arXiv: Maze Runner: Autonomous Maze Navigation with Line-Based Localization and Control Barrier Functions

arXiv: Maze Runner: Autonomous Maze Navigation with Line-Based Localization and Control Barrier Functions

Authors Alvaro J. Gaona, Lucas Gómez-Velayos, and Peter Pasuy-Quevedo present Maze Runner, an open autonomy stack for maze navigation, tested in simulation on a Husarion ROSbot XL in Gazebo. It uses LiDAR scans to extract wall lines, then either localizes against a known line map or builds one online with EKF SLAM. A planner finds routes through an inflated occupancy grid, while a Nonlinear Model Predictive Controller follows the plan and Control Barrier Functions keep the robot clear of walls and unmapped obstacles. The authors report that the simulated robot completed a 135 m route, with 1.0 cm localization RMSE against the known map and 24 cm in SLAM mode. They also report a 6 ms path-planning time and an average 11.7 ms NMPC solve time, within an 80 ms budget. Escape Meridian interpretation: the work brings localization, planning, and safety control together in a reproducible stack, but its reported results are from simulation and do not establish performance on a physical robot or in other environments.

Publication: 7bb48c98-75f6-405e-8f1f-5aaf150a49c9

attribution — pass: The reading credits Alvaro J. Gaona, Lucas Gómez-Velayos and Peter Pasuy-Quevedo, matching the arXiv author list. It frames the results as what the authors present and report, not as established fact.

Authors:Alvaro J. Gaona, Lucas Gómez-Velayos, Peter Pasuy-Quevedo

summary — uncertain: The summary is faithful, but several central terms are never explained for a general reader: autonomy stack, LiDAR, Gazebo, EKF SLAM, inflated occupancy grid, NMPC, Control Barrier Functions and RMSE. Someone without a robotics background cannot tell what 1.0 cm versus 24 cm RMSE means, or what the safety layer does. Smallest repair: keep the terms exactly, add term-library tooltips (suggest RMSE, EKF SLAM, occupancy grid and Control Barrier Function if missing), and add one plain sentence on why combining localization, planning and safety control in an open, reproducible stack matters, as far as the source supports it.

Maze navigation requires localization from sparse, repetitive geometry, planning through narrow corridors, and control that stays safe when the estimate or the map is wrong.

date — pass: originalPublished is 2026-11-06, which matches the v1 submission date on arXiv. The feed date of Nov 11 was correctly not used.

[v1] Fri, 6 Nov 2026 22:32:59 UTC (704 KB)

support — pass: Each claim matches the abstract: the 135 m route, 1.0 cm and 24 cm RMSE, the 6 ms planner time, and the 11.7 ms average NMPC solve within the 80 ms budget. The reproducibility point is supported by the abstract. The simulation-only caveat is properly labeled as interpretation and does not overreach. The question follows from the evidence and is not leading.

The algorithms live in a ROS-free, unit-tested core library, and the whole stack builds and runs from a single reproducible environment.

media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the most direct access to the source.