Claim

In the reported two-scene comparison, the neural potential-field planner took about 2 seconds, versus 67–133 seconds for RRT* on a reconstruction of the same images.

Type QUANTITATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 16184 · qualifiers {"population":"Two tabletop scenes; comparison with reconstruction-based RRT*","source_edition":"41b29d2f-0ce8-8105-a26f-f015f5b64ac4"}

a comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 72 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 51, shared 20. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Software · 1efd24fe Technology · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8808 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 0 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 0 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 2 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:94434aea-94f2-8acd-a30a-d11648c3f801

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 0 of 4 review checks have been done.A quoted passage from scholarfeed.org was not found on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The abstract reports about 2-second planning versus 67–133 seconds for reconstruction-based RRT*. weight 2.000000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly reports approximately 2-second planning versus 67–133 seconds for reconstruction-based RRT*.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed, primary source reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

“A neural potential field learned from posed RGB images and navigation-function supervision produced safer 6-DoF grasp trajectories than image-only...” · 2 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

The abstract reports about 2-second planning versus 67–133 seconds for reconstruction-based RRT*.

From SE(3) Neural Potential Fields for 6-DoF Trajectory Planning Directly from Images Without Explicit 3D Reconstruction Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted
The passage directly reports approximately 2-second planning versus 67–133 seconds for reconstruction-based RRT*.

From SE(3) Neural Potential Fields for 6-DoF Trajectory Planning Directly from Images Without Explicit 3D Reconstruction Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
94a8d752		7ca90df7

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 0 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author. No independent review yet. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	no

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The abstract reports about 2-second planning versus 67–133 seconds for reconstruction-based RRT*. d4e432e2

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 94a8d752

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found none. b73e1e0e

Review checks: 0 of 4. coverage:94434aea-94f2-8acd-a30a-d11648c3f801

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
16184	APPENDED
16185	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
16194	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
16196	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)