Biologically inspired collective comparisons by robotic swarms
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
Intelligent entities must often make decisions by comparing several candidate alternatives and selecting the best one. This is just as true for autonomous swarms as it is for solitary robots, but to date there has been little work to propose efficient comparison behaviors for autonomous robotic swarms that are not tied to specific environments. In this work, we examine an elegant collective comparison strategy that is used by at least three different species of social insect and adapt it for artificial systems. The behavior is particularly attractive for robotic implementations because it relies only on short range explicit peer-to-peer communication, eliminating the need for chemical trails or other forms of stigmergy. The proposed comparison strategy is proven to converge, and a series of experiments using real robots with noisy sensors is presented that validates our theoretical analysis. Using the proposed behavior, a robotic swarm is able to compare alternatives collectively more accurately than its member robots would be able to individually.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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