Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

PACE: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Time-Efficient Embodied Planning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read By letting a language model reason while a robot acts, PACE cuts thinking time 6.9-fold and improves planning success from 6% to 10%.

desk verdict PACE's time-efficiency gain is real and worth building on, but the success-rate improvement is a 4-point difference on 100 instances that doesn't clear significance; the abstract overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03034 v1 pith:C4XGGCZ5 submitted 2026-08-04 cs.RO cs.AI

Yuchen Huang , Xijiang Ying , Zhenhua Ma , Xiaxiang Yuan , Zhijie Gao , Jiayi Huang , Ruichi Mao , Jiazheng Zhang
show 9 more authors
Hongsheng Ti Maotao Tian Rong Shi Lu Zhao Shizhuang Zhang Zhuo Cui He Wang Ling Liu Wei Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords embodiedplanninglargelanguagemodelschain-of-thoughttokenbudgetallocationpipelinedreasoningadaptivecognitiveeffortParetoefficiencytime-efficient
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

PACE tries to establish that the serial think-then-act loop is the main obstacle to using reasoning-capable language models in robots, and that the obstacle can be removed by restructuring time rather than by making the model larger or faster. Its claim is that a token budget matched to each action's execution window lets the model reason about the next action while the current one runs, with no loss—and a net gain—in plan quality. In a kitchen-based embodied-planning benchmark with a small quantized language model, PACE reports a 10% success rate versus 6% for the unconstrained-reasoning baseline, a 6.9-fold reduction in thinking time, and 66.8% of thinking hidden inside execution windows. A tuned variant reaches 13% success. If these results hold, reasoning models become viable for latency-sensitive embodied systems, and cognitive effort becomes a schedulable resource rather than a fixed cost.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Interleaved Think-Act (ITA) pipeline—reasoning for step $i$ runs while action $a_{i-1}$ executes—together with the Dynamic Budget Allocator's token formula, which converts an execution-time window into a thinking-token budget. The pipeline time model $T_{\text{pipe}}=t_{\text{think}}^{(0)}+\sum_{i=1}^N \max(t_{\text{think}}^{(i)}, t_{\text{exec}}^{(i-1)})+t_{\text{exec}}^{(N)}$ is what the argument rests on: it quantifies how much thinking time can be hidden inside execution and defines the gap that appears when thinking overruns its window. The hybrid budget control—soft prompt guidance plus hard token truncation at $1.2\times$ the soft budget—is the enforcement mechanism that makes the budget real.

What would settle it

Measure total pipeline time in an environment where the same action takes variable durations (say 2-8 seconds instead of a fixed 4 seconds) with the same budget formula; if thinking spills out of execution windows so that total time approaches the serial sum without a compensating success gain, the DBA's core guarantee is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the time model is the bottleneck, not model capability: replacing the serial sum $T_{\text{serial}}=\sum (t_{\text{think}}^{(i)}+t_{\text{exec}}^{(i)})$ with a pipeline $T_{\text{pipe}}=t_{\text{think}}^{(0)}+\sum_{i=1}^N \max(t_{\text{think}}^{(i)}, t_{\text{exec}}^{(i-1)})+t_{\text{exec}}^{(N)}$ creates a window for concurrent cognition. The Dynamic Budget Allocator fills that window by setting $b_{i+1} = \alpha(\lfloor (t_{\text{exec}}(a_i)-t_{\text{overhead}}) v \rfloor - c_{\text{output}})$, where $\alpha$ scales effort up after failures and down after successes. The paper's empirical claim is that this interleaving dominates both unconstrained reasoning and fixed-budget reasoning on the success-time Pareto frontier, and that moderate budgets beat unlimited budgets because they prevent overthinking.

