Experimental Evaluation of Certain Pursuit and Evasion Schemes for Wheeled Mobile Robots


Pursuit-evasion games involving mobile robots provide an excellent platform to analyze the performance of pursuit and evasion strategies. Pursuit-evasion has received considerable attention from researchers in the past few decades due to its application to a broad spectrum of problems that arise in various domains such as defense research, robotics, computer games, drug delivery, cell biology, etc. Several methods have been introduced in the literature to compute the winning chances of a single pursuer or single evader in a two-player game. Over the past few decades, proportional navigation guidance (PNG) based methods have proved to be quite effective for the purpose of pursuit especially for missile navigation and target tracking. However, a performance comparison of these pursuer-centric strategies against recent evader-centric schemes has not been found in the literature, for wheeled mobile robot applications. With a view to understanding the performance of each of the evasion strategies against various pursuit strategies and vice versa, four different proportional navigation-based pursuit schemes have been evaluated against five evader-centric schemes and vice-versa for non-holonomic wheeled mobile robots. The pursuer′s strategies include three well-known schemes namely, augmented ideal proportional navigation guidance (AIPNG), modified AIPNG, angular acceleration guidance (AAG), and a recently introduced pursuer-centric scheme called anticipated trajectory-based proportional navigation guidance (ATPNG). Evader-centric schemes are classic evasion, random motion, optical-flow based evasion, Apollonius circle based evasion and another recently introduced evasion strategy called anticipated velocity based evasion. The performance of each of the pursuit methods was evaluated against five different evasion methods through hardware implementation. The performance was analyzed in terms of time of interception and the distance traveled by players. The working environment was obstacle-free and the maximum velocity of the pursuer was taken to be greater than that of the evader to conclude the game in finite time. It is concluded that ATPNG performs better than other PNG-based schemes, and the anticipated velocity based evasion scheme performs better than the other evasion schemes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. [1]

    T. H. Chung, G. A. Hollinger, V. Isler. Search and pursuit-evasion in mobile robotics: A survey. Autonomous Robots, Springer vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 299–316, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-011-9241-4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. [2]

    Y. Song, S. X. Li, C. F. Zhu, H. X. Chang. Object tracking with dual field-of-view switching in aerial videos. International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 565–573, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-016-0949-7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. [3]

    B. Das, B. Subudhi, B. B. Pati. Cooperative formation control of autonomous underwater vehicles: An overview. International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 199–225, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-016-1004-4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. [4]

    R. Vidal, S. Rashid, C. Sharp, O. Shakernia, J. Kim, S. Sastry. Pursuit-evasion games with unmanned ground and aerial vehicles. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seoul, South Korea, pp. 2948–2955, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2001.933069.

    Google Scholar 

  5. [5]

    J. R. Britnell, M. Wildon. Finding a princess in a palace: A pursuit-evasion problem. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, vol. 20, no. 1, Article number 25, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  6. [6]

    B. K. Sahu, B. Subudhi. Adaptive tracking control of an autonomous underwater vehicle. International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 299–307, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-014-0792-7.

    Google Scholar 

  7. [7]

    X. X. Sun, W. Yeoh, S. Koenig. Moving target D* lite*. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, ACM, Toronto, Canada, pp. 67–74, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1838206.1838216.

    Google Scholar 

  8. [8]

    N. Basilico, N. Gatti, F. Amigoni. Patrolling security games: Definition and algorithms for solving large instances with single patroller and single intruder. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 184–185, pp. 78–123, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.03.003.

    Google Scholar 

  9. [9]

    L. Freda, G. Oriolo. Vision-based interception of a moving target with a nonholonomic mobile robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 419–432, 2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2007.02.001.

    Google Scholar 

  10. [10]

    Y. Tian, Y. Li, Z. Ren. Vision-based adaptive guidance law for intercepting a manoeuvring target. IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 421–428, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0092.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. [11]

    J. P. Hwang, J. Baek, B. Choi, E. Kim. A novel part-based approach to mean-shift algorithm for visual tracking. International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 443–453, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-013-0483-0.

    Google Scholar 

  12. [12]

    R. J. Wai, Y. W. Lin. Adaptive moving-target tracking control of a vision-based mobile robot via a dynamic petri recurrent fuzzy neural network. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 688–701, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2227974.

    Google Scholar 

  13. [13]

    A. M. Rao, K. Ramji, B. S. K. Sundara Siva Rao, V. Vasu, C. Puneeth. Navigation of non-holonomic mobile robot using neuro-fuzzy logic with integrated safe boundary algorithm. International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 285–294, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-016-1042-y.

