MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030820082 · doi:10.1061/9780784479971.064

Evolving Autonomous Charging Behavior in a Robot Swarm

2016· article· en· W3030820082 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth and Space 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwarm behaviourRobotComputer scienceMobile robotSwarm roboticsAutonomous robotArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term autonomous operation of a robotic swarm in harsh or inaccessible locations will require the ability of the swarm to manage operational details such as battery charging without human intervention. Small robots may not be able to manage their own power internally, via solar cells or fuel cells, but may be dependent on external means to recharge batteries. In this paper we will demonstrate the ability of a simple robotic swarm to use a genetic algorithm (GA) to evolve optimized, behavioral parameters including the ability to determine battery charging behavior. We introduce two new battery parameters to the robots’ central place foraging algorithm (CPFA) and allow the GA to optimize the behaviors such that, on average, no robots are left “dead” due to inadequate battery charge. We also demonstrate that the GA can evolve a successful resource collection strategy while minimizing the number of robot casualties. The additional parameters and behaviors do not alter the original algorithm’s simplicity, ability to run in real-time, and requirement of using only local knowledge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it