Load-bearing premise

The budget allocator assumes that each action's execution time is known and fixed and that the model emits tokens at a constant rate, so the token budget computed before an action matches the time that action actually leaves available; the paper itself lists a 'physical deployment gap' as a limitation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reasoning-enhanced planners can be deployed in latency-sensitive embodied systems without waiting for faster hardware: thinking time drops 6.9-fold and most of it disappears inside execution windows.
  • Constrained reasoning beats unconstrained reasoning when the constraint is matched to the temporal context, so token budgets become a planning lever rather than a degradation.
  • The reported PACE configurations dominate the compared baselines on the success-time Pareto frontier, meaning the standard trade-off between quality and speed is not fixed.
  • First-step fast response plus failure-driven budget scaling gives a concrete recipe for keeping a robot responsive while still allowing deep deliberation at critical decisions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • On a physical robot, execution times jitter, so the fixed $t_{\text{exec}}$ estimates in the budget formula will occasionally overflow their windows; an online estimator of remaining execution time would be needed to preserve the 66.8% hiding rate.
  • The same budget-by-available-time principle should transfer to any latency-sensitive LLM service with predictable gaps—tool calls, code execution, multi-agent turns—where the 'execution window' is a function or API call rather than a robot motion.
  • The paper's own budget sweep shows a non-monotonic success-budget curve with dips at 450 and 900 tokens, suggesting a learned allocator trained on state features could beat the hand-set difficulty coefficient $\alpha\in[0.5,2.0]$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PACE, a framework for embodied LLM planning that interleaves chain-of-thought reasoning with action execution and adaptively budgets thinking tokens to fit within execution-time windows. On the Robotouille synchronous benchmark with Qwen3-8B-AWQ, the authors report a 10% success rate versus 6% for ReAct+Think (a 67% relative improvement) and a 6.9x reduction in thinking time, with 66.8% of thinking time hidden inside execution windows. The paper also formalizes a pipeline time model, a Dynamic Budget Allocator, a hybrid soft/hard budget control mechanism, and a Pareto-style evaluation of the success-time trade-off, supported by ablations over budget-control strategies, allocation policies, and a budget sweep.

Significance. If the central claim held, the paper would make a useful contribution to making reasoning-heavy LLM planners practical in latency-sensitive embodied settings: the pipeline time model is simple and intuitive, the time-efficiency gains are large and statistically solid (Wilcoxon p<0.01 across time comparisons), and the ablation study is systematic in isolating the contributions of hard truncation, soft prompting, and adaptive allocation. The paper is clearly written and the empirical design is paired and reproducible in principle. However, the flagship success-rate improvement is not statistically significant, and the central claim of simultaneous improvement is therefore not established. The strongest defensible contribution is the time-efficiency improvement with comparable (not proven superior) success rate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section VI.A, Table IV] The central claim that PACE 'simultaneously improves both planning quality and time efficiency' is not supported by the reported success-rate statistics. The 67% improvement is a relative change on four additional successes out of 100 instances (10% vs 6%), the Wilson 95% confidence intervals overlap ([5.8, 16.2] vs [2.5, 12.0]), and the McNemar p-values in Table IV are 0.12, 0.18, and 0.64 for the default PACE configuration; only the PACE-C variant approaches significance (p=0.06). Since all time comparisons are significant but the success-rate comparisons are not, the paper should either present the success-rate difference as a non-significant trend or substantially increase statistical power (more instances, multiple seeds, or cross-validation), rather than stating the simultaneous-improvement claim as an established result.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Eq. (2)] The pseudocode in Algorithm 1 does not implement the interleaved Think-Act concurrency that the paper claims. The loop calls E.step(a_i) as a blocking action and then computes b_{i+1}; the next iteration's thinking for a_{i+1} therefore begins only after execution of a_i has returned. Yet the time accounting in lines 10-14 and Eq. (2) adds max(t_i, e_{i-1}), which assumes thinking for step i overlaps with execution of step i-1. This is an internal inconsistency: the presented algorithm, if executed as written, would yield serial time sum(t_i)+sum(e_i), not the pipeline time reported. Please clarify whether concurrency is achieved through threading, asynchronous execution, or simulated time, and make the pseudocode reflect the actual mechanism.
  3. [Section IV.G, Table VII] The theoretical budget-efficiency claim rests on the assumption that SR(b) is concave in the budget b, but the paper provides no evidence for this concavity and no derivation. Moreover, the empirical budget sweep in Table VII shows success rate generally increasing with budget (0% at 30 tokens, 8% at 300, 10% at 600, 14% at 2400 tokens), so the statement that 'moderate constraints preserve most of the success rate' is not supported within the tested range. As written, the theorem is a tautology unless the concavity and saturation conditions are demonstrated. Please either prove the stated bound under explicit, verified conditions or clearly label this subsection as a heuristic motivation rather than a formal result.
  4. [Eq. (4), Section IV.B, Section VIII] The Dynamic Budget Allocator depends on deterministic action execution times t_exec(a_i) and a constant token generation rate v, as seen in Eq. (4). The paper acknowledges this in the 'Physical deployment gap' limitation, but the assumption is load-bearing: if execution times fluctuate, the budget computed before an action will not match the actual window, and the 'seamless handover guarantee' of Section IV.B fails. Since all experiments use the synchronous Robotouille dataset with fixed, known action times, the simultaneous-improvement claim is only demonstrated under this idealized timing model. Please either restrict the scope of the central claim accordingly or provide a sensitivity analysis with noisy execution times that quantifies how often thinking overruns the window.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables II and VI] Table VI reports the 'Adaptive (Full DBA)' configuration with 13% success rate, while Table II reports the default PACE configuration at 10%; the relationship between these variants, and between 'Adaptive' and PACE-C, is not explained. Please clarify the configuration differences.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 20] The budget update computes max(b_min, X)*alpha, which can produce a budget below b_min when alpha < 1; the intended lower bound should likely be max(b_min, X*alpha).
  3. [Section V.E] The assertion that multiple-comparison corrections are unnecessary because each comparison addresses a distinct research question is not convincing when four McNemar tests in Table IV all compare against the same baselines with the same 100 instances; consider reporting adjusted p-values or a clear pre-registered analysis plan.
  4. [Eq. (5), Table VII] The fitted diminishing-returns curve SR(b) = SR_max(1-e^{-lambda b}) + SR_min is reported without confidence intervals or goodness-of-fit measures, and the dips at 450 and 900 tokens are attributed to 'random variance' without a formal test. Please add uncertainty estimates and a more careful discussion of non-monotonicity.
  5. [Section III.C] The action execution time model in Eq. (3) lists 'Do nothing' as an action type but does not specify a value for t_noop; either specify it or remove it from the model.
  6. [Figure 2] The text says PACE configurations 'dominate' all baselines, but the success-rate confidence intervals overlap with those of ReAct+Think(HB512); 'dominate' should be reserved for statistically significant Pareto improvements, or the claim should be weakened to 'occupy a more favorable region of the trade-off plane'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: success rates are measured against an external benchmark, and the DBA budget formula is a design mechanism rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

