mirror of https://github.com/ruvnet/RuView synced 2026-07-26 18:01:48 +00:00

Files

T

rUv 8b850d8b2a research(R6.2.3): chest-centric placement — +26.9 pp coverage gain for vital-signs cogs (#726 )

Direct follow-up from R6.1 (chest contributes 27.6% of CSI energy,
5x per-limb value, limbs are confound not signal).

R6.2.3 re-runs R6.2's placement search with chest-only target zones
(40x40 cm patches at expected chest positions) vs body-footprint zones
(R6.2's default full-area definition).

Headline result:

| Configuration              | Coverage | Placement                  |
|----------------------------|---------:|----------------------------|
| Body-centric (R6.2 default)|   49.3%  | (4.25,0)-(0,3.25), 5.35 m  |
| CHEST-CENTRIC (R6.2.3 new) |   82.4%  | (2.0,0)-(4.5,5),   5.59 m  |

Cross-eval:
- Body-optimal on chest zones:    55.5%
- Chest-targeting GAIN on chest:  +26.9 pp
- Chest-optimal on body zones:    40.3% (-9.0 pp loss)

The two strategies are genuinely different. Same engine, different
zones.

Per-cog deployment recommendation surfaced:
- --target-mode=body  (default): cog-person-count, cog-pose, cog-presence
- --target-mode=chest (new):     cog-vital-signs, cog-breathing, cog-HR
- --target-mode=extremity (future): gesture detection

~20 LOC change to R6.2 CLI.

R14 vertical-specific:
- V1 stress-responsive lighting:        chest mode
- V2 adaptive HVAC (presence+breathing): mixed
- V3 attention-respecting conversation:  chest mode

R6.2.3 surfaces a per-cog config that empathic-appliance products
need at install time.

Why placements differ: when target ~ envelope width, envelope can cover
it entirely; when target >> envelope, placement must compromise. 40 cm
Fresnel envelope @ 5 m link comfortably covers 40 cm chest patches but
must spread to cover 3 m^2 bed.

Composes:
- R6.1 motivated this tick
- R6.2 / R6.2.1 / R6.2.2 -- orthogonal extensions
- R14 V1/V3 should use chest mode
- R12 PABS improves body-position-detection scenarios

Honest scope:
- Chest positions approximated
- 2D still (3D chest-centric = R6.2.3.1 follow-up)
- Single subject (multi-subject = union of chest envelopes)
- Per-cog zone schema is deployment-time

Coordination: ticks/tick-23.md, no PROGRESS.md edit.

2026-05-22 04:43:34 -04:00

3.3 KiB

Raw Blame History

Tick 23 — 2026-05-22 08:33 UTC

Thread: R6.2.3 (chest-centric placement) Verdict: Chest-centric targeting gains +26.9 pp coverage vs body-centric for vital-signs cogs. R6.2's CLI needs a --target-mode=chest flag.

What shipped

examples/research-sota/r6_2_3_chest_centric.py — pure-numpy chest-vs-body placement benchmark.
examples/research-sota/r6_2_3_chest_centric_results.json — full benchmark.
docs/research/sota-2026-05-22/R6_2_3-chest-centric-placement.md — research note.

Headline

5×5 m bedroom, same antenna candidate grid, two zone definitions:

Configuration	Coverage	Best placement
Body-centric (R6.2 default)	49.3%	(4.25, 0) ↔ (0, 3.25), 5.35 m
Chest-centric (R6.2.3 new)	82.4%	(2.0, 0) ↔ (4.5, 5), 5.59 m

Cross-eval:

Body-optimal applied to chest zones: 55.5%
Chest-targeting gain on chest zones: +26.9 pp
Chest-optimal applied to body zones: 40.3% (-9.0 pp)

The two strategies are not equivalent. Different cogs want different placements.

Per-cog deployment recommendation surfaced

`--target-mode`	Zones	Best cog use
`body` (default)	Full body footprint	cog-person-count, cog-pose-estimation, cog-presence
`chest` (new)	40×40 cm chest patches	cog-vital-signs, cog-breathing, cog-heart-rate
`extremity` (future)	Hand/foot zones	Gesture detection (not in scope)

Same engine, different zones. ~20 LOC change to R6.2 CLI.

Why placements differ

Body-centric threads across the room to compromise across 3 m² bed + chair + desk by gross-area centroids.
Chest-centric threads more efficiently through the 3 small chest patches because targets fit inside the Fresnel envelope.

When target ≈ envelope width, the envelope can cover it entirely. When target >> envelope, placement is forced to compromise.

R14 vertical-specific recommendation

V1 stress-responsive lighting: needs breathing rate → chest mode
V2 adaptive HVAC: presence + breathing → mixed (placement for chest, additional anchors for presence)
V3 attention-respecting conversational: shallow-breathing recovery → chest mode

R6.2.3 surfaces a per-cog config that empathic-appliance products need at install time.

Composes with prior threads

R6.1 motivated this tick: chest = 27.6% of signal, limbs are confound
R6.2 / R6.2.1 / R6.2.2 — orthogonal: chest-centric works in 2D, 3D, N-anchor
R14 V1/V3 — should use chest mode
R12 PABS — chest-centric placement improves body-position-detection scenarios

Honest scope

Chest positions approximated (humans don't sit/lie at fixed coords)
2D still; 3D chest-centric = R6.2.3.1 follow-up (~+3-5 pp expected)
Single subject; multi-subject = union of chest envelopes
Per-cog zone schema is deployment-time, not research-time

Coordination

ticks/tick-23.md. No PROGRESS.md edit. Branch research/sota-r6.2.3-chest-centric.

Remaining work

R6.2.3.1: 3D chest-centric (R6.2.1 + R6.2.3 compose)
R6.2.4: pose-trajectory-aware chest zones (needs AETHER + ADR-105 federation)
R12.1: pose-PABS closed loop
R3.2: embedding-level physics-informed env (from R3.1's corrected sketch)
ADR-108: Kyber substitution

~3.4h to cron stop. 23 ticks landed. Loop now has 13 research threads + 3 ADRs + 8 deferred follow-ups closed.

3.3 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape