Semi-Flocking Algorithm for Motion Control of Mobile Sensors in Large-Scale Surveillance Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of sensors to self-organize is an important asset in surveillance sensor networks. Self-organize implies self-control at the sensor level and coordination at the network level. Biologically inspired approaches have recently gained significant attention as a tool to address the issue of sensor control and coordination in sensor networks. These approaches are exemplified by the two well-known algorithms, namely, the Flocking algorithm and the Anti-Flocking algorithm. Generally speaking, although these two biologically inspired algorithms have demonstrated promising performance, they expose deficiencies when it comes to their ability to maintain simultaneous robust dynamic area coverage and target coverage. These two coverage performance objectives are inherently conflicting. This paper presents Semi-Flocking, a biologically inspired algorithm that benefits from key characteristics of both the Flocking and Anti-Flocking algorithms. The Semi-Flocking algorithm approaches the problem by assigning a small flock of sensors to each target, while at the same time leaving some sensors free to explore the environment. This allows the algorithm to strike balance between robust area coverage and target coverage. Such balance is facilitated via flock-sensor coordination. The performance of the proposed Semi-Flocking algorithm is examined and compared with other two flocking-based algorithms once using randomly moving targets and once using a standard walking pedestrian dataset. The results of both experiments show that the Semi-Flocking algorithm outperforms both the Flocking algorithm and the Anti-Flocking algorithm with respect to the area of coverage and the target coverage objectives. Furthermore, the results show that the proposed algorithm demonstrates shorter target detection time and fewer undetected targets than the other two flocking-based algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".