PACE's central claims are supported by measured outcomes on the external Robotouille benchmark, not by construction from its own inputs. The 6.9x thinking-time acceleration and the 66.8% think-hiding rate are empirical results of a deliberately constructed budget-control mechanism. Equation (4) sets the token budget from the execution window (b = alpha*((t_exec - t_overhead)*v - c_output)), so high hiding is an implementation property of the design, but the paper does not present the hiding rate as an independent first-principles prediction; it is a measured consequence of the proposed mechanism. The success-rate improvements (10% vs 6%, and 13% vs 6%) are compared against the external Robotouille benchmark using the same Qwen3-8B-AWQ backbone as all baselines; no success-rate parameter is fitted into the DBA formula or into the ITA architecture. The diminishing-returns curve in Eq. (5) is a post hoc fit to the budget sweep and is not used to derive the central success-time improvement. Cited prior work on dynamic budgets ([7], [8]) is background context, not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The paper's own limitation section correctly concedes that the success-rate difference does not reach conventional statistical significance (Section VIII), but statistical underpowering is a correctness or validity concern, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces to its input by definition or by self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces several hand-chosen hyperparameters (budget floors, overhead, alpha heuristics, action times) that the DBA depends on. The strongest assumptions are deterministic timing, constant token rate, and safe truncation. No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted diminishing-returns curve in Eq. (5) is post hoc and does not feed back into the main claim.

