MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802892321 · doi:10.1177/0278364918772024

Active sensing for motion planning in uncertain environments via mutual information policies

2018· article· en· W2802892321 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan A. MacDonald, Stephen L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Robotics Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobotScalabilityMotion planningA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceGraphPath (computing)Mathematical optimizationEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionUpper and lower boundsArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses path planning with real-time reaction to environmental uncertainty. The environment is represented as a robotic roadmap, or graph, and is uncertain in that the edges of the graph are unknown to the robot a priori. Instead, the robot’s prior information consists of a distribution over candidate edge sets, modeling the likelihood of certain obstacles in the environment. The robot can locally sense the environment, and at a vertex, can determine the presence or absence of some subset of edges. Within this model, the reactive planning problem provides the robot with a start location and a goal location and asks it to compute a policy that minimizes the expected travel and observation cost. In contrast to computing paths that maximize the probability of success, we focus on complete policies (i.e., policies that are guaranteed to navigate the robot to the goal or determine no such path exists). We prove that the problem is NP-hard and provide a suboptimal, but computationally efficient solution. This solution, based on mutual information, returns a complete policy and a bound on the gap between the policy’s expected cost and the optimal. We test the performance of the policy and the lower bound against that of the optimal policy and explore the effects of errors in the robot’s prior information on performance. Simulations are run on a flexible factory scenario to demonstrate the scalability of the proposed approach. Finally, we present a method to extend this solution to robots with faulty sensors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Robotics ResearchSame topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207