MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502049634 · doi:10.1109/robot.2003.1241953

Computing C-space entropy for view planning with a generic range sensor model

2004· article· en· W1502049634 on OpenAlexaff
Pengpeng Wang, Kamal Gupta

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntropy (arrow of time)Computer scienceMotion planningConfiguration spaceComputationComputer visionRobotArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have recently introduced the concept of C-space entropy as a measure of knowledge of C-space for sensor-based path planning and exploration for general robot-sensor systems. The robot plans the next sensing action to maximally reduce the expected C-space entropy, also called the maximal expected entropy reduction, or MER criterion. The expected C-space entropy computation, however, made two idealized assumptions. The first was that the sensor field of view (FOV) is a point; and the second was that no occlusion (or visibility) constraints are taken into account, i.e., as if the obstacles are transparent. We extend the expected C-space entropy formulation where these two assumptions are relaxed, and consider a generic range sensor with non-zero volume FOV and occlusion constraints, thereby modelling a real range sensor. Planar simulations show that: (1) MER criterion results in significantly more efficient exploration than the naive physical space based criterion (such as maximize the unknown physical space volume), and (2) the new formulation with non-zero volume FOV results in further improvement over the point FOV based MER formulation. Preliminary experiments with the SFU eye-in-hand system, a PUMA 560 equipped with a wrist mounted range scanner corroborate the simulation results, however, for lack of space they are not reported here.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207