-robot systems. Agents collaboratively solve an approximation of the maximum a posteriori (MAP) estimation problem over a sliding window of robot states. The authors claim that this approximation introduces negligible errors while reducing inter-agent communications by up to 96.9%. They provide a proof of exponential convergence of the agents' iterates to the optimal estimate and present simulation results showing up to 64% lower error compared to a state-of-the-art method, along with experiments demonstrating robustness to communication delays spanning three orders of magnitude.

Significance. If the approximation error remains negligible across relevant operating regimes, the approach offers substantial practical benefits for resource-constrained multi-robot deployments by drastically cutting communication requirements without sacrificing estimation accuracy. The exponential convergence proof for the asynchronous setting is a notable theoretical contribution. However, the reliance on empirical validation for the approximation's accuracy rather than a rigorous error bound weakens the overall significance until addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the approximation 'introduces negligible errors' lacks a supporting theoretical bound (e.g., in terms of sliding-window length, number of robots, or delay statistics). The negligibility assertion appears to rest solely on the reported simulation error reduction of 64% and delay experiments, which does not guarantee closeness to the true MAP solution for the original problem.
  2. [Convergence analysis] Convergence analysis: The proof shows exponential convergence to the optimum of the approximated MAP problem, but the manuscript does not establish that this approximated optimum is sufficiently close to the true MAP optimum; this gap is load-bearing for the claim that the method solves the distributed trajectory estimation task.
minor comments (2)
  1. Consider adding a dedicated section or subsection explicitly deriving the approximation and discussing its assumptions.
  2. The abstract mentions 'up to 96.9%' communication reduction; provide the specific experimental conditions or parameters under which this maximum is achieved.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting the distinction between the approximated and true MAP problems. We address each major comment below and propose targeted revisions to clarify the empirical basis of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the approximation 'introduces negligible errors' lacks a supporting theoretical bound (e.g., in terms of sliding-window length, number of robots, or delay statistics). The negligibility assertion appears to rest solely on the reported simulation error reduction of 64% and delay experiments, which does not guarantee closeness to the true MAP solution for the original problem.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript relies on empirical validation rather than a theoretical error bound for the approximation. Deriving a general bound appears challenging given the asynchronous setting and variable delays. In the revised version we will update the abstract to state that the approximation 'introduces small errors, as validated by simulations showing up to 64% lower error and experiments across three orders of magnitude in delay.' We will also insert a short discussion paragraph summarizing the conditions (window length, robot count, delay statistics) under which the empirical error remains small. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Convergence analysis] Convergence analysis: The proof shows exponential convergence to the optimum of the approximated MAP problem, but the manuscript does not establish that this approximated optimum is sufficiently close to the true MAP optimum; this gap is load-bearing for the claim that the method solves the distributed trajectory estimation task.

    Authors: The exponential convergence result applies to the approximated problem that the agents actually solve. The manuscript justifies using this approximation for the distributed trajectory estimation task by showing that the resulting estimates achieve lower error than a state-of-the-art synchronous method in simulation and remain accurate under large communication delays in hardware experiments. We will add an explicit remark in the convergence section noting that closeness to the true MAP is supported empirically rather than by a proven bound, and we will reference the simulation and experiment sections for the supporting evidence. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A rigorous theoretical bound quantifying the difference between the approximated MAP optimum and the true MAP optimum (as a function of window length, number of robots, or delay statistics)

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives an approximation to the MAP trajectory estimation problem, proves exponential convergence of asynchronous block coordinate descent iterates to the optimum of that approximated objective, and reports empirical validation (negligible approximation error, 96.9% communication reduction, 64% error improvement) via simulation and hardware experiments. The convergence theorem applies to the approximated problem by standard analysis and does not reduce to a fitted parameter or self-definition. The claim that the approximation is sufficiently accurate rests on external simulation benchmarks rather than being forced by construction from the inputs. No self-citation load-bearing steps, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors, or ansatz smuggling are present. The derivation chain remains independent of its target results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no details on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; all fields left empty due to limited information.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5662 in / 1034 out tokens · 33476 ms · 2026-07-02T11:06:37.924209+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Thrun, W

    S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox,Probabilistic Robotics (Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents). The MIT Press, 2005

    2005

  2. [2]

    Dis- tributed multi-target tracking for autonomous vehicle fleets,

    O. Shorinwa, J. Yu, T. Halsted, A. Koufos, and M. Schwager, “Dis- tributed multi-target tracking for autonomous vehicle fleets,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2020, pp. 3495–3501

    2020

  3. [3]

    Distributed state estimation using intermittently connected robot networks,

    R. Khodayi-Mehr, Y . Kantaros, and M. M. Zavlanos, “Distributed state estimation using intermittently connected robot networks,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 709–724, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Distributed kalman filter with embedded consensus filters,

