A graph-based approach to multi-robot rendezvous for recharging in persistent tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of maintaining persistence in coordinated tasks performed by a team of autonomous robots. We introduce a dedicated team of charging robots to service a team of primary working robots. Given that the trajectories of the working robots are known within a planning interval, the objective is to plan routes for the charging robots such that they rendezvous with and recharge all working robots to guarantee their continuous operation. To this end, the working robot trajectories are discretized to form a finite set of recharging points at which rendezvous can occur. The problem is formulated as a directed acyclic graph with vertex partitions containing sets of charging points for each working robot. Solutions consist of paths through the graph for each of the charging robots. The problem is shown to be NP-hard and a mixed integer linear program formulation is presented and solved for small problem instances. Finally, it is shown that while the optimal solution is not computationally feasible for large problem sizes, it is possible to graphically transform the single charging robot problem to a Traveling Salesman Problem, for which existing heuristic and approximation algorithms can be applied. Simulation results are presented for both single and multiple charging robot scenarios.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".