MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537048078 · doi:10.1002/9781118884614.ch6

Swarm Intelligence and the Evolution of Personality Traits

2014· other· en· W1537048078 on OpenAlexaff
Howard M. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwarm roboticsSwarm behaviourArtificial intelligenceRobotComputer scienceSwarm intelligenceRoboticsAnt roboticsPersonality psychologyMachine learningPersonalityMobile robotRobot controlParticle swarm optimizationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the evolution of swarm intelligence and swarm-based robotics. It introduces the concept of personality traits as applied to swarm-based robotics. The chapter deals mostly with the approach of swarm intelligence applied to robotics. It presents a unique method of modeling and controlling a swarm of robots, integrates ideas from game theory and incorporates the novel use of adaptive personality features to achieve an intelligent swarm. The chapter presents three different simulations. Each simulation scenario highlights a different aspect of swarm intelligence using game theory and adaptive personalities. The first simulation illustrates how two agents or robots can play a zero-sum game and how the agent/robot personalities would converge to the Nash equilibrium. The second simulation is an example of three robots that must cooperate in leaving a room. The third simulation illustrates how the proposed method could be used to locate a target.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207