ISSN 3083-4471 API Registry JSON Sitemap
TIRAS Transactions on Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Systems An open access journal of Kaggleyes Academy
TIRAS > Vol. 1, No. 1 (July 2026) > KAGG:2607.00008
Vol. 1, No. 1 (July 2026) — Article KAGG:2607.00008

Configuration Abstractions for Heterogeneous Legged Robot Fleets

Authors: Wenjie Zhao, Mingxuan Li, Boyang Sun

Intelligent Mobility Lab, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

[Received 2026-07-13; accepted 2026-07-24; published online 2026-07-27]

Abstract:

Heterogeneous legged robot fleets combine platforms that differ in body length, payload, locomotion mode, and sensor mounting, and these differences normally force each embodiment onto its own local planner. This fragmentation duplicates code, complicates validation, and allows planning behavior to drift between robots that share a mission. This paper extends the configuration-driven planning idea of AgniNav from a single robot to the fleet level. The proposed abstraction has three parts: a compact, typed configuration schema that separates collision geometry, kinematic and payload limits, locomotion class, and sensor rig; a configuration registry service that validates descriptors, issues content-addressed handles, and caches derived planning quantities; and a planner interface that accepts configuration handles instead of compiled-in robot parameters. One bit-identical planning binary was evaluated on a simulated fleet of four morphologies, namely Go2-class and B2-class quadrupeds, a 1.4 m humanoid, and a four-wheel-drive rover, each with a distinct sensor rig, across 15 mixed-fleet scenarios with 5 seeds each. Compared with four separate per-embodiment code paths, the shared planner raised shared module reuse from 83.2 to 87.2 percent, lowered configuration load latency from 1.9 to 1.8 ms and 95th-percentile replanning latency from 38 to 34 ms, and raised plan quality parity from 81.2 to 96.4 percent, whereas a shared planner driven by ad hoc configuration flags reached 88.2 percent. Ablations attribute the largest share of the gain to the sensor-rig abstraction. The remaining failures involve differential-drive behavior on steep slopes and registry cold starts under concurrent load.

Journal: Transactions on Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Systems (TIRAS)
Volume / Issue: Vol. 1, No. 1 (July 2026)
Article ID: KAGG:2607.00008
DOI: 10.5803/kagg.2607.00008
Received: 2026-07-13
Accepted: 2026-07-24
Published online: 2026-07-27
License: CC BY 4.0

References (41)