free parameters (7)
  • b_first (first-step budget) = 50 tokens
    Chosen to allow a fast initial response; not fitted to objective, but affects early actions.
  • b_min (minimum budget) = 30 tokens
    Floor for any step's budget; hand-set in Table I.
  • c_output (output token reserve) = 30 tokens
    Reserved for action formatting; hand-set.
  • t_overhead (network/preprocessing overhead) = 0.2 s
    Subtracted from execution time before token budget calculation; hand-set.
  • alpha difficulty coefficients = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0; failure multiplier 1.5, success multiplier 0.8
    Heuristic scaling of budgets based on success/failure; chosen by hand, not learned or fit.
  • hard budget multiplier = 1.2
    Hard truncation cap set at 1.2x the soft budget; mentioned in Section IV.D, not in Table I.
  • action execution times = move=3.0s, manipulate=4.0s, process=5.0s, fill=6.0s
    Parameterized as 'realistic robotic operation times' in Section III.C; not measured in this work.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Action execution times are deterministic and known in advance for each action type (t_exec(a) as in Eq. 3).
    The DBA in Eq. (4) and the pipeline time model in Eq. (2) require exact execution times to compute token budgets; the paper uses the synchronous Robotouille dataset for this reason and lists variable execution times as a limitation (Section VIII).
  • domain assumption The inference engine can stop the model's thinking at any token budget by inserting the end-of-thinking delimiter without corrupting the subsequent action output.
    Section IV.D states hard truncation 'compelling the model to produce an action'; the validity of truncation is assumed but never ablated separately from the full system.
  • domain assumption Token generation rate v is constant at 150 tokens/s and independent of reasoning mode, prompt length, and truncation.
    The budget formula divides the available time by v; the paper measures v on a single GPU/model combination but does not characterize variance (Section V.A).
  • ad hoc to paper The success rate SR(b) is a concave function of budget b, justifying the budget-efficiency claim in Section IV.G.
    This concavity is stated without proof in the theoretical analysis and is used to argue moderate budget reduction preserves success. It is a plausible regularity condition, not established by the data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PACE: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Time-Efficient Embodied Planning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C4XGGCZ5

@misc{pith2026260803034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PACE: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Time-Efficient Embodied Planning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C4XGGCZ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03034}
}
read the original abstract

Reasoning-enhanced large language models have achieved remarkable improvements in planning tasks, yet their deployment in embodied systems remains impractical due to prohibitive inference delays-often exceeding minutes per planning instance. The fundamental bottleneck stems from the serial nature of existing paradigms: models must complete all reasoning before any action execution, leaving execution time windows entirely unexploited. We introduce PACE (Planning with Adaptive Cognitive Effort), a framework that enables interleaved reasoning and execution through two key innovations: an Interleaved Think-Act architecture that pipelines cognitive processing with action execution, and a Dynamic Budget Allocator that adapts reasoning token budgets to available execution time windows. On the Robotouille benchmark using Qwen3-8B-AWQ, PACE achieves a 10% success rate-representing a 67% improvement over the ReAct+Think baseline-while delivering 6.9 times acceleration in thinking time compared to unconstrained reasoning. The framework hides 66.8% of thinking time within execution windows, demonstrating that strategic cognitive effort allocation can simultaneously improve both planning quality and time efficiency. These results provide evidence that time-aware architectural innovations enable reasoning models to operate in latency-sensitive embodied domains where they were previously impractical.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03034 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the PACE framework. The system interleaves thinking and acting through the ITA loop (top), adapts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robotouille: An asynchronous planning benchmark for LLM agents,

    G. Gonzalez-Pumariega, L. S. Yean, N. Sunkara, and S. Choudhury, “Robotouille: An asynchronous planning benchmark for LLM agents,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    OpenAI and W. A. H. N. Wijayagunawardhana, “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv (Cornell University), 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4,

    S. Bubeck, V . Chandrasekaran, R. Eldan, J. Gehrke, E. Horvitz, E. Ka- mar, P. Lee, Y . T. Lee, Y . Li, S. Lundberg, H. Nori, H. Palangi, M. T. Ribeiro, and Y . Zhang, “Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4,”arXiv (Cornell University), 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,

    E. Kasneci, K. Seßler, S. K ¨uchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer, U. Gasser, G. Groh, S. G ¨unnemann, E. H ¨ullermeier, S. Kr- usche, G. Kutyniok, T. Michaeli, C. Nerdel, J. Pfeffer, O. Poquet, M. Sailer, A. Schmidt, T. Seidel, M. Stadler, J. Weller, J. K ¨uhn, and G. Kasneci, “Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large languag...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Learning to plan with natural language,

