On Safe Robot Navigation Among Humans as Dynamic Obstacles in Unknown Indoor Environments
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
In this paper, we rigorously test two conjectures in mobile robot navigation among dynamic obstacles in unknown environments: i) a planner for static obstacles, if executed at a fast update rate (i.e., fast replanning), might be quite effective in dealing with dynamic obstacles, and ii) existing implemented planners have been effective in humans environments (with humans being dynamic obstacles) primarily because humans themselves avoid the robot and if this were not the case, robot will run into collisions with humans much more frequently. The core planning approach used is a Global path planner combined with a local Dynamic Window planner with repeated re-planning (GDW). We compare two planners within this framework: i) all obstacles are treated as static (GDW-S) and ii) predicted trajectories of dynamic obstacles are used to avoid future collisions within a given planning horizon time (GDW-D). The effect of humans avoiding robot (and other humans) is simulated via a simple local potential field based approach. We indicate such environments by a suffix +R (repulsion) for the corresponding planner. Hence there are four categories that we tested: GDW-S, GDW-D, GDW-S+R and GDW-D+R in different environments of varying complexity. The performance metrics used were the percentage of successful runs without collisions and total number of collisions. The results indicate that i) GDW-D planner outperforms GDW-S planner, i.e., conjecture 1 is false, and ii) humans avoiding robots does result in more successful runs, i.e., conjecture ii) is true. Furthermore, we've implemented both GDW-S and GDW-D planners on a real system and report experimental results for single obstacle case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it