Design and implementation of a millirobot for swarm studies –<i>mROBerTO</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The use of millirobots, particularly in swarm studies, would enable researchers to verify their proposed autonomous cooperative behavior algorithms under realistic conditions with a large number of agents. While multiple designs for such robots have been proposed, they, typically, require custom-made components, which make replication and manufacturing difficult, and, mostly, employ non-modular integral designs. Furthermore, these robots' proposed small sizes tend to limit sensory perception capabilities and operational time. Some have resolved few of the above issues through the use of extensions that, unfortunately, add to their size. In contribution to the pertinent field, thus, a novel millirobot with an open-source design, addressing the above concerns, is presented in this paper. Our proposed millirobot has a modular design and uses easy to source, off-the-shelf components. Themilli-robot-Toronto (mROBerTO) also includes a variety of sensors and has a 16 × 16 mm2footprint.mROBerTO's wireless communication capabilities include ANT™, Bluetooth Smart, or both simultaneously. Data-processing is handled by an ARM processor with 256 KB of flash memory. Additionally, the sensing modules allow for extending or changing the robot's perception capabilities without adding to the robot's size. For example, the swarm-sensing module, designed to facilitate swarm studies, allows for measuring proximity and bearing to neighboring robots and performing local communications. Extensive experiments, some of which are presented herein, have illustrated the capability ofmROBerTOunits for use in implementing a variety of commonly proposed swarm algorithms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".