Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2010.06256

Behavior Trees in Action: A Study of Robotics Applications

Razan Ghzouli·Thorsten Berger·Einar Broch Johnsen·Swaib Dragule·Andrzej Wąsowski
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Autonomous robots combine a variety of skills to form increasingly complex behaviors called missions. While the skills are often programmed at a relatively low level of abstraction, their coordination is architecturally separated and often expressed in higher-level languages or frameworks. Recently, the language of Behavior Trees gained attention among roboticists for this reason. Originally designed for computer games to model autonomous actors, Behavior Trees offer an extensible tree-based representation of missions. However, even though, several implementations of the language are in use, little is known about its usage and scope in the real world. How do behavior trees relate to traditional languages for describing behavior? How are behavior tree concepts used in applications? What are the benefits of using them? We present a study of the key language concepts in Behavior Trees and their use in real-world robotic applications. We identify behavior tree languages and compare their semantics to the most well-known behavior modeling languages: state and activity diagrams. We mine open source repositories for robotics applications that use the language and analyze this usage. We find that Behavior Trees are a pragmatic language, not fully specified, allowing projects to extend it even for just one model. Behavior trees clearly resemble the models-at-runtime paradigm. We contribute a dataset of real-world behavior models, hoping to inspire the community to use and further develop this language, associated tools, and analysis techniques.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROcs.PLcs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Razan Ghzouli, Thorsten Berger, Einar Broch Johnsen, Swaib Dragule, Andrzej Wąsowski. 2020-10-13. Behavior Trees in Action: A Study of Robotics Applications. https://doi.org/10.1145/3426425.3426942

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