A Configuration Space View of View Planning
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
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.
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