MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408363681 · doi:10.1007/s10846-025-02235-2

Risk-Sensitive Autonomous Exploration of Unknown Environments: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Perspective

2025· article· en· W4408363681 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Hossein Sarfi, Mahdis Bisheban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsReinforcement learningPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceReinforcementHuman–computer interactionPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study provides a thorough investigation into autonomous exploration within unknown environments, with a focus on minimizing exploration time and so fuel consumption. This research utilizes a 2D simulation environment to collect training data efficiently, facilitating the evaluation of the proposed methods’ efficiency, adaptability, and generalizability through various experiments. Single-robot autonomous exploration policies using advanced Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) algorithms are developed. The main novelty of this paper is the development of risk-sensitive policies, in contrast to traditional risk-neutral approaches in DRL, to enhance exploration efficiency. Additionally, this research presents the development of an adaptive autonomous exploration policy that dynamically adjusts the Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) based on the exploration percentage. The results demonstrate a significant improvement in autonomous exploration efficiency compared to well-known traditional RL and classical single-robot exploration policies, validating the effectiveness of the suggested novel autonomous exploration strategies.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent & Robotic SystemsSame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207