MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170080756 · doi:10.4310/cis.2003.v3.n4.a2

Operations on Rigid Formations of Autonomous Agents

2003· article· en· W2170080756 on OpenAlexaff
Brian D. O. Anderson, Peter N. Belhumeur, Tolga Eren, A. Stephen Morse, Walter Whiteley

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Information and Systems · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilAustralian GovernmentNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the maintenance of rigid formations of mobile autonomous agents. A key element in all future multi-agent systems will be the role of sensor and communication networks as an integral part of coordination. Network topologies are critically important for autonomous systems involving mobile underwater, ground and air vehicles and for sensor networks. This paper focuses on developing techniques and strategies for the analysis and design of sensor and network topologies required to achieve a rigid formation for cooperative tasks. Energy efficiency and communication bandwidth are critically important in formations of mobile autonomous agents, and hence strategies that make efficient use of power and energy are beneficial. Therefore, we develop topologies for providing sensing and communications with the minimum number of links, and propose methods requiring the minimum number of changes in the set of links in dynamic missions and maneuvers, including agent departure from a rigid formation, splitting a rigid formation and merging rigid sub-formations. To do this in a systematic manner, it is necessary to develop a framework for modeling agent formations that characterizes the sensing and communication links needed to maintain the formations. The challenge is that a comprehensive theory of such topologies of formations with sensing and communication limitations is in the earliest stage of development. Central to the development of these techniques and strategies will be the use of tools from rigidity theory, and graph theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations87
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications in Information and SystemsSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207