Biologically inspired decision making for collective robotic systems
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
Practical collective robotic systems likely will be confronted with problems which have more than one unique solution. When deciding on which of a set of candidate solutions to a problem to pursue, a collective system should ensure that its members reach a unanimous decision regarding which solution to implement so that the system itself does not split apart with different members pursuing different solutions. If such a split were to occur, much of the collective system's functionality could be lost. In this paper, we present a unique approach to collective decision making that is based on an algorithm employed by a particular species of ant when it chooses a new nest site. We expand the ants' algorithm into a general purpose decision making scheme and apply it to the collective relocation problem. A detailed study of the performance of our decision making algorithm was carried out in simulation using the collective relocation task as a test bed. Consistent system performance was observed across three robot populations. It was found that one particular system variable, the decision quorum threshold played a large role in determining the system's behaviour and that system behaviour was maximized when this variable was set to 50% of the system's population.
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