    Google Scholar 

  14. [14]

    Q. C. Li, W. S. Zhang, G. Han, Y. H. Zhang. Finite time convergent wavelet neural network sliding mode control guidance law with impact angle constraint. International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 588–599, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-015-0927-5.

    Google Scholar 

  15. [15]

    L. Q. Li, W. X. Xie. Bearings-only maneuvering target tracking based on fuzzy clustering in a cluttered environment. AEU — International Journal of Electronics and Communications, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 130–137, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aeue.2013.07.013.

    Google Scholar 

  16. [16]

    M. H. Amoozgar, S. H. Sadati, K. Alipour. Trajectory tracking of wheeled mobile robots using a kinematical fuzzy controller. International Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 49–59, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.206.2012.1.206-3476.

    Google Scholar 

  17. [17]

    N. Duan, H. F. Min. NN-based output tracking for more general stochastic nonlinear systems with unknown control coefficients. International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 350–359, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-015-0936-4.

    Google Scholar 

  18. [18]

    F. Belkhouche, B. Belkhouche, P. Rastgoufard. Line of sight robot navigation toward a moving goal. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B ( Cybernetics), vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 255–267, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2005.856142.

    Google Scholar 

  19. [19]

    C. Z. Zhao, Y. Huang. A D R C based integrated guidance and control scheme for the interception of maneuvering targets with desired LOS angle. In Proceedings of the 29th Chinese Control Conference, Beijing, China, pp. 6192–6196, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  20. [20]

    H. M. Prasanna, D. Ghose. Retro-proportional-navigation: A new guidance law for interception of high speed targets. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 377–386, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.54892.

    Google Scholar 

  21. [21]

    L. Yan, J. G. Zhao, H. R. Shen, Y. Li. Biased retro-proportional navigation law for interception of high-speed targets with angular constraint. Defence Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 60–65, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2013.12.010.

    Google Scholar 

  22. [22]

    C. H. Lee, T. H. Kim, M. J. Tahk. Biased PNG for target observability enhancement against nonmaneuvering targets. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 2–17, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2014.120103.

    Google Scholar 

  23. [23]

    Y. Li, L. Yan, J. G. Zhao, F. Liu, T. Wang. Combined proportional navigation law for interception of high-speed targets. Defence Technology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 298–303, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2014.07.004.

    Google Scholar 

  24. [24]

    D. Ghose. True proportional navigation with maneuvering target. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 229–237, 1994. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/7.250423.

    Google Scholar 

  25. [25]

    C. D. Yang, C. C. Yang. Optimal pure proportional navigation for maneuvering targets. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 949–957, 1997. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/7.599315.

    Google Scholar 

  26. [26]

    M. Mehrandezh, M. N. Sela, R. G. Fenton, B. Benhabib. Robotic interception of moving objects using ideal proportional navigation guidance technique. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 295–310, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(99)00044-5.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. [27]

    M. Mehrandezh, M. N. Sela, R. G. Fenton, B. Benhabib. Robotic interception of moving objects using an augmented ideal proportional navigation guidance technique. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 238–250, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844351.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. [28]

    J. L. Gu, W. C. Chen. Optimal proportional navigation guidance based on generalized predictive control. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing, Sinaia, Romania, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  29. [29]

    M. Keshmiri, M. Keshmiri. Performance comparison of various navigation guidance methods in interception of a moving object by a serial manipulator considering its kinematic and dynamic limits. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics, Miedzyzdroje, Poland, pp. 212–217, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MMAR.2010.5587234.

    Google Scholar 

  30. [30]

    Y. Y. Song, W. C. Chen, X. L. Yin. A new angular acceleration guidance law with estimation approach based on sliding mode observer against high maneuvering target. Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 110–116, pp. 5249–5256, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.110-116.5249.

    Google Scholar 

  31. [31]

    A. Kumar, A. Ojha, P. K. Padhy. Anticipated trajectory based proportional navigation guidance scheme for intercepting high maneuvering targets. International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1351–1361, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-015-0166-0.

    Google Scholar 

  32. [32]

    S. Kim, H. J. Kim. Robust proportional navigation guidance against highly maneuvering targets. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, Gwangju, South Korea, pp. 61–65, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAS.2013.6703864.

    Google Scholar 

  33. [33]

    S. Ghosh, D. Ghose, S. Raha. Capturability of augmented pure proportional navigation guidance against time-varying target maneuvers. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1446–1461, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000561.

