View planning for exploration via maximal C-space entropy reduction for robot mounted range sensors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We introduced the concept of C-space entropy recently as a measure of knowledge of configuration space (C-space) for sensor-based exploration and path planning 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 (MER) criterion. The resulting view planning algorithms showed significant improvement of exploration rate over physical space-based criteria. However, this expected C-space entropy computation made two idealized assumptions: (i) that the sensor field of view (FOV) is a point and (ii) that there are no occlusion (or visibility) constraints, i.e., as if the sensor can sense through the obstacles. We extend the expected C-space entropy formulation where these two assumptions are relaxed, and consider a range sensor with non-zero volume FOV and occlusion constraints, thereby modeling a realistic range sensor. Planar simulations and experimental results on the SFU Eye-in-Hand system show that the new formulation results in further improvement in C-space exploration efficiency over the point FOV sensor-based MER formulation. Keywords: SENSOR-BASED ROBOT PATH PLANNINGROBOT MOUNTED RANGE SENSORVIEW PLANNINGCONFIGURATION SPACECONFIGURATION SPACE ENTROPY
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it