Path Planning Under Malicious Injections and Removals of Perceived Obstacles: A Probabilistic Programming Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An autonomous mobile robot may encounter adversarial environments in which an attacker tries to influence its decisions. Through physical or software-level attacks, some of the robot's sensors might be compromised-a special concern for self-driving vehicles. Motivated by this scenario, this letter introduces and studies the problem of planning kinematically feasible (and possibly efficient) paths with bounded collision probability in adversarial settings where the obstacles perceived online by the robot display two layers of uncertainty. The first is the “usual” Gaussian uncertainty one would obtain from a standard object tracker (e.g., an Extended Kalman Filter); the second is an additional layer of uncertainty that captures possible sensor attacks and describes the actual existence of groups of obstacles in the environment. We study the complexity of the problem and propose a general sampling-based solution framework that uses the Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT) to check collision probability constraints along the computed trajectory. We also show how probabilistic programming languages (PPLs) can simplify programming common algorithms (such as RRT and Hybrid A*) for mixed uncertainty. In addition to providing an easy-to-use programming framework, our approach is shown to plan safer paths compared to a Naive Monte Carlo baseline when both approaches are allowed to use at most the same given number of samples to perform collision checks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".