    R. Olfati-Saber, “Distributed kalman filter with embedded consensus filters,” inProceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2005, pp. 8179–8184

    2005

  5. [5]

    Distributed kalman filtering for sensor networks,

    ——, “Distributed kalman filtering for sensor networks,” in2007 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE, 2007, pp. 5492– 5498

    2007

  6. [6]

    Distributed optimization methods for multi-robot systems: Part 1—a tutorial [tutorial],

    O. Shorinwa, T. Halsted, J. Yu, and M. Schwager, “Distributed optimization methods for multi-robot systems: Part 1—a tutorial [tutorial],”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 121–138, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Distributed sparse linear regression,

    G. Mateos, J. A. Bazerque, and G. B. Giannakis, “Distributed sparse linear regression,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 5262–5276, 2010

    2010

  8. [8]

    Extra: An exact first-order algorithm for decentralized consensus optimization,

    W. Shi, Q. Ling, G. Wu, and W. Yin, “Extra: An exact first-order algorithm for decentralized consensus optimization,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 944–966, 2015

    2015

  9. [9]

    Distributed multirobot localiza- tion,

    S. I. Roumeliotis and G. A. Bekey, “Distributed multirobot localiza- tion,”IEEE transactions on robotics and automation, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 781–795, 2002

    2002

  10. [10]

    A survey on posi- tioning for mmwave distributed mimo systems: Challenges, solution techniques, and applications,

    M. Adnan, A. Silva, L. Krzymien, and R. Dinis, “A survey on posi- tioning for mmwave distributed mimo systems: Challenges, solution techniques, and applications,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 205 882– 205 914, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Jamming intrusions in extreme bandwidth communication: A comprehensive overview,

    R. Priyadarshani, Y . Ata, M.-S. Alouiniet al., “Jamming intrusions in extreme bandwidth communication: A comprehensive overview,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Communication efficient distributed machine learning with the parameter server,

    M. Li, D. G. Andersen, A. Smola, and K. Yu, “Communication efficient distributed machine learning with the parameter server,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  13. [13]

    Hybrid distributed optimiza- tion for learning over networks with heterogeneous agents,

    M. H. Nassralla, N. Akl, and Z. Dawy, “Hybrid distributed optimiza- tion for learning over networks with heterogeneous agents,”IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 103 530–103 543, 2023

    2023

  14. [14]

    Efficient multi-cluster scheduling for heterogeneous workloads,

    X. Wang, X. Li, X. Xia, and M. Yang, “Efficient multi-cluster scheduling for heterogeneous workloads,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 186 856–186 871, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Redundancy techniques for straggler mitigation in distributed optimization and learning,

    C. Karakus, Y . Sun, S. Diggavi, and W. Yin, “Redundancy techniques for straggler mitigation in distributed optimization and learning,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 20, no. 72, pp. 1–47, 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    The tail at scale,

    J. Dean and L. A. Barroso, “The tail at scale,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 74–80, 2013

    2013

  17. [17]

    Bertsekas and J

    D. Bertsekas and J. Tsitsiklis,Parallel and Distributed Computation: Numerical Methods. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1989

    1989

  18. [18]

    A tutorial on distributed optimization for cooperative robotics: from setups and algorithms to toolboxes and research directions,

    A. Testa, G. Carnevale, and G. Notarstefano, “A tutorial on distributed optimization for cooperative robotics: from setups and algorithms to toolboxes and research directions,”Proceedings of the IEEE, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    Distributed optimization for robot networks: From real-time convex optimization to game-theoretic self- organization,

    H. Jaleel and J. S. Shamma, “Distributed optimization for robot networks: From real-time convex optimization to game-theoretic self- organization,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 108, no. 11, pp. 1953– 1967, 2020

    1953

  20. [20]

    Distributed formation estimation via pairwise distance measurements,

    T. Ziegler, M. Karrer, P. Schmuck, and M. Chli, “Distributed formation estimation via pairwise distance measurements,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3017–3024, 2021

    2021

  21. [21]

    d 2slam: Decentralized and distributed collaborative visual-inertial slam system for aerial swarm,

    H. Xu, P. Liu, X. Chen, and S. Shen, “d 2slam: Decentralized and distributed collaborative visual-inertial slam system for aerial swarm,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 3445–3464, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    On the rate of convergence of a partially asynchronous gradient projection algorithm,

    P. Tseng, “On the rate of convergence of a partially asynchronous gradient projection algorithm,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 603–619, 1991

    1991

  23. [23]

    The robotarium: Globally impactful opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in remote-access, distributed control of multirobot systems,

    S. Wilson, P. Glotfelter, L. Wang, S. Mayya, G. Notomista, M. Mote, and M. Egerstedt, “The robotarium: Globally impactful opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned in remote-access, distributed control of multirobot systems,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 26–44, 2020. APPENDIX A. Proof of Lemma 4 Lemma 4.ForJgiven by (7), the anal...

    2020