跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1673新增论文
+1257其中 AI 相关
+198已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-14 05:55 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-13 20:44各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-13 06:08 — 2026-11-14 06:08(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-14 05:55最近发现新增版本:2026-11-13 20:44库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,727 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-14 05:54(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.13292

Large Language Model Explainability for Planning Lunar Rover Trajectories under Uncertainty

Michelle Ho, Maximilian Adang, Zachary Booth, David E. Astle, Margaret Hansen, Edward Balaban, Mykel J. Kochenderfer

原文摘要

Planning planetary rover trajectories under probabilistic uncertainty is a multi-objective optimization problem that science teams currently iteratively solve and verify by hand. This process becomes impractical when timelines and constraints frequently shift throughout the mission planning phase. Sampling-based planners such as Monte Carlo tree search can speed up this process, but their outputs do not preserve traceability to the science objectives that justify each plan, which the science team needs to verify. We propose an interactive assistant based on a large language model (LLM) that can explain planner trajectories using domain vocabulary and re-run the planner under user-specified conditions to compare alternatives. Previous work has used LLMs inside planner decision-making loops, but we explore using them for post-planning explanation, where they are more likely to be trusted since they do not directly influence planner decisions. Our framework pairs a simulator inspired by the NASA Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission with a ReAct queryable interface that calls curated action tools and retrieval functions. We evaluate the assistant on a query bank consisting of plan comparisons, feasibility, and lookup queries. Experiments show that 90.9% of the assistant's responses are faithful to the planner's outputs, a nearly 65% improvement over zero-shot prompting of the same LLM without tool access, demonstrating the potential for trustworthy explainability of uncertainty-aware traverses with an LLM-based system.

cs.RO