On Legible and Predictable Robot Navigation in Multi-Agent 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
Legible motion is intent-expressive, which when employed during social robot navigation, allows others to quickly infer the intended avoidance strategy. Predictable motion matches an observer's expectation which, during navigation, allows others to confidently carryout the interaction. In this work, we present a navigation framework capable of reasoning on its legibility and predictability with respect to dynamic interactions, e.g., a passing side. Our approach generalizes the previously formalized notions of legibility and predictability by allowing dynamic goal regions in order to navigate in dynamic environments. This generalization also allows us to quantitatively evaluate the legibility and the predictability of trajectories with respect to navigation interactions. Our approach is shown to promote legible behavior in ambiguous scenarios and predictable behavior in unambiguous scenarios. In a multi-agent environment, this yields an increase in safety while remaining competitive in terms of goal-efficiency when compared to other robot navigation planners in multi-agent environments. The code of this work is made publicly available <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup> .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it