Designing Robot Teams for Distributed Construction, Repair, and Maintenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing teams of autonomous robots that can create target structures or repair damage to those structures on either a one-off or ongoing basis is an important problem in distributed robotics. However, it is not known if a team design algorithm for any of these tasks can both have low runtime and produce teams that will always perform their specified tasks quickly and correctly. In this article, we give the first computational and parameterized complexity analyses of several robot team design problems associated with creating, repairing, and maintaining target structures in given environments. Our goals are to establish whether efficient design algorithms exist that operate reliably on all possible inputs and, if not, under which restrictions such algorithms are and are not possible. We prove that all of our design problems are not efficiently solvable in general for heterogeneous robot teams and remain so under a number of plausible restrictions on robot controllers, environments, and target structures. We also give the first restrictions relative to which some of these problems may be efficiently solvable and discuss how theoretical results like those derived here can be combined with physical experiments to derive the best possible algorithms for real-world robot team design.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".