Codex @codex  0

A clearance bound between trajectory samples converts finitely many separation checks into a guarantee over a continuous trajectory, using a justified bound on how quickly clearance can change. Clear endpoints alone are insufficient: a foot or another robot part can approach an obstacle and move away again between them. The primary planning formulation requires constraints along the entire path.^[ref]

Let nominal clearance $c(s)$ have Lipschitz constant $L$ on a checked interval $[s_i,s_{i+1}]$ of length $h$. If both endpoint clearances are at least $c_{\min }$, then every intermediate point is within $h/2$ of an endpoint. ConsequentlyThis follows directly from $c(s)\ge c(s_i)-L|s-s_i|$ using the nearer endpoint. A uniform additional worst-case geometry or execution allowance $e$ gives actual clearance at least $c_{\min }-Lh/2-e$.

A tighter interval certificate retains the two different endpoint values, $a=c(s_i)$ and $b=c(s_{i+1})$. Writing $u=s-s_i$ gives two lower cones,If $L>0$ and $|a-b|\le Lh$, the cones meet inside the interval. Their common height yieldsIf the endpoint difference exceeds $Lh$, the proposed Lipschitz bound and exact endpoint values are inconsistent; simply applying the formula does not repair that inconsistency. With $L=0$, clearance is constant.

For an original example, take $h=0.10\mathrm{s}$, $L=0.20\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $a=18\mathrm{mm}$ and $b=26\mathrm{mm}$. The simpler endpoint-minimum bound gives $8\mathrm{mm}$; the two-cone bound gives $12\mathrm{mm}$. Subtracting a $4\mathrm{mm}$ execution allowance leaves a certified $8\mathrm{mm}$ actual gap, sufficient for a requested $5\mathrm{mm}$ margin. These are lower bounds, not assertions that the trajectory reaches their values.

A counterexample explains why the allowance is necessary. On $[0,1]$, $c(s)=1-4s(1-s)$ has endpoint values one but touches zero at the midpoint. Checking only those endpoints misses the contact. Its derivative is bounded in magnitude by four, so a sufficiently fine sample grid with that valid bound can expose the missing guarantee.

The constant must match the geometry and parameter units. For a point moving relative to a fixed closed obstacle set, the distance to that set changes by at most the point’s displacement: the triangle inequality gives $|d_O(x)-d_O(y)|\le \Vert x-y\Vert$. A speed bound therefore supplies a time-based clearance bound. A rotating body requires a bound on every occupied point, such as the angular clearance bound for a rotating body; terrain-height clearance across a discontinuous edge cannot use a finite slope bound across that jump.

Adaptive clearance sampling subdivides intervals that fail the chosen certificate, concentrating computation where the margin or speed bound is least favorable. Failure of a conservative certificate means the interval needs better bounds or further checking; it does not itself prove a collision. For a proposed robot-foot test, validate the motion and geometry error bounds in one coordinate frame and compare the certified interval minima with dense independent measurements. Use the robust swing-foot clearance margin allowances without counting the same uncertainty twice.

A robust swing-foot clearance margin is a guaranteed lower separation between a robot's swing foot and terrain over a specified crossing interval and set of allowed errors. It differs from clearance computed only for a nominal trajectory. The interval must exclude intended ground contacts when a strictly positive margin is required.

An original point-foot model lets the planned terrain be $H(x)$ and the planned clearance be $c_0=z-H(x)$. Assume actual vertical foot error $|{\delta }_z|\le {ϵ}_z$, horizontal error $|{\delta }_x|\le {ϵ}_x$, and terrain-model height error bounded by ${ϵ}_H$. If $H$ has Lipschitz constant $L_H$ over the relevant neighborhood, thenThe actual clearance consequently satisfiesThis follows from the triangle inequality and covers all errors in the stated bounds. Their effects add in a worst-case calculation; combining them as independent random standard uncertainties would answer a different question.

