Local Policies for Efficiently Patrolling a Triangulated Region by a Robot Swarm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present and analyze methods for patrolling an environment with a distributed swarm of robots. Our approach uses a physical data structure - a distributed triangulation of the workspace. A large number of stationary "mapping" robots cover and triangulate the environment and a smaller number of mobile "patrolling" robots move amongst them. The focus of this work is to develop, analyze, implement and compare local patrolling policies. We desire strategies that achieve full coverage, but also produce good coverage frequency and visitation times. Policies that provide theoretical guarantees for these quantities have received some attention, but gaps have remained. We present: 1) A summary of how to achieve coverage by building a triangulation of the workspace, and the ensuing properties. 2) A description of simple local policies (LRV, for Least Recently Visited and LFV, for Least Frequently Visited) for achieving coverage by the patrolling robots. 3) New analytical arguments why different versions of LRV may require worst case exponential time between visits of triangles. 4) Analytical evidence that a local implementation of LFV on the edges of the dual graph is possible in our scenario, and immensely better in the worst case. 5) Experimental and simulation validation for the practical usefulness of these policies, showing that even a small number of weak robots with weak local information can greatly outperform a single, powerful robots with full information and computational capabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".