mirror of
https://github.com/ruvnet/RuView
synced 2026-08-01 19:01:42 +00:00
rUv
8b850d8b2a
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.
80 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
80 lines
3.3 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|