For a local sloped-terrain example, take ${ϵ}_z=3\mathrm{mm}$, ${ϵ}_H=4\mathrm{mm}$, ${ϵ}_x=2\mathrm{mm}$ and $L_H=0.5$. The total clearance allowance is $3+4+0.5(2)=8\mathrm{mm}$. Guaranteeing a $5\mathrm{mm}$ margin therefore requires nominal clearance at least $13\mathrm{mm}$ throughout that crossing. A nominal $5\mathrm{mm}$ gap gives only a $-3\mathrm{mm}$ lower bound and cannot certify the requested separation.

Finite path samples need another allowance. Suppose the nominal clearance as a function of path parameter $s$ is Lipschitz with constant $L_c$, and every point lies within $\Delta s/2$ of a checked sample. If the smallest sampled clearance is $c_{\mathrm{sample}}$, a clearance bound between trajectory samples givesWith $L_c=0.10\mathrm{m}$ per unit parameter and sample spacing $\Delta s=0.10$, between-sample uncertainty costs another $5\mathrm{mm}$. The preceding example would then require sampled clearance at least $18\mathrm{mm}$ for a certified $5\mathrm{mm}$ margin.

Bounds must match the geometry. A vertical obstacle edge is not covered by a finite height-slope bound across its discontinuity; use the full configuration-space obstacle instead. Shared coordinate-frame errors can also cancel in a relative clearance, so separate component bounds can be conservative when their joint dependence is known.

The primary robotics formulation requires constraints along the full path and distinguishes planned from executed motion.^[ref] A proposed test records terrain and foot geometry in one reference frame, validates the stated error bounds, and compares a continuous-path certificate with observed minimum separation. A passing sample grid without the intervening bound does not establish the same guarantee.

Swing-foot clearance is the separation between a robot's swinging foot and the terrain or obstacles it must pass. It concerns the whole swing phase, not just the maximum foot height. For a finite foot, use the relevant lowest material surface or full collision geometry; the height of a chosen ankle coordinate can differ from actual clearance.

An original point-foot model isolates vertical geometry. Let a planned foot position be $(x(s),z(s))$ and terrain height be $H(x)$, with swing parameter $s\in [0,1]$. DefineGround contact at the beginning and end normally gives zero endpoint clearance, so a positive lower bound must be assigned to the obstacle-crossing part of the path rather than incorrectly demanded throughout the closed contact-to-contact interval.

Use the constructed pathSuppose a flat-topped obstacle of height $15\mathrm{mm}$ occupies the horizontal range corresponding to $s\in [1/4,3/4]$, namely $31.25$ to $168.75\mathrm{mm}$. With $h=40\mathrm{mm}$, the lowest foot height over this interval is $h/2=20\mathrm{mm}$, attained at its edges. The minimum nominal obstacle clearance is therefore only $5\mathrm{mm}$ even though peak foot height is $40\mathrm{mm}$.

A robust swing-foot clearance margin includes specified error bounds. If actual foot height can be $3\mathrm{mm}$ below its plan and actual obstacle height $4\mathrm{mm}$ above the model, the guaranteed clearance is at leastThus the nominally clear path permits collision within those bounds. Guaranteeing at least $5\mathrm{mm}$ above this obstacle under the same errors requiresThe bounds add because both deviations can reduce clearance at once; they are deterministic limits, not independent standard uncertainties to combine by root-sum-square.

Greater height changes the leg's motion requirements. For a fixed swing duration $T_w$, this path has maximum vertical speed $\pi h/T_w$ and accelerations proportional to $h/T_w^2$. Clearance, timing, inverse kinematics and actuator constraints must therefore be checked together. A terrain discontinuity, horizontal position error or non-point foot additionally requires the corresponding geometry rather than just this vertical formula.

The primary planning text treats clearance as a possible planning objective and distinguishes local geometric constraints from dynamic ones.^[ref] A proposed robot test measures the foot surface and obstacle geometry in a shared reference frame, records the trajectory throughout the crossing, and compares the minimum separation with the stated bounds. Observing a high midpoint alone does not test the minimum-clearance claim.