Reliable multiple robot-assisted sensor relocation using multi-objective optimization
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
Wireless sensor networks provide a way to monitor a region of interest. Incorporating a robot into the sensor network provides a basis for other types of functionality to be added. One possibility is the replacement of damaged sensors with excess sensors within the wireless sensor network. This scenario has been defined as the “Robot-Assisted ¡Sensor Relocation” (RASR) problem and focused only on minimizing the length of the trajectory taken by the robot. RASR has been recently expanded on as a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem to examine a more realistic scenario by considering the reliability and placement location of the passive sensors used for replacement; this new problem is termed “Reliable Robot-Assisted Sensor Relocation (RRASR). In this paper, the possibility of multiple robots servicing the sensor network is considered and the RRASR problem formulation is modified accordingly. In addition, load balancing of robots by adding an objective function to the MOO representation is included. We refer to this multi-robot version as Reliable Multiple Robot-Assisted Sensor Relocation. The performance of six state-of-the-art evolutionary MOO algorithms using sensor networks of varying sizes and inflicted damage levels is examined.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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