Comparing Active Learning Performance Driven by Gaussian Processes or Bayesian Neural Networks for Constrained Trajectory Exploration

Sapphira Akins; Frances Zhu

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2309.16114

Comparing Active Learning Performance Driven by Gaussian Processes or Bayesian Neural Networks for Constrained Trajectory Exploration

Sapphira Akins·Frances Zhu

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Robots with increasing autonomy progress our space exploration capabilities, particularly for in-situ exploration and sampling to stand in for human explorers. Currently, humans drive robots to meet scientific objectives, but depending on the robot's location, the exchange of information and driving commands between the human operator and robot may cause undue delays in mission fulfillment. An autonomous robot encoded with a scientific objective and an exploration strategy incurs no communication delays and can fulfill missions more quickly. Active learning algorithms offer this capability of intelligent exploration, but the underlying model structure varies the performance of the active learning algorithm in accurately forming an understanding of the environment. In this paper, we investigate the performance differences between active learning algorithms driven by Gaussian processes or Bayesian neural networks for exploration strategies encoded on agents that are constrained in their trajectories, like planetary surface rovers. These two active learning strategies were tested in a simulation environment against science-blind strategies to predict the spatial distribution of a variable of interest along multiple datasets. The performance metrics of interest are model accuracy in root mean squared (RMS) error, training time, model convergence, total distance traveled until convergence, and total samples until convergence. Active learning strategies encoded with Gaussian processes require less computation to train, converge to an accurate model more quickly, and propose trajectories of shorter distance, except in a few complex environments in which Bayesian neural networks achieve a more accurate model in the large data regime due to their more expressive functional bases. The paper concludes with advice on when and how to implement either exploration strategy for future space missions.

Explore related subjects

cs.RO cs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Sapphira Akins, Frances Zhu. 2023-09-28. Comparing Active Learning Performance Driven by Gaussian Processes or Bayesian Neural Networks for Constrained Trajectory Exploration. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.16114

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