A multi-robot sensor-delivery planning strategy for static-sensor networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the time-phased deployment of wireless sensor networks, applied to surveillance areas growing in time. The focus herein is on the planning of the time-efficient delivery of static sensors to their designated nodes, given a network configuration. The novelty of the proposed strategy is in that it determines optimal delivery plans for spatio-temporally constrained static-sensor networks using multi-robot teams. The proposed sensor delivery planning strategy starts with an already determined (optimal) network plan specified by sensor placement locations (i.e., nodes) and deployment times. Thus, the goal at hand is to determine the optimal routes for the robots delivering the sensors to their intended locations just-in-time. The travel routes are, thus, determined to maximize spare time for the robots between the nodes. The problem is similar to the multiple travelling salesperson problem, but, with temporal constraints. Namely, sensors must be delivered to their designated nodes at designated (optimized) times in order to maintain the optimal deployment of the network configuration. Furthermore, the strategy is designed to be adaptive to new information that can become available during the search for the mobile target, allowing for replanning of the sensor network (i.e., new sensors locations and new deployment times). Numerous simulated experiments were conducted to validate the proposed strategy.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".