Scalarizing Multi-Objective Robot Planning Problems Using Weighted Maximization
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
When designing a motion planner for autonomous robots there are usually multiple objectives to be considered. However, a cost function that yields the desired trade-off between objectives is not easily obtainable. A common technique across many applications is to use a weighted sum of relevant objective functions and then carefully adapt the weights. However, this approach may not find all relevant trade-offs even in simple planning problems. Thus, we study an alternative method based on a weighted maximum of objectives. Such a cost function is more expressive than the weighted sum, and we show how it can be deployed in both continuous- and discrete-space motion planning problems. We propose a novel path planning algorithm for the proposed cost function and establish its correctness, and present heuristic adaptations that yield a practical runtime. In extensive simulation experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed cost function and algorithm are able to find a wider range of trade-offs between objectives (i.e., Pareto-optimal solutions) for various planning problems, showcasing its advantages in practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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