  1. T. Zang, S. Cheng, H. Huang, S. Wang, and W. Zhang. AgniNav: Configuration-Driven Cross-Embodiment Local Planning for Robot Navigation. arXiv:2606.10903, 2026. arXiv:2606.10903
  2. H. Xi, M. Tan, X. Zhang, S. Cheng, S. Wang, Y. Gu, X. Shen, and W. Zhang. CeRLP: A Cross-embodiment Robot Local Planning Framework for Visual Navigation. arXiv:2603.19602, 2026. arXiv:2603.19602
  3. D. Shah, A. Sridhar, A. Bhorkar, N. Hirose, and S. Levine. GNM: A General Navigation Model to Drive Any Robot. arXiv:2210.03370, 2022. arXiv:2210.03370
  4. D. Shah, A. Sridhar, N. Dashora, K. Stachowicz, K. Black, N. Hirose, and S. Levine. ViNT: A Foundation Model for Visual Navigation. arXiv:2306.14846, 2023. arXiv:2306.14846
  5. A. Sridhar, D. Shah, C. Glossop, and S. Levine. NoMaD: Goal Masked Diffusion Policies for Navigation and Exploration. arXiv:2310.07896, 2023. arXiv:2310.07896
  6. A. Eftekhar et al. The One RING: a Robotic Indoor Navigation Generalist. arXiv:2412.14401, 2024. arXiv:2412.14401
  7. J. Zhang et al. Embodied Navigation Foundation Model. arXiv:2509.12129, 2025. arXiv:2509.12129
  8. J. Zhang, Y. Du, X. Guo, S. Sun, X. Liu, Y. Sun, G. Lu, W. Sui, and J. Li. EA-Nav: Learning Safe Visual Navigation Policies with Embodiment Awareness. arXiv:2607.19880, 2026. arXiv:2607.19880
  9. J. Yang, C. Glossop, A. Bhorkar, D. Shah, Q. Vuong, C. Finn, D. Sadigh, and S. Levine. Pushing the Limits of Cross-Embodiment Learning for Manipulation and Navigation. arXiv:2402.19432, 2024. arXiv:2402.19432
  10. R. Doshi, H. Walke, O. Mees, S. Dasari, and S. Levine. Scaling Cross-Embodied Learning: One Policy for Manipulation, Navigation, Locomotion and Aviation. arXiv:2408.11812, 2024. arXiv:2408.11812
  11. Open X-Embodiment Collaboration. Open X-Embodiment: Robotic Learning Datasets and RT-X Models. arXiv:2310.08864, 2023. arXiv:2310.08864
  12. Octo Model Team. Octo: An Open-Source Generalist Robot Policy. arXiv:2405.12213, 2024. arXiv:2405.12213
  13. G. Kahn, P. Abbeel, and S. Levine. BADGR: An Autonomous Self-Supervised Learning-Based Navigation System. arXiv:2002.05700, 2020. arXiv:2002.05700
  14. G. Williams, A. Aldrich, and E. Theodorou. Model Predictive Path Integral Control using Covariance Variable Importance Sampling. arXiv:1509.01149, 2015. arXiv:1509.01149
  15. X. Zhou, Z. Wang, H. Ye, C. Xu, and F. Gao. EGO-Planner: An ESDF-free Gradient-based Local Planner for Quadrotors. arXiv:2008.08835, 2020. arXiv:2008.08835
  16. S. Macenski, F. Martín, R. White, and J. Ginés Clavero. The Marathon 2: A Navigation System. arXiv:2003.00368, 2020. arXiv:2003.00368
  17. T. Miki, L. Wellhausen, R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, T. Homberger, and M. Hutter. Elevation Mapping for Locomotion and Navigation using GPU. arXiv:2204.12876, 2022. arXiv:2204.12876
  18. M. Frey, M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, C. Cadena, M. Fallon, and M. Hutter. Fast Traversability Estimation for Wild Visual Navigation. arXiv:2305.08510, 2023. arXiv:2305.08510
  19. D. D. Fan, K. Otsu, Y. Kubo, A. Dixit, J. Burdick, and A. Agha-Mohammadi. STEP: Stochastic Traversability Evaluation and Planning for Risk-Aware Off-road Navigation. arXiv:2103.02828, 2021. arXiv:2103.02828
  20. R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, S. Yang, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter. Perceptive Locomotion through Nonlinear Model Predictive Control. arXiv:2208.08373, 2022. arXiv:2208.08373
  21. N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, M. Bjelonic, and M. Hutter. Advanced Skills by Learning Locomotion and Local Navigation End-to-End. arXiv:2209.12827, 2022. arXiv:2209.12827
