Learning Sampling Distributions for Robot Motion 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
A defining feature of sampling-based motion planning is the reliance on an implicit representation of the state space, which is enabled by a set of probing samples. Traditionally, these samples are drawn either probabilistically or deterministically to uniformly cover the state space. Yet, the motion of many robotic systems is often restricted to “small” regions of the state space, due to e.g. differential constraints or collision-avoidance constraints. To accelerate the planning process, it is thus desirable to devise non-uniform sampling strategies that favor sampling in those regions where an optimal solution might lie. This paper proposes a methodology for nonuniform sampling, whereby a sampling distribution is learned from demonstrations, and then used to bias sampling. The sampling distribution is computed through a conditional variational autoencoder, allowing sample generation from the latent space conditioned on the specific planning problem. This methodology is general, can be used in combination with any sampling-based planner, and can effectively exploit the underlying structure of a planning problem while maintaining the theoretical guarantees of sampling-based approaches. Specifically, on several planning problems, the proposed methodology is shown to effectively learn representations for the relevant regions of the state space, resulting in an order of magnitude improvement in terms of success rate and convergence to the optimal cost.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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