    Google Scholar 

  34. [34]

    R. Isaacs. Differential Games: A Mathematical Theory with Applications to Warfare and Pursuit, Control and Optimization, New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  35. [35]

    P. A. Meschler. On constructing efficient evasion strategies for a game with imperfect information. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 576–580, 1970. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1970.1099558.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. [36]

    W. Rzymowski. Avoidance of one pursuer. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 89–94, 1986. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(86)90206-4.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. [37]

    W. Chodun. Differential games of evasion with many pursuers. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 370–389, 1989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-247X(89)90007-3.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. [38]

    G. I. Ibragimov, M. Salimi, M. Amini. Evasion from many pursuers in simple motion differential game with integral constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 218, no. 2, pp. 505–511, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.026.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. [39]

    S. Y. Liu, Z. Y. Zhou, C. Tomlin, K. Hedrick. Evasion as a team against a faster pursuer. In Proceedings of American Control Conference, Washington, USA, pp. 5368–5373, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2013.6580676.

    Google Scholar 

  40. [40]

    D. Pais, N. E. Leonard. Pursuit and evasion: Evolutionary dynamics and collective motion. In Proceedings of AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Toronto, Canada, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-7584.

    Google Scholar 

  41. [41]

    M. V. Raman, M. Kothari. Pursuit-evasion games of high speed evader. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 293–306, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-016-0379-3.

    Google Scholar 

  42. [42]

    A. Kumar, A. Ojha. Anticipated velocity based guidance strategy for wheeled mobile evader amidst stationary and moving obstacles in bounded environment. Computer Animation & Virtual Worlds, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 495–507, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.1609.

    Google Scholar 

  43. [43]

    G. Foderaro, A. Swingler, S. Ferrari. A model-based cell decomposition approach to on-line pursuit-evasion path planning and the video game Ms. Pac-Man. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games, Granada, Spain, pp. 281–287, 2012. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/CIG.2012.6374167.

    Google Scholar 

  44. [44]

    E. Bakolas. Evasion from a group of pursuers with double integrator kinematics. In Proceedings of the 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Florence, Italy, pp. 1472–1477, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2013.6760090.

    Google Scholar 

  45. [45]

    B. Li, R. Chiong, L. G. Gong. Search-evasion path planning for submarines using the artificial bee colony algorithm. In Proceedings of IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Beijing, China, pp. 528–535, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2014.6900224.

    Google Scholar 

  46. [46]

    I. Exarchos, P. Tsiotras. An asymmetric version of the two car pursuit-evasion game. In Proceedings of the 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Los Angeles, USA, pp. 4272–4277, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2014.7040055.

    Google Scholar 

  47. [47]

    J. C. Las Fargeas, P. T. Kabamba, A. R. Girard. Path planning for information acquisition and evasion using marsupial vehicles. In Proceedings of American Control Conference, Chicago, USA, pp. 3734–3739, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2015.7171910.

    Google Scholar 

  48. [48]

    W. Sun, P. Tsiotras. Pursuit evasion game of two players under an external flow field. In Proceedings of American Control Conference, Chicago, USA, pp. 5617–5622, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2015.7172219.

    Google Scholar 

  49. [49]

    P. J. Yuan, J. S. Chem. Ideal proportional navigation. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1161–1165, 1992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/3.20964.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Kumar.

Additional information

Recommended by Associate Editor Nazim Mir-Nasiri

Amit Kumar received the B. Sc. degree in computer science and engineering from Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers, India in 2008, the M. Tech. and Ph. D. degrees in computer science and engineering from Pandit Dwarka Prasad Mishra (PDPM) Indian Institute of Information Technology Design and Manufacturing Jabalpur, India in 2010 and 2016, respectively. Presently, he is working as an assistant professor in Computer Science and Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Information Technology, India.

His research interests include robot motion planning, deep learning, multi-robot systems.

Aparajita Ojha received the Ph. D. degree in mathematics from Rani Durgavati (R. D.) University, India in 1987. She is a professor of computer science and engineering discipline at Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing Jabalpur, India, and prior to her current position, she was a professor of Mathematics at R. D. University, India.

Her research interests include robotics, computer aided design, geometric modeling, finite elements, spline theory, approximation theory, wavelet analysis, object and aspect oriented modeling.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, A., Ojha, A. Experimental Evaluation of Certain Pursuit and Evasion Schemes for Wheeled Mobile Robots. Int. J. Autom. Comput. 16, 491–510 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-018-1151-x

Download citation


  • Pursuit-evasion
  • wheeled mobile robot
  • proportional navigation
  • trajectory planning
  • target interception