  22. D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, D. Sako, and M. Hutter. ANYmal Parkour: Learning Agile Navigation for Quadrupedal Robots. arXiv:2306.14874, 2023. arXiv:2306.14874
  23. J. Hu, S. Yuan, G. C. R. Bethala, A. Tzes, and Y. Fang. Learning Adaptive Safety Margins for Visual Navigation. arXiv:2607.18200, 2026. arXiv:2607.18200
  24. J. Lee, J. Hwangbo, L. Wellhausen, V. Koltun, and M. Hutter. Learning Quadrupedal Locomotion over Challenging Terrain. arXiv:2010.11251, 2020. arXiv:2010.11251
  25. T. Miki, J. Lee, J. Hwangbo, L. Wellhausen, V. Koltun, and M. Hutter. Learning Robust Perceptive Locomotion for Quadrupedal Robots in the Wild. arXiv:2201.08117, 2022. arXiv:2201.08117
  26. A. Agarwal, A. Kumar, J. Malik, and D. Pathak. Legged Locomotion in Challenging Terrains using Egocentric Vision. arXiv:2211.07638, 2022. arXiv:2211.07638
  27. N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, P. Reist, and M. Hutter. Learning to Walk in Minutes Using Massively Parallel Deep Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2109.11978, 2021. arXiv:2109.11978
  28. V. Makoviychuk et al. Isaac Gym: High Performance GPU-Based Physics Simulation for Robot Learning. arXiv:2108.10470, 2021. arXiv:2108.10470
  29. A. Kumar, Z. Fu, D. Pathak, and J. Malik. RMA: Rapid Motor Adaptation for Legged Robots. arXiv:2107.04034, 2021. arXiv:2107.04034
  30. G. Feng, H. Zhang, Z. Li, X. B. Peng, B. Basireddy, L. Yue, Z. Song, L. Yang, Y. Liu, K. Sreenath, and S. Levine. GenLoco: Generalized Locomotion Controllers for Quadrupedal Robots. arXiv:2209.05309, 2022. arXiv:2209.05309
  31. M. Shafiee, G. Bellegarda, and A. Ijspeert. ManyQuadrupeds: Learning a Single Locomotion Policy for Diverse Quadruped Robots. arXiv:2310.10486, 2023. arXiv:2310.10486
  32. N. Bohlinger, G. Czechmanowski, M. Krupka, P. Kicki, K. Walas, J. Peters, and D. Tateo. One Policy to Run Them All: an End-to-end Learning Approach to Multi-Embodiment Locomotion. arXiv:2409.06366, 2024. arXiv:2409.06366
  33. I. Radosavovic, T. Xiao, B. Zhang, T. Darrell, J. Malik, and K. Sreenath. Real-World Humanoid Locomotion with Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2303.03381, 2023. arXiv:2303.03381
  34. S. Macenski, T. Foote, B. Gerkey, C. Lalancette, and W. Woodall. Robot Operating System 2: Design, Architecture, and Uses in the Wild. arXiv:2211.07752, 2022. arXiv:2211.07752
  35. D. Coleman, I. Sucan, S. Chitta, and N. Correll. Reducing the Barrier to Entry of Complex Robotic Software: a MoveIt! Case Study. arXiv:1404.3785, 2014. arXiv:1404.3785
  36. M. Colledanchise and P. Ögren. Behavior Trees in Robotics and AI: An Introduction. arXiv:1709.00084, 2017. arXiv:1709.00084
  37. M. Savva et al. Habitat: A Platform for Embodied AI Research. arXiv:1904.01201, 2019. arXiv:1904.01201
  38. F. Xia, A. Zamir, Z.-Y. He, A. Sax, J. Malik, and S. Savarese. Gibson Env: Real-World Perception for Embodied Agents. arXiv:1808.10654, 2018. arXiv:1808.10654
  39. A. Kadian et al. Sim2Real Predictivity: Does Evaluation in Simulation Predict Real-World Performance? arXiv:1912.06321, 2019. arXiv:1912.06321
  40. P. Anderson et al. On Evaluation of Embodied Navigation Agents. arXiv:1807.06757, 2018. arXiv:1807.06757
  41. N. Yokoyama, S. Ha, and D. Batra. Success Weighted by Completion Time: A Dynamics-Aware Evaluation Criteria for Embodied Navigation. arXiv:2103.08022, 2021. arXiv:2103.08022
Cite this article Wenjie Zhao, Mingxuan Li, Boyang Sun, "Configuration Abstractions for Heterogeneous Legged Robot Fleets," Transactions on Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2026, vol. 1, no. 1, KAGG:2607.00008. DOI: 10.5803/kagg.2607.00008.