LBGP: Learning Based Goal Planning for Autonomous Following in Front
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates a hybrid solution which combines deep reinforcement learning (RL) and classical trajectory planning for the following in front application. Here, an autonomous robot aims to stay ahead of a person as the person freely walks around. Following in front is a challenging problem as the user's intended trajectory is unknown and needs to be estimated, explicitly or implicitly, by the robot. In addition, the robot needs to find a feasible way to safely navigate ahead of human trajectory. Our deep RL module implicitly estimates human trajectory and produces short-term navigational goals to guide the robot. These goals are used by a trajectory planner to smoothly navigate the robot to the short-term goals, and eventually in front of the user. We employ curriculum learning in the deep RL module to efficiently achieve a high return. Our system outperforms the state-of-the-art in following ahead and is more reliable compared to end-to-end alternatives in both the simulation and real world experiments. In contrast to a pure deep RL approach, we demonstrate zero-shot transfer of the trained policy from simulation to the real world.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".