MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2703150994 · doi:10.1109/tro.2018.2830331

Informed Sampling for Asymptotically Optimal Path Planning

2018· article· en· W2703150994 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan D. Gammell, Timothy D. Barfoot, Siddhartha S Srinivasa

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Robotics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationHeuristicsCurse of dimensionalityMotion planningNorm (philosophy)Asymptotically optimal algorithmDimension (graph theory)MathematicsEuclidean geometryEuclidean distanceConvergence (economics)Sampling (signal processing)Computer scienceState (computer science)Path (computing)AlgorithmRobotArtificial intelligenceFilter (signal processing)Combinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anytime almost-surely asymptotically optimal planners, such as RRT*, incrementally find paths to every state in the search domain. This is inefficient once an initial solution is found, as then only states that can provide a better solution need to be considered. Exact knowledge of these states requires solving the problem but can be approximated with heuristics. This paper formally defines these sets of states and demonstrates how they can be used to analyze arbitrary planning problems. It uses the well-known L2 norm (i.e., Euclidean distance) to analyze minimum-path-length problems and shows that existing approaches decrease in effectiveness factorially (i.e., faster than exponentially) with state dimension. It presents a method to address this curse of dimensionality by directly sampling the prolate hyperspheroids (i.e., symmetric ndimensional ellipses) that define the L2 informed set. The importance of this direct informed sampling technique is demonstrated with Informed RRT*. This extension of RRT* has less theoretical dependence on state dimension and problem size than existing techniques and allows for linear convergence on some problems. It is shown experimentally to find better solutions faster than existing techniques on both abstract planning problems and HERB, a two-arm manipulation robot.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on RoboticsSame topicMachine Learning and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207