Multi-robot repeated boundary coverage under uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address the problem of repeated coverage by a team of robots of the boundaries of a target area and the structures inside it. Events may occur on any parts of the boundaries and may have different importance weights. In addition, the boundaries of the area and the structures are heterogeneous, so that events may appear with varying probabilities on different parts of the boundary, and this probability may change over time. The goal is to maximize the reward by detecting the maximum number of events, weighted by their importance, in minimum time. The reward a robot receives for detecting an event depends on how early the event is detected. To this end, each robot autonomously and continuously learns the pattern of event occurrence on the boundaries over time, capturing the uncertainties in the target area. Based on the policy being learned to maximize the reward, each robot then plans in a decentralized manner to select the best path at that time in the target area to visit the most promising parts of the boundary. The performance of the learning algorithm is compared with a heuristic algorithm for the Travelling Salesman Problem, on the basis of the total reward collected by the team during a finite repeated boundary coverage mission.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".