3.3 KiB
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 →
chestmode - V2 adaptive HVAC: presence + breathing → mixed (placement for chest, additional anchors for presence)
- V3 attention-respecting conversational: shallow-breathing recovery →
chestmode
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.