MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215761265 · doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3242201

Learning to Search in Task and Motion Planning With Streams

2023· article· en· W3215761265 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTREAMSTask (project management)Motion (physics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEconomicsComputer networkManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Task and motion planning problems in robotics combine symbolic planning over discrete task variables with motion optimization over continuous state and action variables. Recent works such as PDDLStream [Garrett et al. 2020)] have focused on optimistic planning with an incrementally growing set of objects until a feasible trajectory is found. However, this set is exhaustively expanded in a breadth-first manner, regardless of the logical and geometric structure of the problem at hand, which makes long-horizon reasoning with large numbers of objects prohibitively time-consuming. To address this issue, we propose a geometrically informed symbolic planner that expands the set of objects and facts in a best-first manner, prioritized by a Graph Neural Network that is learned from prior search computations. We evaluate our approach on a diverse set of problems and demonstrate an improved ability to plan in difficult scenarios. We also apply our algorithm on a 7DOF robotic arm in block-stacking manipulation tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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