    Y . Guo, Y . Liang, C. Wu, W. Wu, D. Zhao, and N. Duan, “Learning to plan with natural language,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10464, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Language Cognition and Language Computation -- Human and Machine Language Understanding

    S. Wang, N. Ding, N. Lin, J. Zhang, and C. Zong, “Language cognition and language computation – human and machine language understand- ing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04788, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Token-budget- aware llm reasoning,

    T. Han, Z. Wang, C. Fang, S. Zhao, S. Ma, and Z. Chen, “Token-budget- aware llm reasoning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18547, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Draft-thinking: Learning efficient reasoning in long chain-of-thought llms,

    J. Cao, T. Lin, Z. Fan, B. Yuan, Z. Zhao, R. Yan, W. Zhang, and S. Tang, “Draft-thinking: Learning efficient reasoning in long chain-of-thought llms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.00578, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Compositional foundation models for hierarchical planning,

    A. Ajay, S. Han, Y . Du, S. Li, A. Gupta, T. Jaakkola, J. Tenenbaum, L. Kaelbling, A. Srivastava, and P. Agrawal, “Compositional foundation models for hierarchical planning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08587, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,

    C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-P ´erez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

    S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, and Y . Cao, “React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    On the planning abilities of large language models: A critical investigation,

    K. Valmeekam, M. Marquez, S. Sreedharan, and S. Kambhampati, “On the planning abilities of large language models: A critical investigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06706, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Progprompt: program generation for situated robot task planning using large language models,

    I. Singh, V . Blukis, A. Mousavian, A. Goyal, D. Xu, J. Tremblay, D. Fox, J. Thomason, and A. Garg, “Progprompt: program generation for situated robot task planning using large language models,”Autonomous Robots, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Dopamine promotes cognitive effort by biasing the benefits versus costs of cognitive work,

    A. Westbrook, R. van den Bosch, J. I. M ¨a¨att¨a, L. Hofmans, D. Papadope- traki, R. Cools, and M. J. Frank, “Dopamine promotes cognitive effort by biasing the benefits versus costs of cognitive work,”Science, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Rewarding cognitive effort increases the intrinsic value of mental labor,

    G. Clay, C. Mlynski, F. M. Korb, T. Goschke, and V . Job, “Rewarding cognitive effort increases the intrinsic value of mental labor,” inPro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function,

    N. P. Friedman and T. W. Robbins, “The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function,”Neuropsychopharmacology, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Cognitive effort exertion enhances electrophysiological responses to rewarding outcomes,

    M. Bogdanov, H. Renault, S. LoParco, A. Weinberg, and A. R. Otto, “Cognitive effort exertion enhances electrophysiological responses to rewarding outcomes,”Cerebral Cortex, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Cognitive effort and active inference,

    T. Parr, E. Holmes, K. Friston, and G. Pezzulo, “Cognitive effort and active inference,”Neuropsychologia, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ai with agency: a vision for adaptive, efficient, and ethical healthcare,

    V . Fuentes, H. A. Karim, M. J. T. Tan, and N. AlDahoul, “Ai with agency: a vision for adaptive, efficient, and ethical healthcare,”Frontiers in Digital Health, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Adaptive task planning for multi-robot smart warehouse,

    A. Bolu and ¨Omer Korc ¸ak, “Adaptive task planning for multi-robot smart warehouse,”IEEE Access, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Hybrid path planning based on safe a* algorithm and adaptive window approach for mobile robot in large-scale dynamic environment,

    X. Zhong, J. Tian, H. Hu, and X. Peng, “Hybrid path planning based on safe a* algorithm and adaptive window approach for mobile robot in large-scale dynamic environment,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics,

    M. P. Strub and J. D. Gammell, “Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 10583–10589, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Path planning with adaptive dimensionality,

    K. Gochev, B. J. Cohen, J. Butzke, A. Safonova, and M. Likhachev, “Path planning with adaptive dimensionality,” inProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Adaptive in- formative path planning with multimodal sensing,

    S. Choudhury, N. Gruver, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Adaptive in- formative path planning with multimodal sensing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.09746, 2020

    2003 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Conscious cognitive effort in cognitive control,

    J. Shepherd, “Conscious cognitive effort in cognitive control,”Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.