MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1492961367 · doi:10.1109/iros.2004.1389814

Collective sorting with local communication

2005· article· en· W1492961367 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSortingComputer scienceTask (project management)RobotRange (aeronautics)Cluster (spacecraft)Focus (optics)Distributed computingPopulationCollective behaviorClass (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputer networkEngineeringAlgorithmPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an experimental study of the problem of collective sorting, in which multiple robots under simple reactive control rearrange initially randomly distributed objects of different classes into separate clusters so that each cluster contains objects of only one class. We specifically focus on the roles of three key system parameters - namely, population size, local communication among robots, and sensing range - on the performance of the collective sorting task of objects of two classes. Our experiments show that an increase in communication range has a similar positive effect on task performance as an increase in sensing range, especially when the sensing range is limited; however, this effect tends to be attenuated by the increase in the size of the robot collective.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207