Pedestrian-Robot Interactions on Autonomous Crowd Navigation: Reactive Control Methods and Evaluation Metrics
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
Autonomous navigation in highly populated areas remains a challenging task for robots because of the difficulty in guaranteeing safe interactions with pedestrians in unstructured situations. In this work, we present a crowd navigation control framework that delivers continuous obstacle avoidance and post-contact control evaluated on an autonomous personal mobility vehicle. We propose evaluation metrics for accounting efficiency, controller response and crowd interactions in natural crowds. We report the results of over 110 trials in different crowd types: sparse, flows, and mixed traffic, with low- (< 0.15 ppsm), mid- (< 0.65 ppsm), and high- (< 1 ppsm) pedestrian densities. We present comparative results between two low-level obstacle avoidance methods and a baseline of shared control. Results show a 10% drop in relative time to goal on the highest density tests, and no other efficiency metric decrease. Moreover, autonomous navigation showed to be comparable to shared-control navigation with a lower relative jerk and significantly higher fluency in commands indicating high compatibility with the crowd. We conclude that the reactive controller fulfils a necessary task of fast and continuous adaptation to crowd navigation, and it should be coupled with high-level planners for environmental and situational awareness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it