Regret-Based Sampling of Pareto Fronts for Multiobjective Robot Planning Problems
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
Many problems in robotics seek to simultaneously optimize several competing objectives. A conventional approach is to create a single cost function comprised of the weighted sum of the individual objectives. Solutions to this scalarized optimization problem are Pareto optimal solutions to the original multiobjective problem. However, finding an accurate representation of a Pareto front remains an important challenge. Uniformly spaced weights are often inefficient and do not provide error bounds. We address the problem of computing a finite set of weights whose optimal solutions closely approximate the solution of any other weight vector. To this end, we prove fundamental properties of the optimal cost as a function of the weight vector. We propose an algorithm that greedily adds the weight vector least-represented by the current set, and provide bounds on the regret. We extend our method to include suboptimal solvers for the scalarized optimization, and handle stochastic inputs to the planning problem. Finally, we illustrate that the proposed approach significantly outperforms baseline approaches for different robot planning problems with varying numbers of objective functions.
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 | 0.000 | 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