Programmation bayésienne des robots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis proposes an original method for robotic programming based on bayesian inference and learning. This method formally deals with problems of uncertainty and incomplete information that are inherent to the field. Indeed, the principal difficulties of robot programming comes from the unavoidable incompleteness of the models used. We present the formalism for describing a robotic task as well as the resolution methods. This formalism is inspired by the theory of the probability calculus, suggested by the physicist E T Jaynes: "Probability as Logic". Learning and maximum entropy principle translates incompleteness into uncertainty. The main contribution of this thesis is the definition of a generic system of robotic programming and its experimental application. We illustrate it by programming a surveillance task with a mobile robot: the Khepera. In order to do this, we use generic programming resources called "descriptions". We show how to define and use these resources in an incremental way (reactive behaviors, sensor fusion, situation recognition and sequences of behaviors) within a systematic an unified framework. We discuss the various advantages of our approach: statement of preliminary knowledge, taking into account uncertainty, direct and inverse programming. We suggest perspectives for our work: choice of architecture and planning. We place our work within a wider epistemological horizon while opposing, within the framework of autonomous robotics, the "traditional" approach concerning "high level cognition" and the "reactive" approach associated with the "low level cognition". We finally show how our work proposes to establish a link between these two extremes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".