Bibliographic record
Abstract
For sensor-based robot motion planning, view planning problem refers to planning the next sensing action to further facilitate the motion planning task. In Y. Yu and K. Gupta (2004), C-space entropy was introduced as a measure of knowledge of robot configuration space, or C-space. 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. It was shown that MER criterion resulted in much more efficient C-space exploration performance than physical space based view planning criteria, such as to maximize unknown physical volume in each view. From a C-space perspective, MER criterion consists of two important aspects: sensing actions are evaluated in C-space (geometric aspect); these effects are evaluated in an information theoretical sense (stochastic aspect). In this paper, we investigate how much of this better performance is attributable to the paradigmatic shift to evaluating the sensor action in C-space, i.e., the pure geometric component of MER, and how much is attributable to the stochastic aspect of MER. We propose C-space based pure geometric criteria (which are essentially geometric aspect of MER) for view planning and compare them with the MER criterion. We empirically show that a great deal of efficiency is attributable to the pure geometric aspect; however, we also show that the stochastic aspect, despite being based on simple assumptions, result in moderately more efficient C-space exploration over the pure geometric component of MER. We outline explanations for our findings
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".