Stagnation recovery behaviours for collective robotics
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accomplishing useful tasks with a collection of decentralized mobile robots will require control methods that deal effectively with a number of unique problems that impede the system's progress. Reactive control architectures can easily cause the problems of stagnation and cyclic behaviour, both characterized by a lack of progress in achieving a task. In this paper the authors present one possible solution to stagnation recovery, motivated from the study of group transport in ants and demonstrate its use in a box-pushing task. By using stagnation recovery behaviours, which are triggered by a lack of progress in the task-achieving activity of the system, the collective system can monitor its own advancement in a decentralized manner. A set of such behaviours are progressively ordered using timeouts, with each set designed for a specific recovery strategy. The stagnation recovery behaviours have been tested in simulation with the results to be mapped onto a set of ten autonomous robots presently under construction.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it